[House Hearing, 118 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]



                    H.R. 2925, H.R. 6862, H.R. 7003,
                             AND H.R. 7004

=======================================================================

                          LEGISLATIVE HEARING

                               before the

                       SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND
                           MINERAL RESOURCES

                                 of the

                     COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
                     U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                    ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS

                             SECOND SESSION
                               __________

                      Wednesday, January 31, 2024
                               __________

                           Serial No. 118-93
                               __________

       Printed for the use of the Committee on Natural Resources
       
       
       
       
       
       
               [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


       
       
       
       Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.govinfo.gov
                                   or
          Committee address: http://naturalresources.house.gov
      
                                 ------

                   U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

54-709 PDF                 WASHINGTON : 2024















                     COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES

                     BRUCE WESTERMAN, AR, Chairman
                    DOUG LAMBORN, CO, Vice Chairman
                  RAUL M. GRIJALVA, AZ, Ranking Member

Doug Lamborn, CO                     Grace F. Napolitano, CA
Robert J. Wittman, VA                Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan,    
Tom McClintock, CA                     CNMI    
Paul Gosar, AZ                       Jared Huffman, CA 
Garret Graves, LA                    Ruben Gallego, AZ
Aumua Amata C. Radewagen, AS         Joe Neguse, CO         
Doug LaMalfa, CA                     Mike Levin, CA 
Daniel Webster, FL                   Katie Porter, CA
Jenniffer Gonzalez-Colon, PR         Teresa Leger Fernandez, NM
Russ Fulcher, ID                     Melanie A. Stansbury, NM         
Pete Stauber, MN                     Mary Sattler Peltola, AK
John R. Curtis, UT                   Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, NY
Tom Tiffany, WI                      Kevin Mullin, CA
Jerry Carl, AL                       Val T. Hoyle, OR  
Matt Rosendale, MT                   Sydney Kamlager-Dove, CA
Lauren Boebert, CO                   Seth Magaziner, RI
Cliff Bentz, OR                      Nydia M. Velazquez, NY
Jen Kiggans, VA                      Ed Case, HI
Jim Moylan, GU                       Debbie Dingell, MI
Wesley P. Hunt, TX                   Susie Lee, NV
Mike Collins, GA
Anna Paulina Luna, FL
John Duarte, CA
Harriet M. Hageman, WY      
                    Vivian Moeglein, Staff Director
                      Tom Connally, Chief Counsel
                 Lora Snyder, Democratic Staff Director
                   http://naturalresources.house.gov
                   
                                 ------                                

              SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES

                       PETE STAUBER, MN, Chairman
                     WESLEY P. HUNT, TX, Vice Chair
              ALEXANDRIA OCASIO-CORTEZ, NY, Ranking Member

Doug Lamborn, CO                     Jared Huffman, CA
Robert J. Wittman, VA                Kevin Mullin, CA
Paul Gosar, AZ                       Sydney Kamlager-Dove, CA
Garret Graves, LA                    Seth Magaziner, RI
Daniel Webster, FL                   Nydia M. Velazquez, NY
Russ Fulcher, ID                     Debbie Dingell, MI
John R. Curtis, UT                   Raul M. Grijalva, AZ
Tom Tiffany, WI                      Grace F. Napolitano, CA
Matt Rosendale, MT                   Susie Lee, NV
Lauren Boebert, CO                   Vacancy
Wesley P. Hunt, TX                   Vacancy
Mike Collins, GA
John Duarte, CA
Bruce Westerman, AR, ex officio

                                 ------
                                 














                                 
                                CONTENTS

                              ----------                              
                                                                   Page

Hearing held on Wednesday, January 31, 2024......................     1

Statement of Members:

    Stauber, Hon. Pete, a Representative in Congress from the 
      State of Minnesota.........................................     2
    Ocasio-Cortez, Hon. Alexandria, a Representative in Congress 
      from the State of New York.................................     3
    Grijalva, Hon. Raul M., a Representative in Congress from the 
      State of Arizona...........................................     5

    Panel I:

    Lamborn, Hon. Doug, a Representative in Congress from the 
      State of Colorado, prepared statement of...................     6
    Curtis, Hon. John R., a Representative in Congress from the 
      State of Utah..............................................     7
    Amodei, Hon. Mark E., a Representative in Congress from the 
      State of Nevada............................................     8
    DelBene, Hon. Suzan K., a Representative in Congress from the 
      State of Washington........................................     9

Statement of Witnesses:

    Panel II:

    Feldgus, Steven, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary, Land 
      and Minerals Management, Department of the Interior, 
      Washington, DC.............................................    26
        Prepared statement of....................................    27
        Questions submitted for the record.......................    29
    Haddock, Rich, Senior Advisor, Barrick Gold Corporation, 
      Bountiful, Utah............................................    29
        Prepared statement of....................................    31
        Questions submitted for the record.......................    42
    Mueller, Craig, President and CEO, American Gilsonite 
      Company, Houston, Texas....................................    49
        Prepared statement of....................................    50
    Stiffarm, Jeffrey, President, Fort Belknap Indian Community, 
      Harlem, Montana............................................    51
        Prepared statement of....................................    53
    Metesh, John J., President, Association of American State 
      Geologists, Butte, Montana.................................    62
        Prepared statement of....................................    63
        Questions submitted for the record.......................    64

Additional Materials Submitted for the Record:

    Submissions for the Record by Representative Stauber

        National Mining Association, Statement for the Record on 
          H.R. 2925 and H.R. 6862................................    79
        American Exploration & Mining Association (AEMA), Letter 
          to the Committee on H.R. 2925 and H.R. 6862............    87
        National Mining Association and Zero Emission 
          Transportation Association, Letter to Congress on H.R. 
          4821...................................................    91
        Advanced Energy United, Statement for the Record on H.R. 
          2925...................................................    92
        National Infrastructure Alliance, Letter to the Federal 
          Permitting Improvement Steering Council................    93
        United States Senate, Letter to the Federal Permitting 
          Improvement Steering Council...........................    94
        Kyrsten Sinema, U.S. Senator, Letter to the Federal 
          Permitting Improvement Steering Council................    96
        U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Letter to the Committee on H.R. 
          2925...................................................    97

    Submissions for the Record by Representative Grijalva

        Patagonia Area Resource Alliance, Letter to the Committee    78
        Western Shoshone Defense Project, Letter to the Committee    98
        National Parks Conservation Association, Statement for 
          the Record.............................................   100
        Orutsararmiut Native Council, Letter to Congress.........   102
        Pima County Resolution No. 2023-12.......................   103
        Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe, Letter to Congress............   105
        San Xavier District of the Tohono O'Odham Nation, Letter 
          to Congress............................................   106
        Multiple conservation organizations, Opposition Letter on 
          Mining Regulatory Clarity Act..........................   107
        City of Tucson Resolution 23626..........................   110
        Multiple Advocates, Letter to the Committee..............   112
        Hualapai Tribe Office of the Chairperson, Letter to 
          Congress...............................................   114
        Hunting/fishing Community, Letter to the Committee.......   115
        Multiple law professors, Letter to the Committee.........   117

    Submissions for the Record by Representative DelBene

        Washington State Department of Natural Resources, 
          Statement for the Record on H.R. 7003..................    11
        Snohomish County Executive's Office, Statement for the 
          Record on H.R. 7003....................................    16
        Board of Cowlitz County Commissioners, Letter to the 
          Committee on H.R. 7003.................................    19
                                     
 
             LEGISLATIVE   HEARING  ON  H.R.  2925,  TO 
               AMEND  THE  OMNIBUS  BUDGET   RECONCILI-
               ATION  ACT OF 1993 TO  PROVIDE FOR SECU-
               RITY   OF  TENURE   FOR  USE  OF  MINING
               CLAIMS  FOR  ANCILLARY  ACTIVITIES,  AND 
               FOR  OTHER   PURPOSES,  ``MINING   REGU-
               LATORY CLARITY ACT OF 2023''; H.R. 6862,  
               TO   AMEND   THE  FAST  ACT  TO  INCLUDE 
               CERTAIN   MINERAL   PRODUCTION   ACTIVI-
               TIES  AS  A  COVERED  PROJECT,  AND  FOR 
               OTHER  PURPOSES;  H.R.  7003,  TO  AMEND 
               THE  NATIONAL   LANDSLIDE   PREPAREDNESS 
               ACT    TO    REAUTHORIZE    SUCH    ACT, 
               ``NATIONAL     LANDSLIDE    PREPAREDNESS 
               ACT REAUTHORIZATION  ACT  OF 2024''; AND 
               H.R. 7004,  TO  AMEND  THE  MINERAL 
               LEASING  ACT   TO  AMEND  REFERENCES  OF
               GILSONITE TO ASPHALTITE

                              ----------                              


                      Wednesday, January 31, 2024

                     U.S. House of Representatives

              Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources

                     Committee on Natural Resources

                             Washington, DC

                              ----------                              

    The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:13 p.m. in 
Room 1324, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Pete Stauber 
[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
    Present: Representatives Stauber, Gosar, Graves, Fulcher, 
Curtis, Tiffany; Ocasio-Cortez, Kamlager-Dove, and Grijalva.
    Also present: Representative Amodei; and DelBene.

