▶ 0:10:45The committee rules. Members of the committee may submit written opening statements for the record. Ask that members may revise and extend their remarks on the bills to be considered as this markup, and have those remarks included in the record without objection, so ordered. Without objection, I'm authorized to declare a recess of the committee at any time pursuant to committee rule three. I.
▶ 0:11:07The chairman, announces that I may postpone further proceedings today on the question of approving any measure or matter, or adopting an amendment on which a recorded vote is ordered. I now recognize myself for an opening statement. Good morning, and thank you for joining us today for our full committee markup. Uh, today we're considering important legislation that will unlock our mineral resources and help codify president trump's executive orders.
▶ 0:11:32During our committee's travels and in conversations with americans across the country, a common theme has emerged the need for certainty and clarity in a permitting process that works effectively and efficiently and results in projects moving forward to production.
▶ 0:11:49Now, this applies to a full range of projects, whether it's infrastructure projects like roads and bridges and ports and navigable waterways or energy projects, uh, even projects that have to do with management of our forests. But it particularly applies to, uh, to mining projects.
▶ 0:12:09And that's what we'll be focusing on, uh, here today, because the american people are telling us we must stop depending on foreign sources of minerals and instead produce more of what we need domestically. We must unleash america's resource potential and decrease our reliance on foreign adversaries for minerals that are critical to our supply chains and our very own way of life. Both bills we are considering under regular order today address this concern. H.r.
▶ 0:12:361366, the mining regulatory clarity act of 2025, introduced by representative amodei, will restore certainty to the permitting of mining support activities necessary for mineral exploration and production across the country. Empowering domestic mining operations will help us meet the high demand for minerals needed for manufacturing, energy and infrastructure security, all of which are vital to our economic and national security. Importantly, h.r.
▶ 0:13:051366 will provide clarity by addressing the 2022 ruling from the ninth circuit court of appeals, known as the rosemont decision, which uprooted more than four decades of regulatory and legal precedent for mineral development. It does so by creating a new category of mill sites so that operators can use federal lands for mining related activities. Lastly, the bill would create the abandoned hardrock mine fund, which would facilitate the remediation of abandoned hardrock mine lands. H.r.
▶ 0:13:344090, introduced by representative stauber, codifies many of president trump's executive orders for domestic mining and hard rock mineral resources by codifying key parts of three of president trump's executive orders, unleashing american energy immediate measure to increase mineral production, and ensuring national security and economic resilience through section 232 action on process critical minerals and derivative products. This bill will help provide clarity and certainty in mineral production and mineral supply chains.
▶ 0:14:05Specifically, it will address the bottlenecks facing domestic mining by directing the department of the interior to change agency actions hindering domestic mineral production, streamline current mining laws, and conduct a nationwide review of state and local laws impeding mineral exploration and development. This clarity in agency actions will open the door to certainty for those looking to invest in mining projects across the country. H.r.
▶ 0:14:304090 will also require the department of interior to report annually on the economic impact of each mineral we're import reliant on, and identify federal lands that may be suitable for expanded production of hard rock minerals. Finally, we will consider six bills on which we have reached bipartisan agreement.
▶ 0:14:48These bills encompass a variety of important issues, including reauthorization of the adams memorial commission, finalizing and ratifying important tribal land agreements, clarifying the mineral leasing act for acquired lands, and more. I look forward to our discussion today. I yield back and recognize ranking member huffman for an opening statement. >> thank you, Mr. chairman. Before I begin, I do have a unanimous consent request.
▶ 0:15:14Um, this is the latest report from climate central, uh, on people exposed to climate change just this summer. It is the latest global analysis showing where people are feeling the heat of human caused climate change in their daily lives. This is what it looks like in the united states. 21 million people this summer experiencing, um, 30 days of risky heat.
▶ 0:15:39And that's defined as hotter than 90% of the recorded weather data in that local area over the previous decade. So I would ask that we enter that in the record. Mr. chairman, we're on a disastrous path, and we refuse to normalize it. >> without objection. >> thank you, Mr. chairman. Last week in this room, we heard a lot of what I believe is hollow griping about how old the national environmental policy act, or nepa is. It's a law that was passed in 1969.
▶ 0:16:09Um, clearly it was an attempt by republicans to put our most important environmental law out to pasture. And I reminded my colleagues, I'll do it again today that we we have updated nepa many times. We did it just two years ago, but that doesn't seem to stop them from complaining.
▶ 0:16:29And if we're going to reform laws, going by how old they are, how long they've been on the books, um, today's an interesting conversation because I want to introduce you to the mining law of 1872, the core tenets of which have never been meaningfully reformed by congress. And I would dare you to tell me that the world of mining is the same today as it was 153 years ago. The mining law of 1872 codified the practices of the california gold rush of the early 1850s.
▶ 0:17:02It incentivized colonial newcomers to claim and pillage whatever land in the west they wanted, regardless of the indigenous communities who were already living on and stewarding the land, regardless of how badly it would squander america's resources. And today, that means first come, first serve to minerals on public lands, no matter who is mining, no matter where the minerals go afterwards. Is that really the way we want to govern modern mining in this country?
▶ 0:17:29With 1870s law that reflects a brutal colonial sense of priorities that has left permanent scars all over our landscape in this country, that we're still paying for, that we're still trying to clean up on both sides of the aisle. We recognize the same goal. I think we want to secure supply of minerals that are critical to power our country, from clean energy to batteries to medical and industrial use and national security.
▶ 0:17:55But I assure you, we cannot mine our way to security in the reckless way that republicans are proposing today trying to dominate a global mining industry using a law that's over a century and a half old is simply a handout to multinational mining conglomerates that will continue taking from our public lands without paying a cent to the citizens of this country.
▶ 0:18:20And then these minerals will be shipped abroad for processing, with no guarantees that the minerals will even stay here or benefit our economy in any way. That's a sweetheart deal, even better than what big oil gets, which is a shockingly high bar to clear this administration. And unfortunately, many of my colleagues across the aisle are taking advantage of this moment to continue these giveaways.
▶ 0:18:43In fact, to make them even worse, they talk about how much lithium will need for batteries, or how much copper or cobalt that will need for evs, even though they're destroying the clean energy economy and ev policies in the same breath. And look, I agree that we need those things. Although if we look around and look how china is eating our lunch in this clean energy innovation space, the latest batteries they're using are sodium based. They're not even based on many of these minerals.
▶ 0:19:13So we really should think about the minerals we'll need a decade from now, and not the ones we talked about a decade ago. But in any event, we can do all of that responsibly without just funneling money into the pockets of billionaires. I'll say it louder for the people in the back. Most of what republicans propose today are just flat out giveaways to multi-billion dollar corporations at the expense of everyday americans.
▶ 0:19:38Now, I don't know about you, but I came to congress to try to find solutions that helped the american people, that lower costs, that keep the american people and their families safe. Um, you may not know this, but the export import bank is giving a $50 million loan to a canadian gold mining company for a mine on federal lands. Why isn't that part of this conversation? Is that really a good use of taxpayer dollars?
▶ 0:20:06Not even a critical mineral gold, which is currently seeing sky high prices and does not need subsidies? Listen, I agree that we need to work toward a more secure mineral future, but this is not the way to do it. This makes me wonder if there are any fiscal conservatives left in the republican party. We need a comprehensive reform of the mining law.
▶ 0:20:29We need to raise the bar for every other country instead of rushing forward this race to the bottom, we need to adopt a whole of supply chain approach to mineral supply and demand. And the two bills that we're considering today will not do that. A mining free for all will not solve our problems. It will just make a mess of our public lands. Now, I do agree that there are some good aspects, uh, of h.r.
▶ 0:20:544090 without substantial changes, I can't support it. But we will be offering some amendments today to give our republican friends a chance to do something positive in a bipartisan manner. I hope they will, uh, join us in that effort, and I yield back. >> the gentleman yields back pursuant to the markup notice is now, in order to consider h.r. 4090, to codify certain provisions of certain executive orders relating to domestic mining and hard rock mineral resources, and for other purposes.
▶ 0:21:23I ask unanimous consent that the subcommittee on energy and mineral resources be discharged from further consideration of the bill, without objection, so ordered. Without objection, the bill will be considered as read and open to amendment at any point. Does any member wish to be recognized for purpose of debate on the bill? >> Mr. chairman. >> Mr. stauber, you're recognized. >> thank you, Mr. chairman. I rise in support of my bill, h.r.
▶ 0:21:484090, which will help strengthen our nation's critical mineral security and enable our critical mineral dominance by codifying several of the policies that president trump put forth in his hard rock mining executive orders earlier this year. This bill does three main things. First, it mandates a new study on the cost of us mineral import reliance and including from adversarial nations like china.
▶ 0:22:15This will help give the united states a clearer picture into our critical mineral security, including what kind of vulnerabilities we face by failing to mine here and continuing to depend on other nations. Next, it requires the administration to expedite priority mining projects on federal lands, identify federal lands that have the potential for new mining production, as well as increase geological mapping.
▶ 0:22:42To give us a clearer picture of our incredible mineral wealth here in the united states of america. Lastly, this bill directs the secretary of the interior to revise or rescind any agency actions that are a barrier to domestic mining, as well as make recommendations to comp, excuse me, recommendations to congress as to how current law can be changed to streamline mineral development, as well as conduct a broader review of state and local laws that are
▶ 0:23:12Also holding us back from our true mining potential. I think each and every one of my colleagues on this committee, from both sides of the aisle, understand and realize the important role that critical minerals play in our 21st century economy. And this will only increase as time goes on. We have tremendous mineral wealth in our country, not only in my district in northern minnesota, which is home to the largest untapped copper nickel deposit in the world.
▶ 0:23:40But in states all across this great country, there's no reason for the united states to be dependent on other countries, including foreign excuse me, including foreign adversarial nations for a critical mineral future. Nobody does it better than the united states of america.
▶ 0:24:00I implore my colleagues, where is the world currently mining for critical minerals that have better labor standards or environmental standards than right here in the united states? Nothing in this bill greenlights mining projects without necessary scrutiny. Nothing in this bill allows for a project to bypass our environmental laws, like the clean air and clean water act or the endangered species act.
▶ 0:24:29This bill is a strong signal from congress to the executive branch that we need to get serious about our critical mineral strategy and take the necessary steps to win. Once again, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting h.r. 4090. And Mr. chair, I yield back. >> gentleman yields back. Is there further discussion? Mr. hoffman? You're recognized. >> thank you, Mr. chairman. Um, so the stated goals of Mr. stauber's bill are not the problem.
▶ 0:24:59I think we can all agree on the importance of creating good jobs, strengthening supply chains, reducing the global influence of our adversaries, and safeguarding our national security. But we should not confuse the mining industry's best interest with the public interest.
▶ 0:25:15This bill would direct the interior secretary to take all necessary steps to expedite and approve certain priority projects, with no restrictions on who operates those projects, what they mine, or where. There is nothing to stop this administration from prioritizing more gold mines on public lands, or to prioritize mines owned and controlled by our foreign adversaries, or even from approving mines within national parks.
▶ 0:25:45These are all simple safeguards that we could work on together, but for some reason, they're not in this bill. This is ripe for abuse and for misuse of public resources in prioritizing lands for mining. This bill makes no mention of minimizing conflict with neighboring communities like tribes, or protecting other important natural resources or uses of public lands. The bill also looks to the mining industry itself for direction on which regulations to roll back again.
▶ 0:26:14No public input, no tribal consultation. My colleagues across the aisle often tout the united states environmental and labor protections as the best in the world. We just heard it from ranking member stauber. But as protections are eroded to favor polluters over people, who's to say basic protections for drinking water and worker safety aren't next if the industry demands it? And by the way, all of these laws that Mr.
▶ 0:26:42Stauber correctly says are not undermined in this bill, uh, my colleagues across the aisle are very actively working to undermine them separately in other legislation, in other things that the trump administration is doing. So, um, this is a race to the bottom. This is about making our public lands into sacrifice zones for foreign mining interests.
▶ 0:27:02None of these giveaways, uh, guarantee that the minerals that are mined here will stay here or benefit americans under the mining law of 1872, anyone, including subsidiaries of foreign adversaries, can claim our publicly owned minerals and then mine them for free, ship them abroad into the global market. Now, that said, there are other parts of Mr.
▶ 0:27:29Stauber's bill that could help us strategically target and recover critical minerals faster and with less environmental impact, including the provisions on, uh, mapping our mineral resources and identifying where we can recover more minerals from currently operating mines. My colleagues and I plan to offer some amendments that build on those good parts of his legislation and protect against the bad.
▶ 0:27:52Uh, so to my republican colleagues, you have an opportunity here to do something positive and bipartisan for the things that I think we all care about. Um, I hope you'll come to the table in a constructive way and choose that we will see where it goes. Uh, and I yield back. >> gentleman yields back. Is there further discussion on h.r. 4090? I recognize myself, uh, h.r. 49 is sponsored by representative stauber.
▶ 0:28:22Supports president trump's efforts to end years of federal hostility towards domestic mining and sets america on a path to mineral dominance. The bill codifies aspects of three executive orders relating to hard rock mining, and requires new studies that support responsible mineral production and supply chain security. First off, h.r. 4090 requires the department of interior to assess the cost of america's import reliance for each mineral commodity monitored by the U.S. geological survey.
▶ 0:28:51This data will inform further efforts to reduce our reliance on foreign adversaries like the people's republic of china. Next, the bill directs agencies to identify federal lands suitable for mineral production, accelerate earth mri mapping efforts, and streamline priority mining projects on federal lands. H.r. 4090 also requires doi to revise or rescind agency actions that unduly restrict domestic mining, as well as recommend changes to current law that would unleash mineral resources on federal lands.
▶ 0:29:19Finally, this bill directs doi to conduct a nationwide review of laws and regulations, including those from state and local governments, that discourage mineral development. And I again thank representative stauber for his work on this legislation, which takes a broad and forward thinking approach to addressing one of our country's most serious challenges. I urge everyone to support h.r. 4090, and I yield back the balance of my time. Is there further discussion on the bill? Representative gosar, you're recognized.
▶ 0:29:50>> yes. I would like to yield my time to the gentleman from minnesota. >> thank you. Representative gosar, just take a few minutes of your valued time. You know, I look forward to this, uh, piece of legislation passing in a bipartisan, bipartisan way. You know, yesterday we had a markup on, uh, the, uh, state of alaska and the opportunity that the state of alaska has.
▶ 0:30:16And we had, uh, a bipartisan, uh, group of members of congress grew up to alaska just last month and see some things that I think were new to, uh, many of us, uh, we in alaska, they're mining for oil and gas and a national refuge. They are, uh, greens creek. Uh, mine, uh, is mining in a national monument with 21st century technology.
▶ 0:30:45Uh, and we saw it firsthand what they're doing to ensure that the environment stays pristine and clean. We saw the value of the economy. We saw the jobs. And, uh, you know, mining, um, the future of mining in the united states of america is very, very bright, uh, with this administration, uh, the most pro mining administration in the history of this country, this administration understands the value of critical minerals and
▶ 0:31:16The dominance that we need. We can't, uh, rely on adversarial nations any longer. Uh, we are in a geopolitical space right now where we need to control the destiny of this great nation in the palm of our own hands. And it starts with, uh, energy independence and critical mineral mining dominance. And I think it's important that we recognize that, um, I was talking to a group of people from my home state of minnesota who understand the value of mining.
▶ 0:31:43And in northern minnesota, we have the cleanest water, uh, in the entire state, in the heart of mining country. And I talked to, uh, my, uh, folks from the metro area, minneapolis saint paul area. And I always say, you know, northern minnesota isn't your playground. It's where we live.
▶ 0:31:59We work, we recreate, we play, and it's where many of us are going to pass on the legacy of and and the rich history that the state of minnesota has in mining, um, can be replicated across this great nation. And I think that the, the ranking member, uh, would agree with me. We have in mining, we have sins of our past.
▶ 0:32:23I remember reserve mining in northern minnesota, uh, with the, uh, taconite tailings, um, being dumped into lake superior. I remember as a young man having to go to the local piggly wiggly and get bottled water. Those times are over. We have to recognize that we have sins of our past.
▶ 0:32:41But this is 21st century technology in, in in the in the mine we were at in greens creek, um, when they were drilling the technology they had underground, and both republicans and democrats were standing there. They were demonstrating the technology that they have in, in, in mining these critical minerals. They're not going straight in. Here's where the ore body is. They're moving. They're they're drilling rig and they do it in a safe way.
▶ 0:33:09Uh, the technology is there. And a lot of this is reporting language, uh, to to ensure that, that we get it right. And when we have the opportunity to mine in this great nation, we do it right. We do it responsibly. We do it with the best environmental and labor standards in the world. And representative gosar, thank you for your time. >> I reserve my time. I want to talk about, uh, you know, I'd like to find out what is enough time to get things right.
▶ 0:33:36You know, I look at the resolution, copper resolution copper has gone all the way up to the ninth circuit. It's gone up to the supreme court, and now we're going back again. You know, so, I mean, it's it's been 31 years now since, you know, that has has asked they've done $2 billion in restitution. I've been down there. They have they have gone overboard. So what is it going to take to finally get something done?
▶ 0:34:00Now I say this because I've got two mines coming on, on board, uh, coming up at the end of this year, copper mines up in kingman, arizona. And they're going to use this new technology because they couldn't smelter in in kennecott in utah, and they couldn't smelter in arizona because we only have two left. Now. There's new technology that allows them to use less water, a lot less water. They're green and they're encapsulated. They're pulverizing the ore and they're taking everything out of it.
▶ 0:34:28To me, that sounds like a good idea. Great idea. So I'm hoping that the other side is going to start looking at what a solution is. And give me give us ideas on what mine you would like to open. Okay I yield back. >> gentleman yields back. Is there further discussion on the bill? Mr. begich, do you wish to be recognized? >> thank you, Mr. chair. Uh, look, it's no secret.
▶ 0:34:56I'm a I'm a supporter of mining, and I'm a supporter of responsible mining. We heard from folks from alaska yesterday, uh, who made the long trip from my home state to talk about this issue and other issues related to responsible resource development. What we heard from not just the majority witnesses, but also the minority witnesses that that alaskans are pro-development and they are pro environment.
▶ 0:35:18And I think that that is a really important, uh, recognition, not just in alaska, but across this country, that there are a lot of folks who say, look, we want to be responsible stewards and we are responsible stewards. Uh, but we have to open up, uh, our nation to development again. And because we have the highest standards and because we all do care about our environment and this earth, we should demand that that work be done in the jurisdictions where it's done best.
▶ 0:35:45We know those jurisdictions are in the united states, and I think it's time to modernize, uh, these regulations and rules to allow us to develop the resources that we know that we're going to need. I was at an event last night with folks from the artificial intelligence industry and what they were telling members of congress and was a bipartisan group was that, uh, we need energy. We need energy to compete.
▶ 0:36:11We need energy to compete with the likes of china and other adversaries and others who are developing this technology. And we need the minerals, uh, to support that process as well, not just for energy development, but also for the chipsets and the other technology that goes into, uh, the development of that infrastructure. And so, uh, I'm a strong supporter of this bill. And, uh, and I look forward to, to voting for it.
▶ 0:36:36Uh, but I think at the end of the day, what we're hearing from republicans, democrats and people in between is that we know that in order to compete as a nation, we're going to have to to to open up, start developing and modernize some of these rules. Thank you. And I yield back. >> gentleman yields back. As a matter of housekeeping. Um, many of us are on the transportation and infrastructure committee. They're having a markup today. If they do call votes over there, we will recess to go, uh, so we can go vote.
▶ 0:37:05Is there further discussion on the bill hearing? None. It's now in order to consider amendments to h.r. 4090. I recognize the gentleman from minnesota, Mr. stauber, for the purpose of offering an amendment in the nature of a substitute designated stauber 26 ans. Without objection, the amendment is considered, read and open to amendment at any point. Mr. stauber, you're recognized. >> thank you, Mr. chair. I rise to offer my amendment in the nature of a substitute to h.r. 40 090.
▶ 0:37:34This is very simple amendment that adds a short title to the bill. The critical mineral dominance act, and it makes small technical changes and nothing controversial. I urge my colleagues to adopt the amendment, and I yield. >> gentleman yields back. Is there further discussion on the ans?
▶ 0:37:53I'll just say that, uh, this amendment just reflects technical feedback from the bureau of land management as to do a new definition for the term of mining project and as a fitting short title, the critical minerals dominance act. Urge my colleagues to support the ans and I yield back. Is there further discussion on the amendment? If there's no further discussion on the amendment, is now in order to consider amendments to the ans to h.r. 4090.
▶ 0:38:21I recognize ranking member huffman for the purpose of offering an amendment designated huffman number one. Without objection, the amendment is considered. Read. >> thank you, Mr. chairman. So, look, it's encouraging to me to hear the words from my colleagues across the aisle in this debate. I mean, they're assuring us that they care about the environment, that they want to make progress on critical minerals in a way that is responsible, that is sustainable. I mean, those words are wonderful to hear.
▶ 0:38:51But right now, those words in this debate are the only safeguards we have. There's nothing in the bill itself that would back up or codify what my republican colleagues are saying they want to happen. And so we're going to give you a chance to do that here with this amendment. Um, this is an amendment that would add some tailored safeguards and would also strike what I think are areas that are ripe for abuse.
▶ 0:39:21First, in the opening section of the bill on policy. This amendment would add that in addition to creating jobs and prosperity, strengthening supply chains, and safeguarding national security, the policy of the united states should also be to minimize impact on communities and the environment. I don't think that's controversial. I would hope that's something that all of you I mean, you've just said that that's what you want.
▶ 0:39:45So I'm going to just give you a chance to put this sensible sideboard into the legislation. It's a straightforward addition. Next, the amendment would add that when the secretary provides a list of priority projects to congress, the list should be limited to minerals important for economic and national security, things that we actually need, uh, which have supply chains that are vulnerable to disruption, truly critical minerals, not sand, not gravel, not gold.
▶ 0:40:15As the bill is written now, the secretary would be required to list all mines in the permitting queue, including for things like those other minerals, including gold, focusing on true priorities like critical minerals would give congress actionable information. It would protect against abuses like taxpayer funding of so-called priority gold mines. And my amendment would also strike the expedited approvals of these projects.
▶ 0:40:44That is unnecessary and could encourage this administration to further ignore the perspectives of the public and impacted tribes. We've already seen the administration do that with a uranium mine that was approved in 14 days. That is completely out of line.
▶ 0:40:59It is a recipe for avoidable litigation, and we should not be giving this administration, um, a permission slip to do even more of that, where the bill directs the secretary to identify certain lands for potential mineral development. My amendment would add that these lands that are identified should be those that would have the least impact on communities, including tribal communities and the environment.
▶ 0:41:24This addition would be a great way to identify low conflict lands, actually speed up responsible development. These are things, again, that should not be controversial. And then finally, the amendment would remove the bill's corrupt regulatory rollback for and by the mining industry. With this amendment, um, we could get to something broadly bipartisan, bipartisan, a good piece of public policy. I urge my colleagues to consider it, and I yield back.
▶ 0:41:56>> gentleman yields back. Is there further discussion on the amendment? Mr. stauber, you're recognized. >> thank you very much. I don't think it surprises anyone in this room that I rise in strong opposition. Uh, to the ranking members amendment. Um, once again, nothing in this bill greenlights mining projects without necessary scrutiny that exists in current law. Uh, similar to how this bill does not allow a project to bypass our environmental laws.
▶ 0:42:22This bill also does not allow a project to bypass existing requirements for tribal consultation. The ranking members amendment adds additional tribal consultation requirements that are unnecessary and duplicative. Additionally, it completely guts the most important parts of the underlying legislation.
▶ 0:42:43The requirement for the administration to report to congress on the country's priority projects and mineral potential, along with the requirements for the administration to report to congress on the barriers to unleashing our domestic mineral production. Mr. chairman, reading this amendment, it seems that the ranking member wants less information, not more. He wants us to operate blind without getting a clear picture of our mineral potential and where they are at.
▶ 0:43:13I do not believe this is a serious amendment. By offering this amendment, the ranking member is illustrating what his preferred mining policy is and in my view, has been, quote, anywhere but america. Any worker but the american worker. I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing the ranking member's amendment. And, Mr. chair, I yield back. >> gentleman yields back. Is there further discussion on the amendment?