    Mr. Stauber. The Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral 
Resources will come to order.
    Without objection, the Chair is authorized to declare a 
recess of the Subcommittee at any time.
    Under Committee Rule 4(f), any oral opening statements at 
hearings are limited to the Chairman and the Ranking Minority 
Member.
    I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from Nevada, Mr. 
Amodei, and the gentlewoman from Washington, Ms. DelBene, be 
allowed to participate in today's hearing.
    Without objection, so ordered.
    I now recognize myself for an opening statement.

      STATEMENT OF THE HON. PETE STAUBER, A REPRESENTA-
        TIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MINNESOTA

    Mr. Stauber. Today, the Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral 
Resources will consider legislation that would ensure access to 
domestic mineral resources and support scientific research that 
will help us prepare and respond to natural hazards, including 
landslides. H.R. 2925, the bipartisan and bicameral Mining 
Regulatory Clarity Act sponsored by Representative Amodei, 
would restore long-standing interpretation of the Mining Law of 
1872 and agency regulations governing hardrock mining policy on 
Federal lands.
    In May 2022, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth 
Circuit affirmed a lower court's decision revoking an approved 
mine plan for the Rosemont Copper Mine Project, which is 
commonly referred to as the Rosemont decision. This decision 
limits the ability of the Forest Service to approve mining 
support facilities necessary for mining operations, impacting 
future mining projects across the country.
    A mining claim is established by the payment of location 
fees and claim maintenance fees by an operator to the 
Department of the Interior. If an operator remains in good 
standing and continues to pay these fees, they are entitled to 
use the land within their claim for all proper mining-related 
purposes, including exploration, building access roads, and 
constructing office facilities, which are known as ancillary 
use activities.
    Notably, nothing in this bill exempts mining activities 
from environmental review or other approvals necessary under 
the law. It simply affirms the right of the operator to perform 
all the activities needed to make a valid discovery.
    As said by former DOI Solicitor Jorjani, ``Requiring the 
discovery of a valuable mineral deposit before allowing any 
reasonably incident mining uses, including the removal of any 
minerals, puts the cart before the horse, since such uses and 
removal are necessary to make a discovery.'' So, think about 
it. If a mineral deposit needs to be found before exploration 
can take place, then how could minerals ever actually be 
discovered?
    The Rosemont decision changed 40 years of mining regulation 
and over a century of interpretation of the mining law, and 
threatens new domestic mining projects on Federal lands. H.R. 
2925 will correct this and codify long-standing policy, and 
provide the regulatory certainty needed for domestic mining 
projects to move forward.
    H.R. 6862, sponsored by Representative Lamborn, would 
ensure that all hardrock mineral projects remain eligible for 
the streamlining benefits of the FAST-41 permitting dashboard. 
The Biden administration's recent proposal to allow only 
critical mineral projects to be placed on the permitting 
dashboard would exclude important domestic mining projects that 
are necessary for our modern economy, along with achieving this 
Administration's renewable energy goals.
    For example, copper is not currently listed as a critical 
mineral, yet copper is essential for construction, renewable 
energy, and electric transmission. The permitting process for 
mining projects in the United States currently takes roughly 10 
years or even more. Meanwhile, demand for products of copper is 
skyrocketing, underscoring the need for streamlining the 
permitting process.
    H.R. 6862 would ensure that projects aimed at producing all 
the hardrock minerals our country desperately needs would be 
eligible for the streamlining benefits of the FAST-41 process 
going forward, and would ultimately lessen our dependence on 
foreign adversarial nations for our mineral supplies.
    H.R. 7004, sponsored by Representative Curtis, would amend 
the Mineral Leasing Act in each place that ``gilsonite'' is 
mentioned, to replace it with the appropriate generic terms, 
``asphaltite.'' Gilsonite is a unique mineral that is produced 
on Federal lands in Utah. While the term ``Gilsonite'' has been 
trademarked since 1895, the use of the term in the Mineral 
Leasing Act has caused confusion in the marketplace by 
suggesting it is a generalized term for all forms of 
asphaltite. This has created challenges for American producers 
of Gilsonite, as reports of foreign producers of inferior 
products falsely labeling their products as Gilsonite have 
surfaced.
    Finally, H.R. 7003, the National Landslide Preparedness Act 
Reauthorization Act of 2024, a bipartisan bill sponsored by 
Representative DelBene, would reauthorize the National 
Landslide Preparedness Act for Fiscal Years 2024 through 2028.
    Landslide hazards are a threat to communities across the 
United States. And, notably, communities in the states of 
Washington and Alaska have experienced these devastating 
hazards firsthand in recent years. This bill would extend the 
National Landslide Hazard Reduction Program and the 3D 
Elevation Program, which are aimed at gathering and sharing 
data that will enable states and communities to reduce loss 
during the event of a landslide.
    I thank the sponsors of these important bills for their 
work on these efforts, and I look forward to the testimony from 
our invited witnesses today.

    I will now recognize the Ranking Member, Representative 
Ocasio-Cortez, for her opening statement.

       STATEMENT OF  THE HON. ALEXANDRIA OCASIO-CORTEZ, A 
         REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW
         YORK

    Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. Thank you, Chairman.
    In this Committee, we often hear calls for an increase in 
domestic mining to fuel the clean energy transition. But as we 
move to the clean energy future, we must be sure to prevent the 
injustices of the past. Unfortunately, under our 150-year-old 
mining law, we are bound to do just that. And that is correct. 
Today's mining industry operates under a Federal law signed 
into effect more than 150 years ago.
    The mining law gives the mining industry rights over public 
lands that any other industry would dream of. All other public 
land users and industries, oil and gas, ranchers, conservation, 
renewable energy, all go through a public planning process to 
make sure land use is fairly balanced. All other land users 
have to pay fair market value for the use of public land and 
oil, gas, and coal. They all pay a royalty back to the public, 
back to the taxpayers for the extraction of these public 
resources.
    The mining industry, however, sits above all of that. 
Today, anyone can go out on open public lands, drive four 
stakes in the ground, and claim that land as their own, as long 
as they can prove there are minerals there to mine. The 1872 
Mining Law gives that miner the exclusive right to that land. 
The government cannot say no, even if it is the perfect site 
for renewable energy, or if it is the only habitat for an 
endangered species. Tribes can't say no, no matter how sacred 
the landscape. This imbalance of power has resulted in over a 
century of ongoing toxic mines, scarring our landscape and 
poisoning our communities.
    There is only one frail guardrail on which someone can 
stake a mining claim and claim all the rights to that public 
land. The 1872 Mining Law says a claim is only valid if it 
contains valuable minerals. That is, it is only valid if there 
is actually something there to mine. One of the bills on the 
agenda today, the Mining Regulatory Clarity Act, would strip 
that only guardrail away.
    Under this bill, any mining claim would automatically be 
valid if the claimant pays a laughably small fee of $10 per 
acre per year, no matter the validity of the mining claim. You 
are hearing that correctly. Any American, or notably, any 
American subsidiary of a foreign company could have the 
exclusive rights to our public lands for about $10 per acre per 
year. Anyone who pays those nominal fees has the right to, and 
I quote, ``occupy, use, and conduct operations'' on their 
mining claims, no conditions, no exceptions. This law would 
apply to all of our public lands, including national parks, 
wilderness areas, and BLM land.
    The mining industry claims this is just a minor tweak to 
existing laws to correct legal uncertainty, but the unintended 
consequences of this change would upend our public lands 
management. It would give away our public lands not even to the 
highest bidder, but to the fastest claimer. We don't have to 
imagine the chaos that this could create. We just have to look 
at the history of the mining law and all the ways bad actors 
have tried to exploit and misuse mining claims.
    Today, over 1,100 mining claims remain active in our 
national parks, with their claim fees paid but without having 
been tested yet for a valuable mineral. Under this bill, all 
1,100 claims in our national parks would become automatically 
valid. Anyone could conduct any ``mining-related operations'' 
on any of these one 1,100 claims. Someone could permanently 
bury part of Zion National Park in toxic mining waste. Someone 
else could use a claim on part of a trail into the Grand Canyon 
to deny access to their ``prospecting site'' unless hikers paid 
an access fee. And what a gift this bill would be to any Wall 
Street speculator trying to make a quick buck off our public 
lands.
    Under this bill there would be no way to invalidate those 
speculative or potentially predatory claims. Any big-money bad 
actor could blanket our public lands in thousands of 
untouchable mining claims, and force any other public lands 
user to buy them out to build an energy transmission line, or a 
trail, or a renewable energy project.
    This bill is not just a give-away to the mining industry. 
It is a wholesale giveaway of our public lands.
    With that, I yield back.

    Mr. Stauber. Thank you very much. I will now recognize the 
Ranking Member of the Full Committee, Mr. Grijalva, for 5 
minutes for his opening statement.

    STATEMENT OF THE HON. RAUL M. GRIJALVA, A REPRESENT-
        ATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ARIZONA

    Mr. Grijalva. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and thank 
you for allowing me this opportunity.
    [Chart.]
    Mr. Grijalva. We stand at the edge of a whole new mining 
rush. And although times have changed dramatically since the 
first gold rush of the 1800s, sadly, the Mining Law of 1872 has 
not, and neither has the mining industry's destruction.
    When we think of the gold rush, we often conjure up these 
Norman Rockwell-like images of a pick and shovel, miners and 
their trusty donkey, or people peacefully panning for gold in a 
stream. But the reality is that mining in the United States has 
always been toxic and, in many instances, deadly. In the first 
decades of the gold rush, industrial mining financed by large 
mining corporations blasted away entire mountainsides. Many of 
these mine sites are still abandoned and unclaimed today, 
leaching toxic mercury into the watersheds.
    The fees to stake mining claims were dirt cheap even then. 
After all, it was the people who lived on those lands that paid 
the real price. Indigenous people who had lived in the West 
since time immemorial were systematically driven from their 
lands, eliminated, and enslaved. Settlers committed atrocities 
with the explicit encouragement and funding of the state 
governments and the help of the U.S. Army. We cannot ignore the 
history, and we cannot ignore this context.
    The mining law empowered land grabs. Any American citizen 
could stake a claim on open public lands and have exclusive 
rights to the land and its minerals. People in power knew 
exactly what to do to secure these rights. The Daily Alta 
California newspaper wrote in 1849, ``Whites are becoming 
impressed with the belief that it will be absolutely necessary 
to exterminate the savages before we can labor much longer in 
our mines with security.'' This is our history. This is the 
foundation of the Mining Law of 1872. Dispossession of 
Indigenous homelands was a feature, not a flaw.
    The mining law endorsed colonial greed, environmental 
destruction, and the disregard for human life, all in the name 
of profit. Over the past 150 years, regulators have tried to 
rein in the worst excesses of this mining law through a 
patchwork of other laws. But the heart of the mining law, 
mining, above all else, remains unchanged. We cannot have 
meaningful tribal consultations as long as the mining industry 
has the automatic right to mine wherever they stake a claim. We 
cannot deny a mine on public lands, even if it would cause 
irreparable harm to the environment or sacred sites. This is 
unacceptable, and it should not be the basis for modern mining.
    Unfortunately, the bills we are hearing today do nothing to 
address these flaws. They only make them cut even deeper. We 
need mining reform that gives the American people the freedom 
to choose, to be able to say yes or no to a particular mine at 
a particular site. We need mining reform that puts mining on 
equal footing with the public interest. Only then can we truly 
create a modern, sustainable mining industry. My bill, the 
Clean Energy Mineral Reform Act, would do just that. But H.R. 
2925 and H.R. 6862 take us in the opposite direction.
    With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.

    Mr. Stauber. Thank you very much. We will now begin our 
Member panel who will speak on their legislation.
    Mr. Lamborn cannot make it today, so without objection I 
would like to submit his comments for the record.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Lamborn follows:]
    
   Prepared Statement of the Hon. Doug Lamborn, a Representative in 
                  Congress from the State of Colorado

    Thank you, Chairman Stauber. Today, we will hear testimony on my 
bill to ensure that all mining projects receive consideration under the 
Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act. Title 41 of this act, 
known as FAST-41, grants numerous departments with NEPA authority the 
ability to speed up the permitting process for infrastructure projects 
subject to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process. The 
entire reason that Congress passed this law in the first place was to

     improve consultation and coordination among government 
            agencies during permitting;

     increase transparency by publicizing completion dates, 
            timetables, authorizations and environmental reviews for 
            all federal agencies with authority over these projects;

     and most importantly, get shovels in the ground for 
            critical infrastructure projects more quickly and within a 
            reasonable budget.

    In 2021, hard rock mineral mining was added as a covered sector 
under FAST-41 Because it is so crucial to numerous emerging industries 
and is necessary to maintain our standard of living, safety, and 
technological superiority. Hardrock mining is crucial for items like 
copper, which is necessary to build out the transmission and 
distribution projects Americans will soon rely. We also need it for 
steel and iron, which builds everything from skyscrapers to cars, 
bridges to airplanes. Lastly, hardrock minerals are the basis for which 
critical minerals are mined. Critical minerals are produced as a 
byproduct of another, more common, host mineral and are necessary for 
even the Biden administration's lofty goals surrounding EV's and 
renewable energy buildouts.
    It is strange then that, in September 2023, the Biden 
administration proposed a new rule regarding FAST-41 coverage. The 
rule, titled Revising Scope of the Mining Sector of Projects That Are 
Eligible for Coverage Under Title 41 of the Fixing America's Surface 
Transportation Act,\1\ redefines the covered mining sector so as to 
only cover critical mineral-based mining projects. The administration 
insists that this will prioritize critical mineral supply chain 
projects and will improve timeliness, but we know it for what it is: 
the Biden administration is overreaching in their quest to pursue a 
radical climate agenda by arbitrarily choosing winners and losers. The 
Biden administration relies heavily on the products that come from 
these mines, which makes their decision to shut down mines, such as the 
Twin Metals Copper Mine in Minnesota, and now the decision to remove 
mining from FAST-41 consideration, so puzzling.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2023/09/22/2023-
20270/revising-scope-of-the-mining-sector-of-projects-that-are-
eligible-for-coverage-under-title-941-of-the
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Aside from the administration's focus on their climate agenda, I am 
also concerned about continuing to cede leadership in global mining to 
the Chinese. China has a chokehold on the mining and refining industry, 
so slowing down the permitting process, will furth seeding control of 
supply chains to our geopolitical rival.
    ``Critical minerals'' are defined by the United States Geological 
Survey and are redefined every 3 years. Companies beginning the lengthy 
permitting and siting process may find that the mineral they have 
targeted has been removed from the USGS list within the time frame that 
it took them to apply for the permit in the first placing, wasting 
millions of dollars and stifling investment.
    If we want American mining to flourish, we must compete on a level 
playing field without the heavy hand of the federal government choosing 
who wins. Needlessly allowing the Chinese government to continue 
dominating the mining industry Will only hurt global stability in the 
long run.
    My bill returns hardrock mining to its original covered status 
under FAST-41 so that we may continue to expedite all mining projects 
across the U.S., ensuring domestic reliability and continued growth.
    I urge all my colleagues to support this bill and look forward to 
hearing the testimony of the witnesses today on this important bill.

                                 ______
                                 

    Mr. Stauber. With that being said, we will begin with Mr. 
Curtis from Utah's 3rd Congressional District for his testimony 
on his bill.
    Mr. Curtis.