▶ 0:43:42I recognize myself to oppose the amendment. It would strike critical provisions in the bill that would reduce america's mineral dependance on china. And, uh, you know, just for the record, I ask unanimous consent to submit this page from usgs on net import reliance did some quick analysis on this chart of 15 minerals that we're 100%
▶ 0:44:13Dependent on imports. Ten of those lists. China as a major supplier of those minerals. If everything was working as it should in america, we wouldn't have data like this. We have to change the course. And representative stauber's bill is a great step forward in changing this trajectory. That's just the ones we're 100% dependent on.
▶ 0:44:38You have to go way down the list before we even get less than 50% dependent on foreign imports. Um, the amendment that we're talking about, well, I guess without objection. So ordered. Uh. >> Mr. chair, may I enter into the record some unanimous consent request? >> you may. >> thank you. I've got four of them, so bear with me. I'll be quick.
▶ 0:45:05I ask unanimous consent that the following september 17th, 2025, letter from americans for prosperity in support of h.r. 4090, the critical minerals dominance act, be entered into the record. I also ask unanimous consent that the following september 16th, 2025, letter from a diverse group of 20 mining and automotive groups from across the nation in support of h.r. 1366, the mining regulatory clarity act be entered into the record. And I know I was, uh, early on that one.
▶ 0:45:34Uh, I ask unanimous consent that the following september 16th, letter from the national mining association in support of h.r. 4090, the critical mineral dominance act and h.r. 3008 72, the mineral extraction of renewable industry and critical applications act, be entered into the record.
▶ 0:45:51And last but not least, I ask unanimous consent that the following september 17th, 2025 letter from the zero emissions transportation association, which represents the electric vehicle supply chain in support of h.r. 4090, the critical mineral dominance act, be entered into the record. And that's all I got, Mr. chair. Thank you. >> that objection. >> Mr. chairman, I have a quick point of inquiry. Um, Mr.
▶ 0:46:16Stauber, a moment ago said something using quotes, attributing language to me that I've never said, mining anywhere with any other labor. I just want to give him a chance. I think he may have misread the statement, because I may have never given those words. >> if I may, I can tell you that, um, the quotes were me reading the quotes.
▶ 0:46:36They weren't attributed to you, uh, but they were, um, attributed to what I think your anti-mining stance has been since I've known you, and I yield. Well. >> I inadvertently, I think, yielded back my, uh, my time that I had on the amendment to recognize Mr. stauber. Unanimous consent. Is there further discussion on the amendment? Um, Mr. teresa leger fernandez, you're recognized.
▶ 0:47:04>> uh, well, you know, it would be very interesting. Uh, representative stauber, if you could identify who has said that. Because I don't think I've ever said that. In fact, we have a lot of mining in new mexico and in my district. We want responsible mining. >> um, if I may, um, that, uh, that is my, um, that is what I believe from hearing from certain members, uh, on this committee. Uh, so. >> you've heard you've heard certain members say, no. >> no, not say that.
▶ 0:47:34I want to be clear, the quotes were from me. >> the quotes are from you. Yeah. So you quote, you're quoting your belief, even though none of us have ever said those words. >> that's exactly right. I believe that's that. That's what many on your side of the aisle believe that you don't want to mine in america, and you don't want to use american workers. That's what I believe, and that's what I said.
▶ 0:47:59>> so I can tell you that that I think that I, I think we need to be really careful because we often hear, uh, that we believe things that we have never said. And so I want to go on the record that, you know, I'll be introducing an amendment in a little bit where I'm actually saying, I don't want us to be letting chinese mine here. That's really different than we should not mined here. Right.
▶ 0:48:23And I think that to be careful about that because like, we didn't we never say defund the police as, as a caucus. In fact, we always increase funding for law enforcement. So there is time after time after time when we are attributed and and I the time is mine. And where we are attributed and what we haven't said that. So thank you. Uh, and I'm going to yield some time to my ranking member. >> I appreciate the gentlelady.
▶ 0:48:51So I don't want to make a bigger deal of this than we need to. Mr. stauber is a good guy. He's a friend. Uh, but what he just acknowledged is sort of the quintessence of putting words in someone else's mouth, uh, and literally reading them as a quote, as if they were really said by a member that the rules absolutely prohibit that. Uh, and so I don't know that we need to get to taking down words or anything like that, but let's just be a little more careful as we attribute motives and quotes and other things.
▶ 0:49:19Um, we should be a little more careful in the public discourse. >> Mr. chair, if I to representative. >> does the gentlelady. >> oh, yeah. Is it is my time? Well, because I love having a conversation with Mr. stauber on this. Of course I yield. It's always nice to have conversation and debate rather than just, uh, one offs. >> I think, uh, Mr. chair, if I may, I think, uh, representative leger-fernandez, we do have a working relationship, and I do appreciate your view.
▶ 0:49:48Um, I think that we have an opportunity, um, in this committee, to do great things in the natural resources. And and as the ranking member said, um, if he, if he supports mining, uh, this is a great piece of legislation to move us forward because this report, language that secures the critical minerals for our nation. Um, I think you and I agree that adversarial nations should never control, um, the destiny of this nation, especially when we talk about, uh, our defense weapons and what have you.
▶ 0:50:18You agree and I agree that china dominates. We have the ability. And in this, in this nation, the state of alaska and minnesota and others can lead in the critical mineral dominance. And this is what, uh, 40, 90 will do. Um, so with our conversation, I look forward to supporting the bill. And I.
▶ 0:50:38>> and I think that that's where wherever you listen to the huffman's amendment, it was this is a way in which if you actually made these changes that we would be supportive. I think your amendment. Is that right? Yeah. And I'll yield back to the ranking member. It's amazing how long five minutes lasts. >> we're making great use of this time. And I thank the gentlelady.
▶ 0:51:00Um, but, you know, I do find it, um, confusing that on the one hand, we're told the entire justification for this is competition with china. And on the other hand, every time we offer amendments to say, well, then chinese owned mining companies should not be able to extract our public resources for free, ship them abroad for processing, and then put them into the global supply chain without ever benefiting the united states. That is the opposite of what my colleague is saying he wants to do.
▶ 0:51:30Why would we hand the chinese government our lunch money and then give them the keys to our house, uh, and pretend that any of that is protecting our supply chains or our national security or our national interest. There is a disconnect here. And so half of what Mr. stauber is saying, I think we support, we want to see. But, um, we'll see.
▶ 0:51:49I guess as this debate goes forward, we will offer amendments to make good on what our colleagues say they want to do, which is to protect our competitive advantage against the people's republic of china. And we'll see whether they really mean it, I yield back. >> thank you. I'm looking forward to getting your yes vote on my amendment, representative stauffer, which does just that. And my time is up, Mr. chair. >> ladies, time expired. Chair recognizes representative gosar.
▶ 0:52:19>> I think that we have to recognize we live in a global world. And if you are going to invest in this great country, you're going to follow our environmental and our labor labor laws. And that's what we're doing. Um, I think that Mr. Mr. huffman, talking about putting words in our mouth, you just said that I support china. >> no, I didn't, did not said the opposite.
▶ 0:52:43>> so so, uh, I don't support our adversarial nations controlling our critical mineral dominance, and I don't think you either. So we have that. We have we have a choice either to continue down the same road. Or do it ourselves. That's our option. I want to do it ourselves. I want the united states of america to be critical, mineral dominant, using our environmental and our union labor. And I yield back.
▶ 0:53:15>> I will resume my time. You know, this is one thing, you know, to the ranking member, if I get this right, your amendment would actually say that we're only going to take minerals that we see are critical, right? Yeah. Okay. Well, now what may be critical may not be critical today. Yeah, sure. >> it does. It doesn't mean. >> we don't mine other minerals. What this bill is about is giving all kinds of new priorities and streamlining and putting a big thumb on the scale for certain types of minerals.
▶ 0:53:43This amendment says those should those should only be critical, truly critical minerals. >> okay, so what if what if we have a new smelting process and there is actually out there it no longer smelters? It's actually taking everything out of the ore body. And it's these new microprocessors. And so what you're doing is if there's any cobalt, there's any manganese, it's all coming out, okay. It's all coming out. So I guess my question is, is would we restrict those other minerals in their mining?
▶ 0:54:12And number two, does part of our problem is that we don't have very many american mining companies anymore. We put them out of business. Okay. And so how many people can how many operations can actually put in 2 billion plus not see a single penny back on the reserves? There's very few of that. >> so I appreciate the gentleman's, uh, discourse here.
▶ 0:54:39Uh, so it seems to me that if you want to help american mining companies do this work and not give yet another advantage to the chinese state owned enterprises, you would support the sideboards. We are suggesting that in order to benefit from some of these, uh, streamlining and privatizations and other things, you can't be a state owned enterprise from the chinese communist party. That just seems so obvious.
▶ 0:55:05It doesn't mean we don't want to have a competitive advantage with china. It means we don't want to make it worse because that's what this would do. >> I get your discourse, but my whole point is, is that there's nobody who can do this. There's very few american mines just strictly owned. And, you know, one of them is is actually opening up at the end of december. They're from australia, okay. They're solely owned by americans and australians, the whole company. So, you know, they've proceeded.
▶ 0:55:34But, you know, they had nowhere to go for their microprocessing and that they're going to be the first ones on the microprocessor. So I guess my point is, is that there's there's opportunities here. And I'll give you another one. Gold. Why can't we go gold? Because it is national security is it not. It backs our it. It should be. It should be because. No, listen, you know, our dollar is only as good as the paper it's printed on. It's not backed by any gold. I think a lot of us would like to get back to the gold standard.
▶ 0:56:03So that would be critical to national security. >> uh, are you asking? >> sure. >> uh. >> I think the argument that gold is critical to our national security is a stretch. Um. >> well, it would be a stretch. >> I don't think we need gold for any of the critical mineral supply chains that the gentleman from minnesota is talking about. It.
▶ 0:56:23Uh, I think there are other minerals that are critically strategic and important, but, uh, if you're going to start throwing in gold, you're on a slippery slope to just everything, sand and gravel. And, you know, if everything is critical, then nothing is critical. Uh, and that is not a very strategic policy. >> okay. I yield back. >> gentleman yields back. Is there further discussion on the amendment, miss randall? You're recognized.
▶ 0:56:53>> thank you, Mr. chair. I'd like to yield my time to my colleague from new mexico. >> uh, thank you very much. Uh, representative randall and I want to point out that because we're still on the huffman amendment, I look forward to the discussion on mine, which is about foreign concerns. But part of what you're looking at, as I understand, is for this path of, in essence, privatization dominance. Right? That let's do that.
▶ 0:57:18But let's not give up some of these important structures and guardrails as well. And I would just point out, um, that in new mexico, um, mining and oil and gas, uh, development are very important. You know, I pointed out before that, uh, I'm going to claim that there's probably nobody on this committee that has more oil and gas production on in their district and than new mexico. Then I have the permian basin. My gut. Right.
▶ 0:57:48But we're able to develop on the permian basin with higher revenues, royalties 25%. We lowered our revenues to alaska. Utah and other states are going to get hit because we lowered our federal revenue, uh, royalty rates. At the same time, new mexico increased ours to 25%. And we had record record lease sales.
▶ 0:58:15We also have some of the best methane reclamation, um, requirements so that we're not polluting from that oil and gas development. When we get to mining itself, we have stricter regulations than the federal government.
▶ 0:58:32So I think it is important to recognize you can be in favor of mining and oil and gas development, and at the same time enforce sensible environmental protections, make sure you get paid, because in the end, these resources don't belong to those companies. They belong to the people, the american people, the public.
▶ 0:59:05And we are giving them a ray for free without insisting that we get enough back. We should not be so lenient and give away our resources because it's not ours. It belongs to the american people. And there are ways in which we can have both. And I think it's a false choice when we say we can't.
▶ 0:59:30And because in new mexico we have shown that, um, and we have lots of problems where we didn't show it, where we do have, um, the, the distorted watersheds where we, you know, oftentimes on federal land, because those mines were on federal land, there were no requirements, and the state had to come and clean it up. You know. So I think that that was a point. And that's where that's why I wanted to get back to. That's what your amendments do.