          STATEMENT OF THE HON. JOHN R. CURTIS, A 
     REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF UTAH

    Mr. Curtis. Thank you. I am incredibly proud of Utah's 
mining industry, as opposed to what you might have heard so far 
in this meeting.
    As a matter of fact, Mr. Ranking Member, I am sorry you 
took that poster down. That is actually my district, and I am 
curious if you know what the closest Ferris Wheel is to Zion 
National Park. There are none within hundreds of miles.
    I am curious if you know the closest skyscraper to Zion 
National Park. That would be Las Vegas.
    And I just think it is disingenuous to show a poster like 
that that has no representation of the actual location, and I 
would love to have you and any Member from this Committee, 
actually, to Zion's National Park to talk about these issues in 
a realistic way that really can be productive and get something 
done.
    I would like to talk a little bit about my bill, the 
Mineral Leasing Act, that changed gilsonite references to 
asphaltite. It gets a little bit into the weeds, but let me 
just explain quickly. Gilsonite, with a capital G, is currently 
only found in the Uintah Basin. The term Gilsonite, capital G, 
was trademarked in the late 1800s. Because gilsonite, lowercase 
g, was used as a term in the Mineral Leasing Act, adversaries 
like Iran are using it to sell an inferior product under the 
same name. The Mineral Leasing Act needs to be updated to 
ensure this critical mineral is produced in the United States, 
as opposed to similar but inferior products from our 
adversaries.
    Additionally, I know Utahns mine more sustainably than 
anywhere else in the world. We should be proud of our resources 
and the ability to share them with the world in a responsible 
way. Moving forward, we need minerals, and we have to make a 
decision if we want these minerals to come from conditions that 
we can control and regulate, that are done responsibly, or do 
we want them to come from our adversaries like China, Iran, and 
shell companies.
    I don't have an opportunity to introduce questions right 
now, but I am pleased that all the witnesses are here. But Mr. 
Mueller, I am especially grateful that you are here and look 
forward to your comments later on.
    With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield my time.

    Mr. Stauber. Thank you very much, Representative Curtis. We 
will now recognize Mr. Amodei from Nevada's 2nd Congressional 
District for his testimony on his bill.
    Mr. Amodei.

      STATEMENT OF THE HON. MARK E. AMODEI, A REPRESENTA-
           TIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEVADA

    Mr. Amodei. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your indulgence, 
and please pass that on to the Ranking Member of the 
Subcommittee. And good afternoon, Mr. Ranking Member of the 
Committee as a whole.
    I guess when it is your story, you can tell it however you 
want. And it is America, and it is anybody's right to do that, 
and that is fine. But I do want to point out a couple of things 
about H.R. 2925 since we are talking about history and more 
recent history. That decision, which was applied to the Forest 
Service, basically overturned multiple decades, nearly a half a 
century of what was recognized in terms of what it did to 
pursue a mining claim.
    Now, when I say pursue a mining claim, that is not in a 
vacuum. Nobody has repealed NEPA, nobody is trying to repeal 
NEPA. Nobody is trying to wipe out cultural resources. Nobody 
is trying to wipe out all the myriad of steps that Federal land 
managers have to go through before they give somebody in modern 
mining America the ability to go try to extract minerals for a 
commercially viable purpose. You go through all those NEPA 
steps, which I haven't heard a peep about yet, which H.R. 2925 
does nothing to change.
    And not that anything is perfect, and not that things don't 
evolve as they are required to, but historical practices from 
50 years ago or 150 years ago aren't what they are now.
    And it is interesting to hear how the Mining Law of 1872, 
which anybody that can add goes, that is a long time, maybe we 
ought to update that. Absolutely we should, but it should be a 
collaborative thing, which has been an absolute impossibility 
for this Congress to achieve, at least in the time I have been 
around and before that. So, it is always interesting to hear it 
is terrible, and you shouldn't be able to do it, but oh, we 
need more money when you are going to do it. It makes you 
wonder where the priorities are, and just exactly what the No. 
1 one is. Well, if we give you more money is it OK, or is it 
more OK, or what is it? It is like we need to be consistent.
    Of course, it needs to be updated. It is 1872. But to try 
to bring what the cultural realities were of post-Civil War 
America into the present like it is something that the mining 
companies did is like, because I have news for you. It is not 
in a vacuum.
    I am very proud of my state's Department of Environmental 
Protection record on how they go about permitting things, 
requiring mitigation, all those sorts of things, working in 
conjunction with Federal land managers for the Bureau of Land 
Management and the Forest Service. Nothing in H.R. 2925 goes, 
hey, that stuff you have been doing for 40 years, you don't 
have to do it anymore. Of course, you have to keep doing it.
    So, let's just say what it is. No disrespect to the Ninth 
Circuit Court of Appeals, which applies in Nevada, but if you 
can't beat them head on and you can't beat them through the 
right side, maybe you come through the left side. Let's just be 
honest, nobody will say, ``We think we have a viable mineral, 
but we have to go raise capital for that before you can really 
prove it.''
    And by the way, if you need a place for waste rock or you 
need a place for a processing site, whether that is a leach 
pad, or a mill site, or whatever, that is all in the approval. 
And nothing in this, in case somebody wants to say this, I defy 
you to find in the four pages of this language which says, 
``Oh, by the way, we can have our way with wilderness areas, 
that doesn't apply anymore, we have just repealed NEPA for 
wilderness areas.'' That is just one example, but let your 
conscience be your guide.
    So, I will say this. And by the way, it is curious that at 
a time when this Administration is giving billions of dollars 
to lithium mining companies in Nevada to do what all mining 
companies have done for the last 40 years, we have to sit here 
and go, oh well, this Rosemont thing, this is an attack on 
truth and justice somehow.
    I mean no disrespect. It is not my intent to impugn or 
offend.
    And by the way, H.R. 2925's companion bill is a bipartisan 
bill by a Senator from Idaho and a Senator from Nevada and, as 
well as this bill, has bipartisan support. You look at the 
history of this, this language has been in legislation that 10 
months ago passed the Floor of the House the 225 votes. But I 
guess maybe somebody tricked somebody, and there were secrets 
in there. I don't think there were.
    So, all I would say is this, Mr. Chairman, Madam Ranking 
Member, and Mr. Committee Ranking Member is, I get it. I mean 
everybody has their political agendas, and that is just the way 
it is today. But let's talk about reality in this four-page 
bill. Let's talk about reality about modern mining in America. 
And let's do the right thing to restore some stability if you 
are really into, we need to responsibly exploit those resources 
which are available in our country which keep us from having to 
go overseas to do other stuff.
    And with that, thank you for your generosity, Mr. Chairman, 
I yield back.
    Mr. Stauber. Thank you very much. I will now recognize Ms. 
DelBene from Washington's 1st Congressional District for her 
testimony on her bill.

    STATEMENT OF THE HON. SUZAN K. DelBENE, A REPRESENTA-
       TIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF WASHINGTON

    Ms. DelBene. Thank you. I want to thank the Chairman and 
Ranking Member for holding this important hearing and inviting 
me to provide testimony on H.R. 7003, my legislation to 
reauthorize the National Landslide Preparedness Act.
    Landslides kill 20 to 50 people and cause between $1.6 and 
$3.2 billion in damage each year. And, unfortunately, this is a 
reality that folks back in my district know all too well. 
Nearly 10 years ago, Washington State experienced one of its 
worst natural disasters. In a matter of seconds a tragic 
landslide near Oso, Washington killed 43 people, destroyed over 
40 homes, and severely damaged public infrastructure and 
private property. That day forever changed the people of Oso, 
of Darrington, Arlington, and the Stillaguamish and Sauk-
Suiattle Tribes, and they are still living with its scars 
today.
    I remember going to Oso right after the disaster to support 
the community and families who had lost loved ones and their 
homes. Our first responders were the true heroes that day. They 
spent countless hours trying to save lives and recover loved 
ones. These were some of the most heartbreaking days of my time 
in Congress to see so much devastation in this close-knit 
community.
    Following that landslide and that tragedy, I introduced in 
2016 the National Landslide Preparedness Act. As the Oso 
landslide demonstrated, simply sending aid after a tragic 
national disaster is insufficient. We need to do more to invest 
in programs and research efforts to prevent future natural 
disasters from becoming national tragedies. I worked tirelessly 
to get the National Landslide Preparedness Act signed into law 
in 2021 with the support of many of you in this room today.
    This law established a National Landslide Hazards Reduction 
Program through the U.S. Geological Survey to better identify 
and understand landslide risks, protect communities, save lives 
and property, and help improve emergency preparedness. It also 
authorized the 3D Elevation Program, which in the past few 
years has made incredible strides to update and coordinate the 
collection of enhanced, high-resolution topographical data 
across the country.
    In addition to helping communities plan for and respond to 
natural hazards, this data is being used to improve public 
safety, national security, infrastructure, agriculture, and 
natural resource management. Through this law, significant 
progress has been made in landslide science, allowing 
communities to be better prepared for when landslides do occur.
    In recent years, we have seen dramatic increases in extreme 
weather events. We need to do everything in our power to make 
sure that communities across the country continue to have the 
tools at their disposal to be prepared. Currently, the programs 
authorized by the National Landslide Preparedness Act will 
expire on September 30 of this year.
    In the 3 years since the enactment, USGS and their partners 
have made incredible strides, and we must keep building on 
their progress. I introduced H.R. 7003, along with 
Representatives Schrier, Gluesenkamp Perez, and most of the 
Washington Delegation to reauthorize these programs through 
2028.
    This bill has bipartisan and bicameral support. Senators 
Cantwell and Murkowski will be leading the effort in the 
Senate.
    Every state across the country faces landslide risks, which 
is why we must reauthorize these critical programs. Thank you 
again for the opportunity to speak on the need to reauthorize 
the National Landslide Preparedness Act.
    And finally, Mr. Chairman, I would request unanimous 
consent to enter written testimony from Washington State 
geologist Casey Hanell; Snohomish County Senior Advisor on 
Resilience, Jason Biermann; and the Cowlitz County 
Commissioners into the record.
    Mr. Stauber. Without objection.