▶ 0:59:59And I think that we are willing to sort of support this kind of processing as long as we put these provisions in. We're not saying no on this. We're saying yes, if can you we do these things that we think and that examples like new mexico show are possible. Do you need any more time? Representative huffman. >> I thank the gentlelady.
▶ 1:00:20I just find it hard to imagine that some basic sideboards, including that state owned enterprises from our adversary china, would not be able to come onto our public land and exercise these these expansive rights. Under the mining law of 1872, mind for free, without any royalties and without any assurance that any of this comes back into our country or benefits us in any way.
▶ 1:00:48Um, these are very reasonable sideboards, and I'm just surprised that our colleagues wouldn't jump at the opportunity to, in a bipartisan way, put these guardrails in place so that we could move forward toward seriously addressing the supply chain and critical mineral policy. And with that, I'll yield back to the gentlelady. >> and I yield back to the gentleman. >> gentlelady yields back. Is there further discussion on the amendment? There's no further discussion on the amendment.
▶ 1:01:18The question is on the amendment offered by ranking member huffman designated huffman number one. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Those opposed no. The opinion of the chair, the noes have it. The amendment is not agreed to. A recorded vote has been requested. Further proceedings on the amendment will be postponed. I recognize the gentlewoman from new mexico, miss leger-fernandez, for the purpose of offering an amendment designated leger-fernandez number two. Without objection, the amendment is considered. Read. >> uh, thank you, Mr. chair.
▶ 1:01:47And this amendment concerns part of the discussion that we've had, uh, earlier because it prohibits the department of interior and agriculture from expediting or improving um, mining operations plans when the applicant or operator is owned or operated by a foreign entity of concern, subsidiary of a foreign entity of concern, in other words, china and russia. That's what we're looking at here.
▶ 1:02:14So if you do not want china to have dominance, it would make sense to say that china cannot have, uh, ownership of a certain amount in mining companies that operate in the united states. It's that simple. Like australian let canada let others, but not if their foreign entity of concern.
▶ 1:02:44And so it's not everybody else's. Are they a foreign entity of concern? And I've heard just in this conversation, three of my colleagues mentioned china as a problem. As someone we want to that we are in competition with, um, and we can't compete if we are giving away to our competitor or resources. So it's a simple amendment. It's that simple. Um, and, you know, the reality is foreign investors get rich off of our public owned critical minerals.
▶ 1:03:16Well, as I mentioned, american taxpayers get nada zero. We're giving them the the resources and getting nothing back. And so if we're going to call this the critical mineral dominance act, the departments of interior and agriculture must prioritize and fast track approvals. But they've got to consider who is the corporate owner before they do it.
▶ 1:03:41In order to live up to that word dominance. Um, so if they're if the project has at least 10% owned or controlled by a foreign adversary like china or russia, it cannot be approved as a fast track.
▶ 1:03:59And I need to tell you, trump's interior secretary, burgum, actually agrees with me on this when he said, when secretary burgum said in this room a few months ago, I asked him if he would support legislation to stop foreign adversaries from taking our critical minerals for free. I am going to quote secretary burgum, because this is what he said.
▶ 1:04:24I don't think we should be allowing foreign adversaries to mine critical minerals in our country. Close quote. So trump's secretary of the interior said, I don't think we should be allowing foreign adversaries to mine critical minerals in our country. Close quote. So if you support that concept, this is the first step towards it.
▶ 1:04:51I have draft legislation I'm working on to make sure foreign owned mining companies pay their fair share for our public minerals, and that we stop our adversaries from mining on federal lands. But this act, which expedites, should be the first place where we say no, because this legislation is moving now.
▶ 1:05:13So based on the comments that have been made by my colleagues, I'm hoping they will vote yes on this amendment. Um, because we need to not give them a leg up. Not only do you get to do what secretary burgum said, he doesn't think we should be allowing, but you're going to fast track it as well. Uh, I'd also ask unanimous consent to enter into the record.
▶ 1:05:40Uh, multinational mining corporations are exploiting us taxpayers. >> without objection. >> so thank you so much. And I think that this is really key. And and the comment was made earlier and we have a mine, a mine in new mexico. I was just there, uh, a year ago, um, in silver city, that is american owned. Uh, and they have really like it's a marvelous story there.
▶ 1:06:06That's why they did salt of the earth, where the women, the wives of the miners actually, uh, secured some wonderful protections for the miners because they were treating latinos differently than others. That's another story. Salt of the earth. Let me recommend you read it. You see it. But I think that there are american corporations, um, and we support american corporations, but we should at least not support chinese and russian corporations.
▶ 1:06:35Foreign corporations are making profit. Mining corporations can can run profitable operations in the united states. But we should definitely not let china and russia profit off of our existing laws or new ones that we intend to pass. And with that, I yield back. >> gentlelady's time has expired. I recognize myself now. I oppose this amendment in its current form, but I'm not necessarily opposed to the idea that you're presenting here.
▶ 1:07:05Miss leger-fernandez, I believe this amendment, uh, inserts a definition for foreign entity of concern that, uh, to restrict such entities from undertaking mining projects under the bill. Um, and you're talking about a 10% ownership. And now congress has already addressed this issue through different pieces of legislation.
▶ 1:07:29It's something I think we need to give more attention to, but it also crosses out of our committee jurisdiction into financial services. And when you start talking about publicly traded companies, um. Of china or other countries, obtaining a 10% ownership is uh, could even be done just so they could stop a mining project from happening in the united states.
▶ 1:07:52And the way your amendments worded, I believe that it creates an ambiguous standard that may inadvertently prevent non-chinese, publicly traded companies from mining domestically.
▶ 1:08:04So for these reasons, I oppose the amendment, but I hope we can work together not only on our committee, but with the other committees of jurisdiction to look at this further, because I don't I don't know anybody that thinks we should have a majority on chinese company mining in the us. But, um, I don't think this amendment that you have addresses the issue.
▶ 1:08:29Uh, but I am willing to work with you going forward on, uh, on coming up with a better solution. Is there any further discussion on the amendment? >> Mr. >> uh, miss stansbury, you're recognized. >> thank you, Mr. chairman and ranking member. I want to stand today in full support of the gentlelady's amendment and also to focus on some of the bills that we are marking up today, in particular, h.r.
▶ 1:08:581366 and h.r. 4090, because I think it's very clear that these bills are both an attempt to create a mining free for all here in the united states and open up our public lands to unfettered exploitation. Let me be clear here in the natural resources committee, we on this side of the aisle, the democrats are standing up to protect the american people, american workers, our tribes and our communities.
▶ 1:09:25And these bills really fall under the guise of exploitation at any cost. They would give the mining industry priority to our nation's beloved public lands. Uh, it does not take into account environmental, social and cultural impacts of the extractive activities that they would support and how they would affect communities.
▶ 1:09:47Uh, they would be rushed through and prioritized ahead of other projects, and they would allow american natural resources to be shipped overseas, which is why I support the, uh, the congresswoman from new mexico, my dear friend, congresswoman leger fernandezs amendment.
▶ 1:10:07And for our tribal communities, it also prioritizes exploitative practices over their history, their culture, and the sacred and ancestral lands that they've worked since time immemorial to protect and which are so important to their cultures. It also would affect, uh, the environmental, recreational and fishing activities on our communities.
▶ 1:10:33But I want to talk about, um, the elephant in the room, which is that there's not a national energy emergency. In fact, we are producing more natural resources than we ever have, even under the last administration, at the current moment in time, and in particular, copper is an important resource in our communities. Uh, everything from transmission lines to electronics to consumer products.
▶ 1:10:58But the designation of this material is a critical material doesn't make sense. In fact, it's not going to actually increase production or supply chain needs here in the united states, because the united states is actually a net exporter of copper. Let me repeat that. Copper is not at risk of supply chain disruption.
▶ 1:11:20In fact, we're exporting copper to other countries and the industries that are supporting and backing these bills that would open our public lands to exploitation include multinational companies that the chinese government has holdings in. I mean, this doesn't even make sense. This would cause irreversible harm to our communities.
▶ 1:11:40Places like oak flat that are not only sacred to apache nations across the southwest, but are protected under treaty and public trust responsibilities. This isn't unleashing american energy. This is about making money for private corporations.
▶ 1:12:00And if you needed any evidence of that on the day that the court was making an important decision on oak flat, the secretary of the interior was at the white house with a private company that is seeking to exploit our public lands and to strip mine a tribal sacred site. And the president tweeted in support of a private corporation that wants to exploit sacred sites.
▶ 1:12:27This isn't about american natural resources. This is about making money and exploiting our public lands and helping their friends, just like we've seen time and time again.
▶ 1:12:41So I strongly support the efforts by congresswoman leger-fernandez to protect our tribal lands, our sacred lands, our public lands from exploitation, the exporting of these minerals and the profits from them to foreign owned corporations. And I strongly oppose both h.r. 1366 and 1490, and I urge my colleagues to do the same. I yield back.
▶ 1:13:11>> gentlelady yields back. The chair recognizes the gentleman from minnesota. Mr. stauber. >> thank you very much, Mr. chair. I rise in opposition to the amendment offered by my friend and colleague from new mexico. Respectfully, this amendment is meant to undermine the underlying bill and prevent responsible domestic mining projects and block the necessary capital that is needed to make these projects a reality. Every day, foreign companies invest billions of dollars into important projects across many industries throughout the united states.
▶ 1:13:43These investments help grow our economy and support countless jobs for american workers. I agree that we should scrutinize this foreign direct investment to ensure it does not pose a threat to the united states.
▶ 1:13:58Luckily, we have things like the committee on foreign investments in the united states, or cfius, which reviews and scrutinizes these investments and provides recommendations to the president as to when these investments are not in the country's national interest and should be blocked. Mr. chairman, nothing in the underlying bill greenlights domestic mining projects without proper scrutiny of any foreign investment.
▶ 1:14:24For example, this bill does not touch the foreign investment and national security act of 2007, which codifies cfius into statute or other laws and regulations that govern foreign investment in the united states.
▶ 1:14:37I would like to point out to my good friends and colleagues on the other side of the aisle who remain silent when the previous biden administration watered down foreign entity of concern and domestic sourcing requirements that governed implementation of the so-called inflation reduction act, the biden administration weakened and watered down this guidance, allowing us taxpayer dollars
▶ 1:15:10And incentives to flow to a foreign nickel mining project in indonesia, which was controlled by the communist country of china. They use loopholes and bent over backwards to use us funds for this project in a foreign country owned by the chinese government. And I'm curious, Mr.
▶ 1:15:39Chairman, if my colleagues were so interested in foreign entities of concern, why wasn't this amendment added to the inflation reduction act? Exporting our environmental guilt? Instead, my colleagues are telling companies they want to invest in our domestic mining industry that we aren't actually serious about responsibly developing our tremendous critical mineral wealth.
▶ 1:16:08Amendments like this simply give signals for these companies to spend their money elsewhere. The biden administration used united states taxpayer dollars to invest in a nickel mining in indonesia, controlled and owned by the communist country of china. Give me a break. When I'm trying to get mining in northeastern minnesota, the biggest copper nickel untapped copper nickel mine in the world. And all I get is no.
▶ 1:16:35From my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. It's about my constituents, our national security, our communities. Nobody does it better than we do in the united states of america. And that bipartisan trip to alaska proved it once again last week. And you know what? My good friend and colleague entered into the record, entered into the record. Multinational mining companies are exploiting us taxpayers in the inflation reduction act.
▶ 1:17:07That was allowed. And I just gave you one example. And lastly, Mr. chair, my good friends and colleagues across the aisle talk about processing and smelting. I hope when we get that permitting going on processing and smelting, that we do it in our country. And we're going to start in the state of alaska. And then I hope we go to some other midwest state, maybe minnesota, so we don't have to process it in a foreign country any longer. We can do it here.
▶ 1:17:36And our allies across the world can come and process here in our country. And I yield back. >> gentleman yields back. Uh, the for all of you tenor committee members votes have been called on a markup over there. So we're going to recess and we'll reconvene after the votes from, uh, from tnr. So the committee is in recess.
▶ 1:35:44Order. The chair notes the presence of a quorum. We will resume consideration of the amendment offered by miss leger. Fernandez designated leger fernandez number two. Also, as a matter of housekeeping. We weren't anticipating the votes when they happened, but they happened. Uh, we had also communicated that we were going to recess for lunch.
▶ 1:36:05I know people have have those plans, but we want to go maybe another 10 or 15 minutes and try to get as far along as we can, and then we will we will recess for the lunch break. So the further discussion on the amendment, Mr. gosar, you're recognized. >> yes. I want to correct the record. I have a before me a. An article from, uh, oil price and it's talking about copper.
▶ 1:36:37Uh, and it basically says that, uh, copper. The move primarily as critical. The move primarily stems from the analysis showing the copper supply chain is vulnerable to disruptions that could significantly impact the united states economy, defense and green energy goals. Indeed, copper remains central to electrification, renewable infrastructure and high tech manufacturing, and therefore it should deem it's critical. So I wanted to that in the record. >> that objection so ordered.
▶ 1:37:08>> and then I want to actually also talk about correcting the record from the gentlelady from new mexico. Here's her quote. It was asked for and we got the secretary of interior was at the white house with a private company that's seeking to exploit our public lands and to strip mine a tribal sacred site. That's not true. They're not strip mining anything. It's called modified block technique. They're going to be utilizing. That's not stripping. So it's down in the earth. And, uh, I will also question, uh, the tribal sacred site. This is near and dear to me.
▶ 1:37:38It's near to arizona. Uh, because when you have a tribal, they have to be consistent. And their historian has long said that this area is not tribal in sacredness and never was part of the apaches domain. So I will make sure that's part of the record, is that correction is done. Done I yield back. >> gentleman yields back. Is there further discussion on the amendment? >> I will say yeah. Okay. Have you been recognized? You know. >> Mr. hoffman, you're recognized. >> thank you, Mr. chairman.
▶ 1:38:07I'm sorry that a few of our colleagues are not here to continue the discussion, but I am very grateful for the gentlelady from new mexico's amendment. Uh, of course, with my previous amendment, uh, I was proposing some sideboards that I think should be non-controversial. Make sure that we're actually talking about critical minerals, consider communities, other things.
▶ 1:38:28But, um, even if my colleagues across the aisle can't support those noncontroversial sideboards, I would think with this amendment, we're getting to something that really republicans have to support. If they if they mean what they say, uh, about protecting our strategic interests relative to china. And, Mr. chairman, I appreciated your remarks about how you'd like to work on a threshold that would be more workable.
▶ 1:38:55You you sort of implied in that that you you thought it should only apply to majority owned, uh, state owned enterprises by the chinese communist party. Your own republican colleague, Mr. molinari, and the china select committee arrived at this 10% threshold. That's where this comes from. This is a republican product that we are proposing, and there are very important strategic reasons why it should be 10%.
▶ 1:39:22And I would just urge you to, you know, instead of continuing to sort of put out unattainable thresholds and standards where we won't get to an agreement to listen to your republican colleague on the china select committee that I believe agrees with us, the threshold should be 10%. This should be an amendment that passes with overwhelming bipartisan support, and I hope it will. And with that I yield back. >> gentleman yields back.
▶ 1:39:50Is there further discussion on the amendment? There's no further discussion. The question is on the amendment offered by miss leger-fernandez, designated leger-fernandez number two. All those in favor signify by saying aye. >> aye. >> those opposed? No. The opinion of the chair, the noes have it. A recorded vote has been requested. Further proceedings on this amendment will be postponed. I recognize the gentlewoman from california, miss reavis, for the purpose of offering an amendment designated reavis number three.
▶ 1:40:20Without objection, the amendment is considered. Read. >> thank you, Mr. chair. Um, h.r. 4090 is another example of the trump administration and house republicans stripping the voice from every front line environmental justice community, all in the name of profits from multi-billion dollar corporation. The trump administration is attacking frontline environmental justice communities by attacking our public health, our environment and our overall safety.
▶ 1:40:48I ask for unanimous consent tend to a report from the union of concerned scientists titled access denied how the trump administration is eliminating public input into the record. >> without objection, so ordered. >> this report shows how the trump administration has bypassed standard notice and comment procedures 182 times 182 times.
▶ 1:41:14This administration has ignored the concerns of the environmental justice community 182 times. The administration has chaotically dismantled our democratic and scientific processes without input from those who would be most affected. Trump and house republicans are creating a two tier system where the billion dollar polluting corporation games the system to benefit.
▶ 1:41:42At the same time, frontline communities like mine are shut out and forced to deal with the consequences. My amendment mandates the department, the departments of interior and agriculture to create a notice and public comment period for environmental justice communities in my district, the community of sun valley has over a dozen rock quarries that have been impacted and have impacted my constituents for decades.
▶ 1:42:11They have had little say over the years, if any at all. Yet accidents at these facilities have impacted drinking water, public health and environmental conditions. This is why we need community input throughout the process.
▶ 1:42:27My amendment simply states that any agency action that intends to suspend, revise or rescind as applicable should first require a notice and comment period in accordance with the law. This amendment will ensure that the most vulnerable communities across the country have a say on what happens in their own backyard. I urge support for my amendment and I yield back. >> gentlelady yields back.
▶ 1:42:55Is there further discussion on the amendment? Mr. gosar, you're recognized. >> yeah. I rise in opposition to this amendment. I mean, just yesterday we had, uh, tribal members in from alaska, and then we had, uh, a gentleman in the minority witness basically state that they had that they were going to try to be electrified through solar and then hydropower. When I presented to them that their problem was an ngo, that the administration didn't roll it back. They rolled it back because of the ngo. And there's a lot of fraud with that ngo.
▶ 1:43:26That's why I've been pushing for the ngos to have clarification. For example, if you take one penny from the federal government, either directly or indirectly through a pass through, you've got to give the federal government. And I hope all of you would agree. If we're giving somebody this money, they got to tell us where they got the rest of their money, because it's a hindrance if we don't. So I think that's that's a problem with that aspect. And I think Mr. begich can actually tell us a little bit more, but he just stepped out. So I'll yield back. >> gentleman yields back.
▶ 1:43:53Is there further discussion on the amendment? Leger fernandez you're recognized. >> Mr. chair. Uh, I, I think that one of the overarching themes of what democrats are consistently asking for is that we do not dictate from D.C.
▶ 1:44:15What happens in our very own communities and that there be conversation and communication and consultation with the communities that are most impacted by, uh, decisions, whether it's a mining decision or oil and gas development, things we support, like wind energy, like it doesn't matter what it is, but that it's the local communities who are going to feel the impact.
▶ 1:44:42The hardest and something sometimes for very good, for a very positive impact. And so I think that that's what the congresswoman's amendment is meant to do is to make sure that there is that local impact. And we hear time and again that you are supportive of that, right, that you don't want D.C. control.
▶ 1:45:07But we keep seeing you pass resolutions, pass amendments, overturn, you know, use this cra to constantly undermine local input. So this is just a request to allow local input. We should not be dictating from D.C. is am I summarizing your amendment correctly, representative? Did you want to add anything else? >> sure.
▶ 1:45:31It allows local communities to have input, um, in the process to ensure that, you know, these are communities that carry the burden from the harms of mining. And this is an opportunity for them to have their voice heard in the process. >> right. And that could include that they are in support of the mining because of jobs, ads or, or revenue it produces.
▶ 1:45:55Uh, so I think that that input, we should say, could be positive that they want this to happen. I mean, the wind energy projects that we have in new mexico, for example, those communities are very supportive. Some of those counties are seeing tax revenues that they've never seen in their life before. So those counties are supportive of those wind energy projects.
▶ 1:46:19Uh, ranchers are supportive of those wind energy projects because they are seeing multiple ways of having income coming from their ranch lands, not just the grazing that goes on under the towers, but now the lease revenue from the wind towers. So I think that that's like a key piece of the overarching and I'm sorry I was not able to be here. Thank you for calling for a recorded vote. I, I misread how long it would take you to get to, uh, to, uh, across the street.
▶ 1:46:46It took me longer to get across and back, so my apologies, but I did want to point out, um, that to Mr. stauber. My amendment to prevent, um, foreign entities of concern is not meant to undermine your bill as which, as you said, it's it's this amendment is meant to undermine the bill, and that's not it as well. It is to undermine the communist.
▶ 1:47:14Chinese communist party from having an interest in our resources and having them being able to have it expedited. And I welcome, um, the chair's offer to work with me.
▶ 1:47:34But I would also point out that every single time we raise an amendment to block foreign entities, to block foreign entities of concern, to block china, to block russia, to block our adversaries from having an interest for free in our resources. There's always a reason why you're voting against it.
▶ 1:47:57And so I think at some point in time, you just need to say, we're going to just vote for keeping the chinese out at some point in time. You have to say, we stand with the sentiment that secretary burgum said of. He does not believe foreign adversaries should have an interest in our resources. What when are we going to have you vote for that?
▶ 1:48:20And I would point out that the definition in my legislation comes from the amendment. Chair moolenaar. Proposed of the select committee on the ccp. So I didn't make this up.
▶ 1:48:36We were we were relying on we were relying on the expertise that chair moolenaar, a republican, uh, brought from the select committee on the chinese communist party, that's what they are recommending in order to thwart china from having an interest in our resources. And I've run out of time, so I'm sorry I can't, um, give you any more.
▶ 1:49:07>> and also, uh, to be congruent with, uh, prior statements, it's now time to take a recess for lunch, and there's a nice bipartisan lunch for members in the in the main office. Uh, we will recess and plan to reconvene at 1:15 p.m. The committee is in recess.
▶ 3:26:28Of riva's number three. Is there further discussion on the amendment? There is no further discussion. The question is on the amendment offered by miss rivas designated rivas number three. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Those opposed no. In the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. The recorded vote has been requested. Further proceedings on this amendment will be postponed. Chairman, can I.
▶ 3:26:58>> I have a unanimous consent request, Mr. chairman, you're right. Thank you. So this is in response to Mr. gosar correcting the record on miss stansbury's resolution. Copper and oak flat remarks. I'd like to ask unanimous consent to enter portions of the trump administration's final environmental impact statement on resolution copper. Um, with two particular sections. Uh, the first regarding Mr. gosar's claim that it's not a sacred site.
▶ 3:27:27The trump administration's phase very clearly states that it is uh, and in fact, uh, it was added to the national register of historic places on march, in march of 2016. Uh, and then secondly, uh, Mr. gosars objection to calling it strip mining. Uh, I will just tell you, from the trump administration's face, there is a section that makes it very clear that the mining subsidence zone would break through to the surface. In year six.
▶ 3:27:57It would be between 800 and 1115 feet deep, would be 1.8 miles in diameter. So we can call this whatever we want, but there's going to be a pit 800 to 1100 feet deep and almost two miles wide. I think that's a strip mine. >> do you have something you wanted? >> yeah. The phase the federal is the trump administration's words. >> without objection. So ordered.
▶ 3:28:22I recognize the gentleman from maryland, miss elfreth, for the purpose of offering an amendment designated elfreth number six, revised without objection. The amendment is considered. Read. >> thank you, Mr. chair, and I want to thank everybody for the important debate. I think there are really good ideas shared on our side of the aisle. I think would make this a stronger bill.
▶ 3:28:41I'm proposing elfreth amendment number six, and the amendment would address a unique opportunity we have before us to utilize the byproduct of domestic mining of coal to extract hard rock mineral resources, including the rare earth minerals that I think we all agree we need to, to strategically focus on. In this committee, there are about 200 coal coal powered plants operating in the united states, the third highest globally. In these coal power plants are located primarily in appalachia, the midwest, and in my district's region, the mid-atlantic.
▶ 3:29:09And when coal is burned off the product to produce power, the byproduct is what we call ash, or otherwise known as coal combustion residuals. And this ash can be, as I think folks in this room know, extremely toxic to human and environmental health. So when it's dumped into landfills, it seeps into the groundwater and pollutes our waterways. But there's an opportunity in that ash in that byproduct.
▶ 3:29:29We know now that critical minerals can be extracted from that coal ash, giving it a purpose for our energy and national security interests, while protecting the public from the health risks of improper disposal. The federal government has been exploring this technology for years. This is not new. The department of defense published a study in 2021, and followed up by the department of energy in 2022 for pilot programs were funded in 2024 through the bipartisan infrastructure law. Another project in wyoming was just launched in 2025.