    [The information follows:]
                        Statement for the Record
                            Casey R. Hanell
                      State Geologist and Director
                      Washington Geological Survey
                    Department of Natural Resources

    Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittee, my name is Casey Hanell, 
State Geologist and Director of the Washington Geological Survey (WGS). 
Thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony on behalf of WGS and 
the Washington Department of Natural Resources (DNR) on the critical 
importance of the reauthorization of the National Landslide 
Preparedness Act, H.R. 7003.

    Washington is one of the most landslide-prone states in the nation 
and has hundreds of thousands of known and unknown landslides. Several 
of these landslides have been among the most devastating and deadly in 
U.S. history, such as the 2014 SR530 landslide, also known as the Oso 
landslide, that resulted in 43 fatalities; the 1998 Aldercrest-Banyon 
landslide that destroyed 137 homes; and the 2009 Nile landslide that 
blocked the Naches River, wrecked 14 homes, and left a critical cross-
state highway impassable (Figure 1). Our steep terrain and extreme 
winter precipitation events can produce thousands of rapidly moving 
landslides in a period of a few hours, affecting entire regions of the 
state simultaneously. Additionally, the geologic conditions in many 
parts of our state are also prone to chronic slow-moving landslides 
that tear apart homes, roads, and other infrastructure.

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] 


    Figure 1. Several examples of significant historical landslides 
in Washington, demonstrating both the statewide nature of the hazard 
and the associated devastating consequences.

    March 22, 2024, will mark 10 years since the Oso landslide, the 
deadliest landslide in US history. This slide tragically resulted in 
the deaths of 43 people and upended an entire community.

    Because of that, we significantly ramped up our efforts to 
understand landslide hazards and associated risks. In the 10 years 
since the Oso Landslide, WGS started both a Landslide Hazards Program 
and a Lidar Program.

    The Landslide Hazards Program uses lidar data to map landslides on 
a county-by-county basis and has completed landslide inventories in 
Whatcom, Snohomish, King, Pierce, Klickitat, and Skamania Counties 
(Figure 2). The mapping in these counties covers only 14% of the State, 
yet an astonishing 34,683 landslides were mapped. These inventories are 
used by planners, emergency managers, public works departments, and 
those who live or work where these hazards could impact their daily 
lives. They also assist local jurisdictions in making educated 
decisions about their assets, community safety, and growth management 
using the best-available science.

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


    Figure 2. Counties in Washington that have completed or in 
progress landslide inventories. Inventory work has only been completed 
for 14% of the state and 34,683 landslides have already been mapped.

    In the FY23 federal budget, $1 million was appropriated to initiate 
the competitive grant program authorized by the National Landslide 
Preparedness Act. The grant program is currently under development 
within the United States Geological Survey (USGS). Once established, 
grant funding from this program will allow state and local funding to 
be leveraged with matching federal funding to accelerate the 
identification and understanding of landslide hazards and risks in 
Washington State and nationwide.

    In addition to landslide inventory work, we are placing an 
increased focus on landslides that happen following wildfires, known as 
post-fire debris flows. Until recently, little research on post-fire 
debris flows was done in Washington State. Initial work in other areas 
of the Pacific Northwest shows that current models used for emergency 
post-fire debris flow hazard assessment, which were developed with data 
from outside the region, may be less accurate for Washington's geology 
and climate. More frequent and intense wildfire seasons in our state, 
combined with growing populations in the Wildland Urban Interface, put 
lives and infrastructure at greater risk from post-fire debris flow 
hazards. Debris flows can travel considerable distances, disrupting 
roadways and other infrastructure, destroying private property, and 
causing flooding (Figure 3). Due to their speed and magnitude, post-
fire debris flows pose an immediate, critical threat to public safety.

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


    Figure 3. A cabin that was destroyed in 2022 following a post-
fire debris flow from an upslope wildfire burn scar.

    Steep terrain and elevated wildfire risk in the northern portion of 
the eastern Cascades have historically resulted in a higher frequency 
of post-fire debris flows and flash floods relative to other parts of 
Washington. In Chelan County, debris flows and flash floods resulted in 
14 fatalities at Squilchuck Creek (1925), 8 fatalities at Tenas Gorge 
(1942), and 4 fatalities at Preston Creek (1973). In Okanogan County on 
August 22, 2014, multiple debris flows originating from the Carlton 
Complex wildfire damaged homes and roads. Mud, boulders, and debris 
damaged approximately ten homes along State Highway 153.

    Climate change and drought are increasing the fire hazard to the 
western Cascades as well--in 2022, the Bolt Creek Fire in the western 
Cascade foothills of King and Snohomish Counties burned 14,820 acres of 
steep terrain, creating a growing concern for post-fire debris flows 
near these more densely populated areas. Since 2017, we have recorded 
119 debris flow or flash flood events in 13 burn scars (Figure 4). The 
National Landslide Preparedness Act supports our efforts in mapping 
these hazards, both before and after the fire has passed, increasing 
preparedness, mitigation, and recovery.

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


    Figure 4. Map showing a selection of major wildfires from 2017 
to 2022 and the number of debris flows and flash floods along separate 
drainages documented within the 2022 field season alone.

    To improve regional hazard assessments and early warning efforts in 
the years following a fire, my agency is actively monitoring burned 
areas to correlate rainfall rates to the timing of debris flows and 
flash floods. By collecting data from on-the-ground observations, rain 
gauges, telemetered weather stations, and motion-activated cameras, we 
are building an inventory of geologic hazard events and associated 
weather conditions (Figures 5 and 6).

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


    Figure 5. A rain gauge being installed in a burn scar to help 
improve early warning to communities downstream.

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


    Figure 6. In early summer of 2023, a game camera installed by 
WGS captured a debris flow within the Cedar Creek burned area. The 
image on the left shows the stream on the alluvial fan weeks before the 
debris flow occurred, shown on the right. This debris flow impacted 
several homes and the common road for a community, which had already 
dealt with three previous debris flow events in recent years. Because a 
weather station was also deployed nearby, we can further refine 
rainfall thresholds and improve timing of emergency alerts to at-risk 
communities.

    Since the establishment of the Washington Geological Survey's Lidar 
Program in 2015 in response to the Oso Landslide, the Survey has been 
collecting, compiling, processing, and distributing lidar data, not 
only to assist in identifying landslides, but for the benefit of the 
State.