▶ 3:29:58The department of energy, secretary wright, just announced in april that the department has patented new mineral critical mineral extraction technology and is prioritizing the development of this technology for the use of this coal ash. So my amendment is very simple. It would just add language requiring the reporting on the federal government's progress in the research and implementation of critical mineral extraction from this coal ash. The amendment would result in a bipartisan agreement from the current and prior administrations that were an immense opportunity for extracting, again, these critical minerals.
▶ 3:30:26Not only would this lessen our reliance on foreign adversaries for critical minerals, it would also repurpose the waste to prevent it from entering landfills and waterways. And it would alleviate the impact of our on our communities and environment. I appreciate the collaboration, particularly, Mr. chair, amongst the staff on this amendment, and I urge a favorable report. Oh, I'm sorry, that was senate language I yield back. Thank you. >> gentlelady yields back.
▶ 3:30:51I recognize myself for a statement and I appreciate the gentlelady bringing this amendment forward. I do support the amendment. The amendment would ensure that the secretary of the interior examines mining projects on federal land, with potential to produce hard rock minerals from coal, ash and other coal byproducts in the report required under the bill, according to the usgs, coal byproducts such as coal fly ash are a potential source of recoverable rare earth elements which serve key functions in
▶ 3:31:22The defense, energy, technology and manufacturing sectors. Uh, as we've discussed before, today, china controls the vast majority of global rare earth production. This amendment represents an important step towards understanding the potential for expanding rare earth production here at home, while leveraging existing energy infrastructure. Uh, I too have, uh, been following the research on this. I've visited some of our national labs where they're conducting the research, and I think it's a good opportunity for our country moving forward.
▶ 3:31:52I urge my colleagues to support the amendment and I yield back. Is there further discussion on the amendment? Mr. huffman, you're recognized. >> thank you, Mr. chairman. You just made several of the points that I was going to emphasize. This is a good amendment. I'm grateful to hear that you are supporting it, Mr. chairman. Um, it's it's it's a way in which, uh, an innovative, responsible approach to domestic mineral production could be pursued.
▶ 3:32:18Uh, that may take some pressure off of our public lands. Uh, we have 140 million tons of coal ash sitting around this country. Uh, a lot of it is stored in unlined ponds threatening groundwater and nearby communities.
▶ 3:32:34And so it just seems kind of obvious that instead of leaving this valuable resource as an environmental liability, we would prioritize extracting it, uh, for all of the possibilities and potential that have been mentioned, this amendment will ensure that we pursue the lowest hanging fruit first, turning environmental liabilities into strategic national assets. And I want to thank the gentlelady from maryland for her leadership on it. Yield back. >> further discussion. Mr. chaudhary. You're recognized.
▶ 3:33:05>> thank you very much, Mr. chair and ranking member. Listen to this. I rise in strong support of the amendment offered by my colleague from maryland, miss elfreth. Similar to the previous amendment from my colleague from arizona, I believe this amendment strengthens the underlying bill by emphasizing the innovative technology and advancement that we have made in the domestic mining industry. It's 21st century technology.
▶ 3:33:31This amendment will emphasize the need to review and consider the potential to produce additional hard rock minerals from coal, ash and other coal byproducts, which underscores the importance of an all of the above approach to mining and energy development in the united states, including coal. I want to really thank my colleague from maryland for her constructive amendment. Uh, and I hope that she, uh, this also signals that she will support the underlying bill. And, Mr. chair, I yield back.
▶ 3:34:02>> gentleman. Yields back. Is there further discussion on the amendment? There's no further discussion. The question is on the amendment offered by miss elfreth, designated elfreth number six, revised. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Those opposed? No. The opinion of the chair. The ayes have it. The amendment is agreed to. Do you want to roll call? I think we're good. Roll call. All right. I recognize the gentlewoman from washington, miss randall, for the purpose of offering an amendment designated randall number four. Without objection, the amendment is considered. Read.
▶ 3:34:33>> thank you so much, Mr. chair. Um, this amendment is pretty straightforward. It would reinstate the biden regulation on notifying tribes of mineral exploration. I think this is a conversation that we begin to have, um, in this committee following, uh, our bipartisan trip to alaska. Uh, you know, for far too long, tribes have been left out of decisions that directly impact their members lands, resources and culture.
▶ 3:35:02And many sites that are significant to tribal communities lie within federal lands as a result of past forest removal and termination policies. This has left many tribes frustrated over the challenges that they face in protecting these sites from agency actions.
▶ 3:35:20Too often, federal agencies have already predetermined their course of action prior to consulting with tribes, and often that consultation is nothing more than a box checking notification. And this is an unacceptable way to, um, take part in a government to government consultation.
▶ 3:35:39Um, this common sense amendment will ensure that tribes are at least notified, at the very least of mineral exploration process, so that they have the opportunity to engage. And at last week's hearing, we heard rich nolan, the president of the national mining association, agree that tribal notification is important and leads to better end results.
▶ 3:36:02Um, however, to ensure that we are able to engage in this real work, um, to secure bipartisan support on the issue, I will withdraw this amendment and look forward to working with you, Mr. chairman, as, um, well, as the prime sponsor of this policy on the issue moving forward. >> without objection, the amendment is withdrawn. Okay.
▶ 3:36:30Now, um, recognize the gentlewoman from arizona, miss ansari, for the purpose of offering an amendment designated ansari number five, revised without objection. The amendment is considered. Read. >> thank you, Mr. chairman. My amendment would direct the secretary to conduct a study and report to congress on the barriers to byproduct production from mining projects on federal land. The report to congress will include recommendations to congress on how to reduce those barriers.
▶ 3:37:00Exciting new research published in science and authored by folks at the colorado school of mines, found that recovering byproducts from currently operating us metal mines could drastically reduce import reliance for critical minerals. Right now, critical minerals are literally being thrown away as waste rock, but with targeted strategic support, mines could begin recovering those minerals a faster, more adaptable way to get the minerals we need and reduce our reliance on adversaries like china, with less impact on the
▶ 3:37:32Environment. Today, there are about 75 hard rock mines on our federal lands, which don't supply nearly enough minerals to meet our needs. We are reliant on imports for many important minerals like antimony and rare earths, and many of those supply chains run through china. A lot more of the proposed solutions on the table would have us open more and more mines. I want to be clear, I am not opposed to new mining.
▶ 3:37:59Mining creates jobs in my home state of arizona, and the industry helps fuel our transitioning economy. But mining is more complicated than that. We also need to be conscious of the industry's water use and other environmental impacts, as well as the impact the industry has on communities and tribes. And these new mines alone can't meet all of our needs, especially not in the near future.
▶ 3:38:24Modern mines are a huge undertaking, and it takes many years just to do the technical studies to finance and build a mine, much less begin producing. And for many critical minerals, it just it just doesn't make commercial sense to build a mine to target them. But this new study provides a new way forward that will have less environmental and community impact, while also driving job creation and american innovation.
▶ 3:38:50At current mine sites, mining operations extract a tiny fraction of what is in the rock. Copper is usually at quantities of half a percent. Gold is usually 0.0001%. Everything else is discarded, but that waste rock contains rare earth elements gallium, germanium, nickel, cobalt, and more. If we could extract more of these minerals from the discarded rocks, we would need far fewer mines.
▶ 3:39:18In fact, the study found that with 90% of byproduct recovery, the us could meet nearly all of our current mineral needs. But but barriers do remain, including economic policy and technical hurdles. This report will help us identify the exact number of those barriers and the exact nature of those barriers, enabling us to begin addressing them, hopefully in a bipartisan manner. This new research shows. That shows transformational potential.
▶ 3:39:47Let's make sure we're seizing the moment. I want to thank chair westerman and the majority staff for working with me to refine this language. I urge adoption and I yield back. >> gentlelady yields back. I recognize myself, uh, I support this amendment and appreciate the gentlelady for bringing it forward and working with us to get it to a to a good point, as she said, this amendment would expand on h.r.
▶ 3:40:1349 as identification of potential hard rock mineral byproducts, requiring the secretary of the interior to report to congress on the barriers to mineral byproduct production on federal lands. Uh, the amendment would also instruct the secretary to provide recommendations to congress on how such barriers can be reduced. So I believe this is a proactive approach to utilizing these minerals that are there.
▶ 3:40:41We just have to figure out how to get them out and to get them, uh, uh, refined and in the processes they need to be in. But according to a recent report from the colorado school of mines, critical mineral byproduct recovery from us mines has the potential to reduce our nation's import reliance across a range of commodities, which is something I think we can all agree on, uh, when it comes to securing our mineral supply chains, we should have, uh, or we should leave no stone unturned.
▶ 3:41:09This amendment will help us achieve this goal. But to fully unlock our vast domestic resources. I urge my colleagues to support the amendment, and I yield back. Is there further discussion on the amendment? Mr. stauber, you're recognized. >> thank you very much, Mr. chairman and Mr. ranking member, I rise in strong support of the amendment offered by my colleague from arizona, miss ansari, and the ranking member of emr.
▶ 3:41:38I believe this constructive amendment strengthens the underlying bill by emphasizing the need to review and consider barriers to production of byproducts from mining projects on federal lands. The domestic mining industry, in my view, has to be one of the most innovative, dynamic industries in the entire world. As time goes on, we're learning so much more and getting better.
▶ 3:42:03We're improving efficiencies at our mines, getting more out of less, using 21st century technology. In fact, I don't even like using the term quote waste rock anymore at mines across this country. Developers are reprocessing this so-called waste rock responsibly, extracting additional ore that wasn't possible just a few years ago, thanks to the incredible advancement in technology. We should embrace this, and I.
▶ 3:42:33I think this amendment does just that. I want to thank my colleague from arizona for her constructive amendment, and I hope that this signals she will support the underlying bill. And, Mr. chair, I yield back. >> gentleman yields back. Is there further discussion on the amendment if there's no further discussion? The question is on the amendment offered by miss ansari, designated ansari number five, revised. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Those opposed? No.
▶ 3:42:59In the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it and the amendment is agreed to. Pursuant to the markup. Notice is now in order to consider h.r. 1366 mining regulatory clarity act of 2025, ask unanimous consent that the subcommittee on energy and mineral resources be discharged from further consideration of the bill, without objection, so ordered. Without objection, the bill will be considered, read and be considered as read and open to amendment at any point.
▶ 3:43:30Does any member wish to be recognized for purpose of debate on the bill? Mr. huffman, you're recognized. >> thank you, Mr. chairman. So I strongly oppose the so-called mining regulatory clarity act. According to the sponsors, the bill is a legislative fix to the rosemont decision, a court case that determined that a mining company could not dump its toxic waste on public land based on an invalid mining claim.
▶ 3:43:58Under the mining law of 1872. A mining claim is only valid when it actually contains valuable minerals. In other words, only valid claims grant a claim holder broad rights to public lands. This ruling threw a wrench into big mining sweetheart deal on public lands. For years, mining companies were allowed to dump their mining waste wherever they wanted without paying market value for that land and without land management agencies even having a real option to say no.
▶ 3:44:31Regardless of which precious public lands might be forever destroyed. And let's remember, that enormous benefit sits atop us. Another mining companies don't pay the american people a cent in royalties for american minerals. The antiquated mining law of 1872 essentially gives away america's valuable natural resources for free, often to foreign controlled mining companies.
▶ 3:44:59So there are layers of subsidy, layers of giveaway in the existing law. Even so, the industry calls the rosemont decision an existential threat. Do you know what happened with the rosemont mine after the decision came down, Mr. chairman, the company paid a fair market price for private lands for their waste disposal. That's not the end of the world. That's just the way normal business works.
▶ 3:45:26The problem was solved, but the industry would just prefer to dump things on the public lands. Your lands for free. Industry argues this bill would private, would provide certainty and clarity for mining and exploration. In practice, this so-called fix would just allow mining companies to use a different type of claim, called a mill site, for unlimited mine waste dumping. They could also use it for pipelines.
▶ 3:45:56They could use it for processing whatever they want. Again at cut rate prices. So for the record, I found no evidence that any mines are currently being held up because of the rosemont decision. So this entire specter that this bill seeks to fix is a straw man. Now, I do want to point out that the legislation before us today is a second iteration of this bill. Last congress's version was truly an existential threat to public lands.