    A USGS-sponsored national study (Dewberry, 2022 \1\) was recently 
conducted to understand the costs, benefits, and future needs with 
respect to lidar. Data \2\ for each state show the potential benefits 
from access to high-quality elevation data. For Washington State alone, 
the benefits are at least $9,460,000 annually, or $18,920,000 per 
biennium (Figure 7). Overall, lidar data and high-quality terrain data 
could provide $13.5 billion in annual benefits for the nation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Dewberry, 2022, 3D Nation Elevation Requirements and Benefits 
Study [accessed July 26, 2023, https://www.dewberry.com/services/
geospatial-mapping-and-survey/3d-nation-elevation-requirements-and-
benefits-study]
    \2\ Carlson, T., 2023, The 3D Elevation Program--Supporting 
Washington's economy: U.S. Geological Survey Fact Sheet 2022-3075, 2 
p., accessed July 24, 2023, https://doi.org/10.3133/fs20223075.

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


    Figure 7. Examples of lidar uses in Washington that are part of 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
the $9.5 million potential annual benefits of statewide lidar coverage.

    WGS has relied heavily on USGS 3DEP funding to support this work. 
Between 2016 and 2024, Washington State has collaborated with 3DEP on 
seven large-area lidar collections to support the goal of statewide 
lidar acquisition and refresh. This partnership has resulted in 32,632 
square miles of lidar coverage for the state (Figure 8). 3DEP has also 
separately participated in at least four federal partner collections in 
Washington, adding an additional 22,351 square miles of lidar coverage. 
Dollar for dollar, 3DEP has almost matched the State's investment 
toward this critical goal--since 2016, 3DEP has contributed at least 
$5.2 million to Washington State's lidar in addition to the State's 
$7.1 million investment, which means that Washington truly appreciates 
and needs this program's partnership and support.

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


    Figure 8. Map showing lidar coverage acquired in partnership 
with 3DEP for the state.

    WGS is continuously receiving requests for more frequent lidar 
collection, as most natural resource, habitat, forestry, or 
conservation decisions in Washington use lidar as critical input to 
workflows and analyses. WGS is keenly aware of lidar needs and 
applications by local and state partners across the state who actively 
help WGS to determine future collections, priorities, and standards.\3\ 
From these relationships, we know that the ideal statewide refresh rate 
for lidar is between five and ten years to see the ways our land is 
constantly changing. So, while Washington State has nearly achieved 
statewide lidar coverage, a greater, longer-term effort is imperative 
to ensure that collection is repeated on a predictable and useful 
timeline for the many uses across the state.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\ Washington Geological Survey, 2023, Washington State Lidar 
Plan: Washington Geological Survey, 29 p., accessed January 23, 2024, 
https://www.dnr.wa.gov/publications/ger_wa_lidar_ plan_2023.pdf/.

    In addition to landslides, lidar is integral to WGS's work to 
assess other geologic hazards such as tsunami inundation and active 
faults which have the potential to generate earthquakes. It's also 
relied upon heavily to produce geological maps, conduct geothermal 
assessments, map critical minerals, and to regulate surface mines. 
Local jurisdictions require high-quality lidar data and refresh for 
urban growth planning and change detection. Local utilities use this 
data for grid hardening projects and planning. Conservation districts 
use this data to assist agriculture and irrigation districts in 
efficient land and resource management. State land managers use this 
data to determine forest health, assess timber harvest slope stability, 
and to site critical infrastructure. And numerous partners use this 
data to plan, manage, and determine the effectiveness of habitat 
restoration projects. The Washington Department of Ecology is also 
relying on 3DEP lidar data to update hydrology and stream network data 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
through the USGS Elevation Derived Hydrography Program.

    Through WGS partnership with 3DEP and participation in the federal/
state interagency 3DEP Working Group, Washington has positioned itself 
to be a strong partner and advocate for achieving state and federal 
goals. Working with 3DEP expands our collection areas and reduces 
refresh timelines, taking a planned ten-year refresh cycle and reducing 
it to six years or fewer. And just as importantly, WGS values the 
ability to provide input on when, where, and what quality standards are 
used to help meet the needs of Washington partners.

    The National Landslide Preparedness Act is important because 
landslides in Washington are frequent, posing significant threats to 
life and infrastructure. Inventories, susceptibility, and hazard maps 
for the state are far from complete, with 86% of the state yet to be 
mapped. Nationwide collaboration that includes funding for lidar and 
landslide research allows us to learn more about these hazards, saving 
lives and money. If the National Landslide Preparedness Act expires, we 
worry we will lose momentum on these important efforts.

    Thank you again for the opportunity to provide testimony,

                                 ______
                                

                        Statement for the Record
                            Jason Biermannl
                  Senior Policy Advisor on Resilience
                  Snohomish County Executive's Office

    Mr. Chairman, and members of the Committee, thank you for the 
opportunity to provide remarks on behalf of Snohomish County regarding 
the importance of maintaining this critical effort. I sincerely 
appreciate the opportunity to contribute our perspectives today on the 
vital work that you are undertaking in this legislative hearing. My 
name is Jason Biermann, and I currently serve as the Senior Policy 
Advisor on Resilience to Snohomish County Executive Dave Somers. Before 
assuming my current role, I spent 13 years in the County's Department 
of Emergency Management. I began there in 2009 as a program manager 
focused on hazard mitigation, became the deputy director in 2014, and 
served as the director from 2016 through 2022. I also served as the 
Chair of Washington's Emergency Management Council, which is 
statutorily mandated to provide an annual report to the Governor on the 
status of emergency preparedness throughout the state.
    Located just north of Seattle, Snohomish County's 2200 square miles 
provides a beautiful, diverse, and dynamic home to almost 850,000 
residents. Within our borders one can experience everything offered by 
the Puget Sound, the flowing waters of our river systems, and the 
heavily forested Cascade mountains. We contain large cities, most of 
which lie along Interstate-5 in the western third of the county, as 
well as small towns, unincorporated areas, and the lands of three 
Tribal Nations. Because of our proximity to the ``Ring of Fire,'' \1\ 
our residents and businesses face the constant threat of seismic and 
volcanic activity. In addition, we routinely experience significant 
flooding, severe weather, an increasing number of wildland fires, and 
the effects of landslides.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ According to the USGS, the Ring of Fire ``is the most 
seismically and volcanically active zone in the world.'' https://
www.usgs.gov/faqs/what-ring-fire
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    My testimony today emphasizes the real-world value of your 
continued support for the critical and innovative programs initiated by 
the National Landslide Preparedness Act, which is the focus of this 
hearing. The enhanced mapping and hazard research greatly increased our 
understanding of the extent to which landslides could affect our 
residents. This, in turn, led to better assessments of our county's 
vulnerability to landslides and advancements in our ability to warn our 
residents. These programs remain essential for protecting lives and 
property, and for helping to ensure we invest in resilient 
infrastructure.
    To better illustrate the importance of these programs, I offer 
first-hand insights from the response to a tragedy that happened in 
Snohomish County. At 10:37 a.m. on Saturday, March 22, 2014, a massive 
landslide occurred in unincorporated Snohomish County near the small 
community of Oso. Approximately 8,000,000 cubic meters of debris--mud, 
trees, and boulders--slammed into a neighborhood near the Stillaguamish 
River, claiming 43 lives and dozens of homes.\2\ The SR-530 (Oso) slide 
also covered nearly 1000 linear feet of State Route 530 and destroyed 
the telecommunications fiber running along the road, effectively 
isolating the small town of Darrington, Washington.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ Iverson et al., Landslide mobility and hazards: implications of 
the 2014 Oso disaster, (Earth and Planetary Science Letters, January 
2015).

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


    For weeks, volunteers and first responders from state, local, 
and federal agencies searched the area for the remains of the victims. 
They located the final person on July 22, 2014, four months to the day 
after the slide occurred. In addition to those efforts, and for years 
following the slide, agencies from all levels of government and 
private/non-profit organizations worked to help the area recover from 
the devastation. They restored the road and communications, and they 
worked with the affected communities to help them heal and rebuild 
their vibrancy. We remain profoundly grateful for the assistance we 
received, both during and after the incident.
    In the aftermath of the Oso slide, we learned much from our 
partners at the United States Geological Survey. They brought high-
resolution digital topographic (lidar) data and modeling capabilities 
that helped understand the conditions that led to the slope, which had 
a long history of prior historical landslide activity, failing so 
catastrophically. They were also able to peer beneath our forested 
hillsides to uncover evidence of slide activity that has occurred 
throughout the preceding millennia.
    What we learned, we used. Better mapping of our known landslide 
hazards revealed an estimated 60,000 people living in areas where steep 
slopes, soil types, and significant rainfall could combine to make the 
earth more prone to sudden, violent movement. We identified 12,400 
structures as being potentially at risk of slides, 95% of which were 
homes. This information helped us to swiftly develop a system for early 
detection and warning based on rainfall and other factors. We now 
routinely monitor the amount of moisture in the ground and issue 
countywide alerts when the risk of landslide becomes elevated during 
our rainy season. We began educating our residents to report when they 
see tilting trees or cracks in the ground. In a region where landslides 
occur frequently (see graphic), this helped tremendously.

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


    It is important to note we applied these lessons learned not 
only to address the potential for landslides as large as the Oso slide, 
but to those that occur regularly throughout Snohomish County. 
Thankfully these minor slides do not cause casualties; however, they do 
disrupt transportation and commerce on our roads and railways, and they 
have on multiple occasions blocked access to residents trying to reach 
their homes. It is critical to note that we learned these things 
because of resources made available to us in the aftermath of a tragedy 
and believed, and continue to believe, that similar resources should be 
available to local jurisdictions across the Nation. Some of the most 
critical aspects of the assistance we received fall within the 
parameters of the National Landslide Preparedness Act, which benefits 
local jurisdictions throughout the country.
    Specifically, in 2021 the National Landslide Preparedness Act (P.L. 
116-323) began to provide these resources to local jurisdictions. 
Landslides occur in all 50 states and the U.S. territories, causing 
estimated damages exceeding $2 billion and between 25 to 50 fatalities 
annually.\3\ The National Landslide Hazards Reduction Program, which 
the National Landslide Preparedness Act authorized, helps local 
communities to better understand their risk. It allows us to reduce our 
losses to landslides by making more informed decisions on land use and 
the placement of critical infrastructure. It has also expanded the 
ability of the USGS and NOAA/NWS to provide debris-flow warnings after 
wildland fires. In 2022, when the Bolt Creek Fire scorched nearly 
15,000 acres of eastern Snohomish County and western King County, it 
brought federal expertise to help us make decisions about when to close 
U.S. Highway 2 and keep people safe from debris flows below the burn 
scar. Not only were their insights vital to our decision making, but 
they also helped us clearly explain the decisions to our residents and 
visitors. As we anticipate an increasing number of wildfires to affect 
Snohomish County, that federal expertise will remain invaluable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\ U.S. Geological Survey. Landslide hazards: A national threat. 
(USGS Fact Sheet 2005-3156, 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Snohomish County strongly supports a reauthorization of the 
National Landslide Preparedness Act. Natural hazards can cause 
substantial damage throughout the Nation, but if armed with the 
appropriate information, local communities can take action to avoid and 
mitigate potential harm. The USGS earthquake, volcano, and landslide 
programs help to strengthen our resilience to these hazards and protect 
our communities and residents from harm. All these hazards pose a risk 
to Snohomish County and our efforts to prepare for earthquakes and 
volcanoes have benefited greatly for many years. While the landslide 
program is newer than the earthquake and volcano programs, it is just 
as critical.
    I hope my testimony conveys how important this reauthorization is 
to Snohomish County and to counties throughout the country. The support 
of our federal partners remains integral to our ability to keep our 
residents and businesses safe from landslides. Losing the resources and 
technology for mapping, ongoing monitoring, and research will have a 
significant, negative effect on our chances of preventing another 
tragedy like the one we endured nearly a decade ago.
    Thank you for the opportunity to submit testimony, and I look 
forward to answering any questions you may have.

                                 ______
                                 

                 Board of Cowlitz County Commissioners

                                               January 30, 2024    

Hon. Bruce Westerman, Chairman
Hon. Raul Grijalva, Ranking Member
House Natural Resources Committee
1324 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515

Re: The Testimony from Cowlitz County, Washington regarding the 
        Legislative Hearing on the National Landslide Preparedness Act 
        Reauthorization Act

    Chairman Westerman, Ranking Member Grijalva, and Members of the 
Committee:

    Thank you for the opportunity to provide remarks in support of the 
National Landslide Preparedness Reauthorization Act. The impacts that 
landslides have had on our Cowlitz County are significant. Cowlitz 
County Washington is located in southwest Washington north and east of 
the Columbia River. This area is prone to landslides that impact public 
infrastructure (roadways, railroads and utilities) and private 
property. The following information highlights the impacts of 
landslides on local jurisdictions.
    In the winter, it is not unusual for new landslides to occur as the 
result of extreme weather events or typical winter weather. In December 
2015 there was a significant rainfall event that caused close to three 
dozen new landslides. During the active rainfall event Public Works had 
road crews out responding to calls of blocked roadways and flooding. As 
the majority of the event occurred during the night the road crews and 
Sheriff's Department were closing roads and notifying residents if they 
appeared to be in the line of danger. During this event one piece of 
equipment was washed away by a slide and a resident trapped in his 
home, fortunately neither were injured. Furthermore, as the roadways 
were closed where possible, detour routes were opened for residents and 
emergency responders. In addition to the closures of the local roadways 
Interstate 5 was closed limiting the access from the south. The 
succeeding morning, the Public Works Department completed initial 
assessments of the damage to determine what could be cleaned up and 
what needed a formal assessment. Cowlitz County called in a 
geotechnical engineer to assess the slides and determine if the 
location could be cleaned up or if an engineered solution was required. 
The County cleaned up more than two dozen slides and completed large 
long-term repairs of six other slides following this massive weather 
event.

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


    When a large scale occurs oftentimes the County will declare an 
emergency and send this declaration to the Governor with the hope that 
the State will declare an emergency to send on to the Federal 
government. This needs to occur to allow the County to be eligible for 
federal assistance. This process requires the Department of Emergency 
Management to coordinate with the County, the cities, and the utilities 
to estimate the damage that has occurred. The local jurisdictions then 
need to work with FEMA and FHWA for approval of eligibility of damage 
and the potential permanent repairs. This process requires extensive 
staff time for coordination of repairs and accounting of the work that 
has occurred.
    In addition to fast moving slides, Cowlitz County has a large 
number of deep-seated slow-moving slides that are beyond our ability to 
repair. The slides are not eligible for federal funding even when they 
are reactivated during a large storm event. The County addresses these 
areas a number of ways depending on the scale of the slide and its 
location relative to the roadway. We have numerous locations where we 
maintain drainage facilities to remove the water from the slide area. 
These facilities include horizontal drains, trench drains and a pump 
station. Other slides are left as stretches of roadway with only a 
gravel surface that the County adds rock to as needed (it can vary from 
weekly to a few times a year). Other areas that do not respond to 
drainage solutions are paved with additional pavement added as needed. 
We also have areas that have jersey barriers at the toe of slope to 
prevent falling rocks from entering the roadway.

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


    When the County responds to landslides and install a long term 
repair the costs impact the budget for the year. There is an annual set 
aside for emergency response to landslides but large repairs will 
either be delayed for the next budget or they delay other projects that 
are planned. Fiscal impacts of engineering solutions for small slides 
(50 to 100 linear feet) that impact roadways vary by the type and 
height of the slide and can include drainage solutions (starting at 
$200,000), buttresses (starting at $500,000), or retaining walls 
(starting at $1,000,000). There are also locations where a slide is 
above the roadway where rock scaling is appropriate and this process 
starts at $500,000 for a small slide.

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


    In addition to the slides that are within the within the 
County's jurisdiction, Cowlitz County is home to one of the largest 
landslides in the United Stated that occurred in the City of Kelso. In 
1998 a slow moving slide started in the City of Kelso that destroyed or 
made uninhabitable 140 homes. The City worked with FEMA to buy out 
owners, reestablish utilities to the homes that remained and demolish 
the homes that were purchased. The Washington State Department of 
Transportation (WSDOT) deals with three ongoing landslides on 
Interstate 5, State Route 4 and State Route 411. The slide on 
Interstate 5 occurs during large storm events and drops rocks and other 
debris onto the interstate shutting the roadway. This backs traffic up 
for miles, stops interstate commerce and interferes with emergency 
services. The only local north south alternate route is steep and windy 
and cannot be traversed safely by trucks. The closest alternate route 
for trucks includes driving the 30 miles back to Portland, Oregon and 
using Oregon State Route 30 to the Lewis and Clark Bridge. This detour 
adds a minimum of an hour of travel and is also prone to landslides. 
State Route 4 has a steep slope above the roadway that is prone to 
sliding onto the roadway and frequently requires rock scaling projects. 
State Route 411 between Kelso and Castle Rock has a deep seated 
landslide that WSDOT has chosen to overlay as needed, not repair.
    Cowlitz County is also home to a several areas of lahar flows 
(areas of volcanic mud flows) that are prone to erosion and failure. 
After Mount Saint Helens erupted the County and WSDOT worked to reopen 
the area that were covered by the massive mud flows. Many of the 
roadways were reconstructed on the lahar materials. In a large storm 
event, the County lost a set of culverts that were installed on top of 
the mud flow to reestablish an arterial serving the area. The resulting 
canyon was over 100 feet long and 40 feet deep. Fortunately for the 
residents and emergency responders there is an alternate route. This 
route adds approximately a half hour to the residents adjacent to the 
washout and emergency responders. Since the slide occurred the County 
has purchased and installed a temporary one lane 120' span bridge. We 
are currently in the process of designing a permanent bridge that we 
are planning to install in 2025. The expense to the County is over 
$4,000,000 and was not eligible for emergency relief funds from FEMA or 
FHWA because it was a localized weather event.