▶ 3:46:26This version is a little bit more tailored, and I thank the sponsor for listening and for addressing some of the concerns. But key concerns remain that call into question whether this bill really is trying to find a narrowly tailored solution to a so-called problem, or if it's just another way for wealthy polluters to access more public lands on the cheap.
▶ 3:46:48My colleagues, like representative susie lee, have offered good faith proposals to close loopholes and to help ensure the bill actually does what its supporters say they want to do. But these proposals have not been incorporated so far. Our amendments today will provide another chance to get this right and ultimately balanced. Public land management will require that we reform and modernize the extremely antiquated mining law of 1872.
▶ 3:47:20With that, I yield back. >> gentleman yields back. Is there further discussion on the bill? Mr. stauber. You're recognized. >> I thank you, Mr. chairman. I rise in strong support of h.r. 1366, the bipartisan and bicameral mining regulatory clarity act, introduced by my good friend and colleague from nevada, Mr. amodei. This bill is simple.
▶ 3:47:41It provides much needed certainty to our domestic mining industry by codifying the so-called rosemont fix, it restores long standing interpretation of the mining law of 1872, along with agency regulations governing hardrock mining policy on federal lands. In may of 2022, the united states court of appeals for the ninth circuit upended decades of settled law when it affirmed a lower court's decision revoking an approved mine plan for the rosemont copper mine project.
▶ 3:48:10The decision limited the ability of the forest service to approve necessary mining support facilities and activity, which is necessary for mining operations. This decision from the ninth circuit put virtually every new domestic mining project in jeopardy. Both the trump and biden administrations have agreed that the existing solicitor's opinion at the department of the interior addresses this for now, but this is only temporary.
▶ 3:48:37There is nothing stopping the current solicitor or future solicitors from revoking this opinion and sending our domestic mining future back into chaos. Accordingly, this lack of clear, this lack of clear certainty and regulatory durability is chilling investment in the united states. Why ever would a company choose to invest billions of dollars of capital in a domestic mining project?
▶ 3:49:05If the rosemont fix could be undone by the stroke of a pen? That's why the bipartisan and bicameral mining regulatory clarity act is necessary. The only way to actually fix the flawed rosemont decision is to codify this fix into law. This legislation, contrary to what some of my colleagues will argue, won't radically change or create new domestic mining policy.
▶ 3:49:31It simply builds regulatory certainty and reinstates the long standing interpretation of the mining law of 1872 and long standing agency regulations that were law of the land before 2022. We are all well aware of my democratic colleagues ambitious goals to transition, to transition to renewable energy and other technologies that rely on critical and rare earth minerals. Mr.
▶ 3:49:55Chairman, if we can't mine these minerals domestically, thanks in part to the rosemont decision blocking new domestic mines, where do my colleagues expect these minerals to come from if we want to see these minerals come from the united states, we must ensure we have the certainty and durability of law.
▶ 3:50:14I want to thank my colleagues from both sides of the aisle, including representatives amodei and horsford, for their leadership on this bill, along with my colleagues from across the capitol, including democrat senators catherine cortez masto and jacky rosen, who are working hard to get their senate companion across, get their senate companion rather across the line. I urge my colleagues to support the underlying bill, and I yield back. >> gentleman yields back.
▶ 3:50:42Is there further discussion on the bill? I recognize myself, I support this bill as well. Hard rock minerals are foundational to america's national and economic security. Uh, as we've discussed so many times, they serve vital functions in the defense, aerospace, energy and manufacturing industries. Uh, what's more, demand for these minerals is projected to rapidly increase in the coming years, placing significant pressure on global supply chains.
▶ 3:51:11Meeting future domestic needs alone will require a six fold increase in hard rock mining activity. We must be ready for these considerable challenges. Uh, for everyone who made the trip to alaska, we saw where, uh, there were, uh, I guess, the world's largest silver mine. And they were very responsibly handling their tailings and the dry stack method, I believe, was actually located partly on a national monument.
▶ 3:51:37Uh, and some of the best, uh, construction and environmental precautions were taken, uh, on that project. We know we can do it here. Uh, but we've got to be able to move these projects forward so we can meet the the demands that we have at home for these critical minerals. Again, I urge support of the bill and would ask if there's any further discussion on the bill. Hearing none is in order to consider amendments to h.r. 1366.
▶ 3:52:06And I recognize the gentleman from nevada, Mr. amodei, for the purpose of offering an amendment in the nature of a substitute designated amodei 20 ans. Without objection, the amendment is considered, read and open to amendment at any point. >> thank you, Mr. chairman. I appreciate the opportunity to speak. Uh, this is, uh, is housekeeping in nature to change the the dates so that they're appropriate for the action that the committee is contemplating at this time?
▶ 3:52:32Um, and the reason that becomes necessary is because the bill was passed last, last congress, uh, in its present form. So I yield back. >> gentleman yields back. Is there further discussion on the amendment? If there's no further discussion on the amendment, it's now in order to consider amendments to the ans to h.r. 1366. And I recognize ranking member huffman for the purpose of offering an amendment designated huffman number three. Without objection, the amendment is considered. Read. >> thank you, Mr. chairman.
▶ 3:53:01So my amendment would simply strike the definition of operations in this bill. This is something that we've raised many times as a serious concern. The bill's current definition is just sweepingly overbroad.
▶ 3:53:17It says that mining operations include, quote, all functions, work facilities and activities in connection with the prospecting, developing, extraction and processing of mineral deposits and all uses reasonably incident to including the construction and maintenance of means of access. And that sweepingly broad definition applies whether the operations take place on or off the claim.
▶ 3:53:43So what this means is that mining operations don't even need a mining claim at all to conduct operations on public lands. While this definition is currently, uh, in regulation, the interior department and leading public land law treatise, um, the leading public land law treatise, have found that offsite mining activities do not currently get the same rights and priority use as mining claims, and I
▶ 3:54:15Fear that permanently codifying this into the law would further put mining over other uses of public lands. Doing an end run around the multiple use balancing requirements that are foundational to public lands management. Now, our land managers have limited discretion to deny a mine on public lands, but they do have moral authority over their roads and pipelines and toxic waste dumping.
▶ 3:54:41This definition would remove that discretion and provide yet another giveaway to an industry that just doesn't need it. This would codify the most industry friendly interpretation of the law and give mines, roads, pipelines and other facilities, giving them the same priority rights over public lands. This is not a hypothetical, by the way.
▶ 3:55:04The industry is already using this definition of operations to argue that they should be allowed extra access roads and new electrical transmission lines through designated roadless areas. And this is just one example. In another example, industry says they should get automatic approval of an offsite water pipeline that would drain an overpumped aquifer 19 miles away against the protests of local agricultural interests.
▶ 3:55:32And when we've asked about removing this definition before, the answer that we've gotten is that it's fundamental to the bill, which makes me believe that this loophole is absolutely intentional. And that ought to be very troubling to anyone who looks at this legislation. Uh, this is not necessary. We should be closing loopholes, not creating them and expanding them and exalting them by codifying them in the law. I urge adoption of this amendment, and I yield back.
▶ 3:56:03>> gentleman yields back. Is there further discussion on the amendment? I recognize myself. I do oppose the amendment. The amendment does nothing but strike the definition of operations and operator, which are pulled directly from blm regulations. Removing these definitions would add confusion to the underlying bill by removing definitions and reducing clarity over what these terms mean. For this reason, I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment and I yield back. No.
▶ 3:56:30Is there further discussion on the amendment? If there's no further discussion on the amendment, the question is on the amendment offered by ranking member huffman designated huffman number three. All those in favor signify by saying I. Those opposed? No. The opinion of the chair, the noes have it. The amendment is not agreed to. >> wait a little bit.
▶ 3:57:22>> now recognize the gentlewoman from arizona. Miss ansari, for the purpose of offering an amendment designated lee number one. Without objection, the amendment is considered. Read. >> thank you, Mr. chairman. I'm offering this amendment on behalf of my colleague, representative susie lee, who has been closely involved in discussions about how to improve this bill. And while this bill is better than it was last congress, my colleague had a few recommendations for further improvement. There are no surprises in this amendment.
▶ 3:57:52Representative lee asked questions about all of the issues addressed by this amendment during the hearing, and all three of the changes made by the amendment reflect stakeholder comments and concerns expressed during past hearings and the last markup on this bill. First, the amendment would clarify that mining companies may hold only as many mill sites as are necessary for waste rock tailings or other operations.
▶ 3:58:17It does so by removing the word reasonably to minimize land grabs, and ensure that this bill isn't simply a public lands giveaway. Second, it would clarify that a mining company may claim only as many mill sites as are necessary for operations, again removing the word reasonably. The current bill language allows operators to use lands that are, quote, reasonably necessary.
▶ 3:58:41Including such a qualifier amounts to a loophole that will invite operators to argue for the use of more lands for convenience, speculative expansion, or any number of reasons. The amendment also says that mining companies may only use or occupy public lands in accordance with approved mining plan of operations on a valid mining claim. This would clarify that the use of a mill site is contingent on the development of an actual mine.
▶ 3:59:11Throughout history, bad actors have misused mining claims and the mining law, especially for extortion, staking claims and then asking for huge sums of money from the people who actually want to develop them. This tweak would ensure that no one can abuse mill sites in the same way they've abused mining claims.
▶ 3:59:30Finally, representative lee's amendment would add clarification to the savings clause, making clear that nothing in this bill limits the rights to regulate mining and related activities on protected lands or lands open to mining. In a post bright world, congress must be crystal clear about congressional intent. This amendment helps provide that kind of clarity, and it's exactly why this amendment is needed.
▶ 3:59:54I don't believe the majority disagrees with the intent of these amendments, so let's provide the clarity that's needed to the mining regulatory clarity act. Accepting this amendment would go a long way. I strongly urge adoption of the amendment and I yield back. >> gentle lady yields back. Is there further discussion on the amendment? I recognize myself do oppose the amendment because it would limit the number of mill sites that a producer could claim to conduct operations.
▶ 4:00:22It would also expose agencies to increase litigation risk by requiring the agency to determine the number of mill sites that should be deemed necessary. Now, I disagree with the argument that the underlying bill would allow bad actors to abuse new mill site claim processes because, for one, operators would have to pay for each of these claims. It wouldn't be operationally efficient for a company to utilize multiple mill site claims.
▶ 4:00:48Also, the language still provides agencies the ability to restrict mill sites when it becomes unreasonable. Prior to the ninth circuit's blatant disregard for precedent in its controversial rosemont decision, none of these claims were needed for ancillary uses. The bill reflects a bipartisan agreement on this issue that finds an appropriate middle ground. This amendment, however, would not fix the ninth circuit's error and would further muddy the waters when it comes to ancillary use for domestic mining projects.
▶ 4:01:17For these reasons, I encourage my colleagues to oppose the amendment and I yield back. Is there further discussion on the amendment? There's no further discussion. The question on the amendment offered by miss ansari designated lee number one. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Those opposed? No. The opinion of the chair, the noes have it, and the amendment is not agreed to. A recorded vote has been requested.
▶ 4:01:44Further proceedings on this amendment will be postponed. I recognize the ranking member or acting ranking member, Mr. ansari, for the purpose of offering an amendment designated huffman number two. Without objection, the amendment is considered. Read. >> thank you, Mr. chairman. The ranking members amendment here should not come as a surprise. This is the same amendment that our colleague, ranking member heinrich, offered during the senate energy and natural resources markup of this bill.
▶ 4:02:14The amendment should be low hanging fruit to improve this bill. And yet, so far, our colleagues on the other side of the aisle have not agreed. First, this amendment raises claim maintenance fees for mill sites of $400 per site, up from $200 for five acres. We're asking for $80 per acre, up from $40. This amendment also directs all excess claim maintenance fees to the abandoned hard right hard rock mine fund, rather than just the excess fees from mill sites.
▶ 4:02:44This would meaningfully help clean up abandoned hard rock mines without affecting funding to administer the federal mining program. And finally, this amendment puts a permanent end to patenting the legal process where the federal government actually hands over the title to public lands and the minerals below them to a private entity. That process is so minimal, it's basically a public lands giveaway.
▶ 4:03:08Any person or business, foreign or domestic, can permanently acquire public lands for as little as $5 per acre, and sometimes even less, depending on the type of mine claim under the patenting system. Since patenting began, taxpayers have essentially given away over 3 million acres of public lands to foreign and domestic hard rock mining companies.
▶ 4:03:32That's larger than the state of connecticut, and that doesn't even count the public wealth and critical minerals given to private companies in the process. Let's look at some real world examples of this. A canadian mining company secured patents to over 1800 acres of us public lands for just $9,000. This land contains an estimated $10 billion worth of gold, one of the largest deposits in us history.
▶ 4:04:01Another mining company paid $10,000 for the title for 2000 acres of national forest land in montana, containing an estimated $35 million worth of palladium and platinum reserves. Patenting has been under an annual moratorium through the appropriations process since 1994, but it's long past time we end this practice permanently, once and for all.
▶ 4:04:27I will withdraw this amendment for now, but if this bill continues to move forward, know that we will be pounding the drum to make this change. I withdraw the amendment and I yield back. >> the amendment is withdrawn. Okay. We've made it through our amendments. Uh, we're going to recess until approximately 3:30 p.m. Uh, at that time, we will have votes.
▶ 4:04:55The committee stands in recess.
▶ 5:40:25Chair notes the presence of a quorum. The unfinished business is on the request for a recorded vote on amendments to the ans to h.r. 4090. Members will record their vote using the electronic voting system. The question is on the amendment to the ans, h.r. 4090, offered by ranking member huffman designated huffman number one, on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. The clerk will open the vote.
▶ 5:41:53Have all members voted? Does any member wish to change their vote? Hearing none, the clerk will close the vote and report. >> Mr. chairman, on this vote, the yeas are 17 and the nays are 23. >> the amendment is not agreed to. The question is on the amendment to the ans to h.r. 4090 offered by the gentlewoman from new mexico, miss leger. Fernandez designated leger fernandez number two, on which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
▶ 5:42:23The clerk will open the vote. >> okay. Thank you. >> have all members voted? Does any member wish to change their vote?
▶ 5:43:01>> a decision on. >> does any member wish to change their vote? Hearing none. The clerk will close the vote and report. >> Mr. chairman, on this vote, the yeas are 18 and the nays are 24. >> the amendment is not agreed to. The question is on the amendment to the ans to h.r. 4090 offered by the gentlewoman from california. Miss reavis designated reavis number three, on which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
▶ 5:43:30The clerk will open the vote. Have all members voted? Does any member wish to change their vote? Hearing none, the clerk will close the vote and report. >> Mr.
▶ 5:43:58Chairman, on this vote, the yeas are 18 and the nays are 24. >> the amendment is not agreed to. The question now occurs on the amendment in the nature of a substitute, as amended, to h.r. 4090, offered by the gentleman from minnesota, Mr. stauber, designated pete stauber 26 ans. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Those opposed? No. The opinion of the chair. The ayes have it, and the amendment in the nature of a substitute, as amended, is adopted.
▶ 5:44:25The question now occurs on reporting h.r. 4090, as amended, to the house, with the recommendation that the bill be favorably approved. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Those opposed? No. No. Any opinion of the chair? The ayes have it. A recorded vote has been requested. Members will record their vote using the electronic voting system. The clerk will open the vote. Have all members voted?
▶ 5:45:06Does any member wish to change their vote? Hearing none, the clerk will close the vote and report. >> Mr. chairman, on this vote, the yeas are 26 and the nays are 16. >> the bill, as amended, is ordered reported to the house with the recommendation that it be favorably approved. Without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. >> Mr. chairman. >> Mr. huffman, you're recognized. >> thank you, Mr. chairman.
▶ 5:45:31I give notice of my intention to file supplemental, additional dissenting or minority views on the measure just considered, and I ask unanimous consent that this notice be extended to all measures considered at the markup under house rule 11, clause two l. This notice extends to all members. >> without objection, so ordered. I do want to take a minute to remind you there's a flier at your voting station. All members should have got one.
▶ 5:45:59We're going to have a field hearing in beautiful hot springs national park, a bipartisan field hearing on the great american outdoors act on october 24th. You're all invited to what will be a, I think, a very good hearing and hope. Hope everyone can come. The unfinished business is on the request for recorded vote on amendments to the ans to h.r. 1366. The question is on the amendment to the ans to h.r. 1366 offered by the gentlewoman from arizona.
▶ 5:46:26Miss ansari designated lee number one, on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. The clerk will open the vote. Have all members voted?
▶ 5:46:54Does any member wish to change their vote? Hearing none, the clerk will close the vote and report. >> Mr. chairman, on this vote, the yeas are 17 and the nays are 25. >> the amendment is not agreed to. The question now occurs on the amendment in the nature of a substitute to h.r. 1366, offered by the gentleman from nevada, Mr. amodei designated amodei 20 ans. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Those opposed say no. No.
▶ 5:47:23The opinion of the chair, the ayes have it, and the amendment in the nature of a substitute is adopted. The question now occurs on reporting h.r. 1366, as amended, to the house, with the recommendation that the bill be favorably approved. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Those opposed? No. No. The opinion of the chair. The ayes have it. A recorded vote has been requested. Members will record their vote using the electronic voting system. The clerk will open the vote. Have all members voted?
▶ 5:48:07Does any member wish to change their vote? The clerk will close the vote and report. >> Mr. chairman, on this vote, the yeas are 25 and the nays are 17. >> the bill, as amended, is ordered reported to the house with the recommendation that it be favorably approved. Without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. We now turn to the package with the cooperation of ranking member huffman and the other members of the committee.
▶ 5:48:34It appears that we have worked out an agreement on six bills scheduled for markup today, as we have done before, rather than going through formal markup process for each of the bills, I'll make a unanimous consent motion to report out the bills favorably with any amendments that have been filed and agreed to. Before we begin, does any members seek time to speak on any of the bills in this unanimous consent motion? Mr. huffman, you're recognized. >> thank you, Mr. chairman.
▶ 5:48:57I am happy to support the bills in the package, and I do want to thank the majority for working with us, including in particular on two important bills from democrats. The first is h.r. 4256. This is the digital coast reauthorization act, sponsored by the great dave mann of southern california. This would reauthorize noaa's digital coast program through fiscal 2030, with some smart improvements.
▶ 5:49:25And the program is very vital to make informed decisions about infrastructure, emergency planning and sustainable development, particularly as the effects of the climate crisis accelerate. Second is h.r. 3692 by representative moulton, and this bill would reauthorize the young fishermen's development act through fiscal 2031. This program provides direct support to workforce training programs nationwide.
▶ 5:49:51It successfully lowers barriers to entry and enables fishermen's organizations to provide training and apprenticeship programs. Both of these bills are effective programs with big returns on our public investment. I also thank the chair for working with us on h.r. 3872, the america act, from representative fallon. There is an ans to this bill because the trump administration suggested a couple of technical corrections, and they also didn't like the acronym.
▶ 5:50:21Other america stood for mineral extraction for renewable industry and critical applications. And I bet you all can guess which word the administration objected to us. Even though this bill would help a lithium project, a mineral important to the renewable energy industry. So I appreciate the majority's willingness to drop the short title altogether. And I yield back. >> gentleman yields back. Is there any further discussion?
▶ 5:50:53Mr. chairman, Mr. tiffany, you're recognized. Mr. chairman. >> would everyone participate here today? If I may, um, take an extraordinary measure. It is my mother's 94th birthday today. She was born on a farm, still lives on a farm. Still works like a dog. Um, canning. She's down in her basement this afternoon. She's canning tomatoes and all the rest. And if you would be so kind to join me in the banner birthday song, I would appreciate it so much. We're going to clip it. We're going to send it to her as a happy birthday, if that's okay with you.
▶ 5:51:24>> what's your mother's name? >> my mother's name is virgil. Virgil. >> we wish virgil a happy birthday and take it away. >> this is your birthday song. It doesn't last too long. Hey. >> happy birthday virgil. >> again. Happy birthday virgil.
▶ 5:51:48Is there any further discussion on the, um, unanimous consent bills? I'll recognize myself. And, uh, do we want to thank, uh, ranking member huffman and others who have worked on and agreed for this package of bills. Uh, and there are six bills that we have worked on, uh, with the minority to advance under unanimous consent.
▶ 5:52:15Uh, two of the bills from the subcommittee on indian and insular affairs would set a long standing claims and benefit tribal communities. Those are sponsored by representative begich, h.r. 2815, which would transfer 180 acres to cape fox corporation, the alaska native corporation serving the community of saxman, alaska. The transfer would fulfill the corporation's outstanding land entitlements under the alaska native claims settlement act, and allow the mahoney lake power project to further develop to meet the region's growing power demands.
▶ 5:52:45Similarly, h.r. 2916 from representative stefanik would authorize, ratify, and confirm the akwesasne mohawk land claim settlement agreement. This congressional action would allow many parties to finally reach reconciliation in a land dispute that has stretched across four decades. We're also advancing two bills from the subcommittee on water, wildlife and fisheries that reauthorize key programs at existing levels. H.r.
▶ 5:53:143692, sponsored by representative moulton reauthorizes. The young fishermen's development program, which was created in president trump's first term. This effort is consistent with president trump's executive order restoring american seafood competitiveness. Representative men's bill h.r. 4256 reauthorizes, the digital coast program that the national oceanic and atmospheric administration administers. This program provides data sets and tools that support the management of coastal communities. Next, h.r.
▶ 5:53:413008 72, introduced by representative fallon, would amend the mineral leasing act for acquired lands, clarifying that all lands acquired by the federal government are eligible to be considered for hard rock mineral leasing. The existing statute covers a wide range of resources, but leaves out hard rock minerals. As a result, required federal lands holding key resources have effectively been locked up. H.r. 3008 72 would provide a much needed technical fix to the law. Finally, h.r.
▶ 5:54:092306 from representative moolenaar reauthorizes the adams memorial commission and allows a memorial commemorating one of our nation's most significant founding families, the adams family, to be constructed within the reserve, an area that broadly encompasses the national mall. The memorial would bring overdue recognition to john and abigail adams, as well as their son, john quincy adams, and their devoted service to our country. I support these bills and yield back, ask unanimous consent.
▶ 5:54:38The subcommittee on energy and mineral resources be discharged from further consideration of h.r. 3008 72 to amend the mineral leasing act for required lands to make that act applicable to hard rock minerals. Without objection, so ordered ask unanimous consent that the subcommittee on federal lands be discharged from further consideration of h.r. 2306, the adams memorial. Great american heroes act without objection. So ordered.
▶ 5:55:04I ask unanimous consent that the subcommittee on water, wildlife and fisheries be discharged from further consideration of h.r. 3692 to reauthorize the young fishermen's development act and h.r. 4256 digital coast reauthorization act of 2025, without objection, so ordered ask unanimous consent that the subcommittee on indian and insular affairs be discharged from further consideration of h.r. 2815, cape fox land entitlement finalization act of 2025 and h.r.
▶ 5:55:312916 to authorize, ratify, and confirm the agreement of settlement and compromise to resolve the akwesasne mohawk land claim in the state of new york and for other purposes. Without objection, so ordered. I now ask unanimous consent that the following measures be approved and favorably reported, as described to the house of representatives h.r. 2306, the adams memorial great american heroes act with an amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by the chair designated westerman. 34 ans h.r.
▶ 5:56:002815, cape fox land entitlement finalization act of 2025, with amendment offered in by the gentleman from alaska. Mr. begich designated begich oh 55, h.r. 2916, to authorize, ratify, and confirm the agreement of settlement and compromise to resolve the akwesasne mohawk land claim in the state of new york and for other purposes. H.r. 3006 92 to reauthorize the young fishermen's development act. H.r.
▶ 5:56:283872, to amend the mineral leasing act for acquired lands to make that act applicable to hard rock minerals, with an amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by the gentleman from minnesota. Mr. stauber designated stauber 25 ans and h.r. 4256. Digital coast reauthorization act of 25, 2025, without objection, so ordered. Without objection, the motion is to reconsider are laid upon the table.
▶ 5:56:54I ask unanimous consent that the staff be allowed to make any technical and conforming changes to the documents the committee just adopted, subject to approval of the minority. Without objection, so ordered. If there's no further business, the committee stands adjourned.