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


    WSDOT experienced a similar failure in 2023 on State Route 504, 
the route to the Mount Saint Helens. There were multiple people 
stranded beyond the slide at Johnson Ridge Observatory that needed to 
be evacuated by helicopter after spending the beyond the slide. WSDOT 
completed a temporary roadway to allow access to the stranded vehicles 
and scientific sites beyond the failure. This temporary roadway failed 
during the first rains of the winter and the roadway will not be 
reopened again until 2026 at the earliest.
    In addition to the infrastructure damage caused by slides there are 
other ongoing impacts to the citizens of Cowlitz County. If a slide 
occurs on private property it is the property owner's responsibility to 
repair any damages that have occurred to the property. If the damage is 
significant, the owners could lose the use of the property.
    In order to prevent additional structures from being impacted by 
landslides the County has adopted a Critical Area Ordinances that 
includes restrictions on construction. Prior to construction the 
developer must review the County maintained hazard map to determine if 
the parcel is impacted by landslides and address items contained in the 
ordinance. A snipit of this mapping is shown below.

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


    We would like to see continued support in our community to 
identify, prepare for emergency response and mitigate for known 
landslides to prevent interruptions to the lives of residents. These 
activities could include continued map updates, development of a Public 
Works inventory of slide impacted roadways that includes potential 
projects with costs, and mitigation projects.

        Susan Eugenis,                Arne Mortensen,
        Cowlitz County Engineer       Commissioner District 1

        Dennis P. Weber,              Richard R. Dahl,
        Commissioner District 2       Chairman District 3

                                 ______
                                 

    Ms. DelBene. Thank you, I yield back.
    Mr. Stauber. Thank you very much. We will now move to 
introduce our second panel of witnesses.
    Let me remind the witnesses that under Committee Rules, 
they must limit their oral statements to 5 minutes, but their 
entire statement will appear in the hearing record.
    To begin your testimony, please press the ``talk'' button 
on the microphone.
    We use timing lights. When you begin, the light will turn 
green. When you have 1 minute remaining, the light will turn 
yellow. At the end of your 5 minutes, the light will turn red, 
and I will ask you to please complete your statement at that 
time.
    I will also allow all witnesses to testify before Member 
questioning.
    Our first witness is Dr. Steven Feldgus, and he is a 
Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Land and Minerals 
Management in the Department of the Interior, and is stationed 
right here in Washington, DC.
    Dr. Feldgus, it is great to see you again, and you are now 
recognized for 5 minutes.

      STATEMENT  OF  STEVEN  FELDGUS,  PRINCIPAL  DEPUTY
        ASSISTANT  SECRETARY,  LAND AND MINERALS MANAGE-
        MENT, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, WASHINGTON, DC

    Dr. Feldgus. Thank you very much, Chairman Stauber, Ranking 
Member Ocasio-Cortez, and Ranking Member Grijalva, members of 
the Subcommittee. My name is Steve Feldgus, and I am the 
Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Land and Minerals 
Management at the Department of the Interior. Thank you for the 
opportunity to testify on H.R. 2925, the Mining Regulatory 
Clarity Act; H.R. 7003, the National Landslide Preparedness Act 
Reauthorization Act; and H.R. 7004, which would amend the 
Mineral Leasing Act to modify certain terminology. These bills 
addressed issues related to the Federal mining and mineral 
leasing programs managed by the Bureau of Land Management and 
the National Landslide Hazards Reduction and 3D Elevation 
programs of the U.S. Geological Survey.
    H.R. 2925, the Mining Regulatory Clarity Act, would amend 
the Mining Law of 1872 to significantly expand the rights of 
mining claimants on public lands. Currently, rights against the 
United States under the mining law are dependent upon numerous 
requirements, including making a ``discovery of a valuable 
mineral deposit.'' Prior to meeting these requirements, holders 
of mining claims might have rights against others, but courts 
have repeatedly held that these claimants do not have any 
compensable property rights against the United States.
    H.R. 2925 would grant mining claimants the right to use, 
occupy, and conduct operations on public lands, even without 
the discovery of a valuable mineral on their claim. Claimants 
would only need to have paid the location fee and the claim 
maintenance fee, or for those claimants who qualify for a small 
minor waiver, complied with the required work assessment.
    The consequences of H.R. 2925 would be far reaching and 
dramatic. It could encourage the filing of nuisance claims that 
attempt to interfere with or prevent other authorized uses, and 
could lead to unauthorized non-mining industrial uses and 
residential occupancy. Even if no unauthorized uses were 
carried out, attempting to extinguish such claims for other 
public purposes would likely require significant time and 
effort, and subject the Federal Government to numerous takings 
claims.
    The Department's understanding is that H.R. 2925 seeks to 
address the ruling in the Ninth Circuit's Rosemont decision, 
and we share that goal. But it is important to note that we 
have already taken action to address that decision 
administratively by issuing a Solicitor's M Opinion that 
identifies options for potentially impacted operators.
    H.R. 7003 would reauthorize the National Landslide 
Preparedness Act, or NLPA, through 2028. The NLPA directed the 
USGS to create a program to identify and understand landslide 
hazards and risks, reduce losses from landslides, protect 
communities at risk from landslides, and help communication and 
emergency preparedness for landslide disasters and impacts.
    The NLPA also authorized the USGS' 3D Elevation Program to 
respond to the growing need for high-quality topographic data, 
and for a wide range of other three-dimensional representations 
of the nation's natural and constructed features.
    The Department supports reauthorization of the NLPA, and 
would like to work with the sponsor and the Subcommittee on 
minor amendments to the bill to aid implementation. Since my 
role at the Department of the Interior does not oversee the 
work of the U.S. Geological Survey, I would be happy to take 
any specific questions you might have on H.R. 7003 back to the 
USGS to provide a response for the record.
    H.R. 7004 would amend the Mineral Leasing Act to replace 
the term ``Gilsonite'' with asphaltite. The Mineral Leasing Act 
identifies Gilsonite as a leasable mineral, but it does not 
contain any references to asphaltite. The Department's general 
understanding is that the term asphaltite can be considered a 
more inclusive term for all vein-type solid hydrocarbons, which 
includes Gilsonite.
    The proposed change to the Mineral Leasing Act would not 
alter how these types of hydrocarbons would be leased. We do 
note that BLM would need to amend its regulations to reflect 
the change in the terminology, but the Department has no 
objection to H.R. 7004.
    Finally, H.R. 6862 is also on the hearing agenda. The bill 
would prohibit the Federal Permitting Improvement Steering 
Council from finalizing a rule to amend the coverage of mining 
projects under the Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act 
by limiting it solely to critical mineral mining projects, 
including infrastructure constructed to support critical 
mineral supply chain activities, critical minerals 
beneficiation, processing, and recycling.
    The Department defers to the Federal Permitting Improvement 
Steering Council regarding this proposed rule and any potential 
impacts associated with H.R. 6862.
    Thank you again for the opportunity to testify on these 
bills, and I look forward to your questions.

    [The prepared statement of Dr. Feldgus follows:]
Prepared Statement of Steve Feldgus, Ph.D., Principal Deputy Assistant 
    Secretary, Land and Minerals Management, U.S. Department of the 
                                Interior
                 on H.R. 2925, H.R. 7003, and H.R. 7004

Introduction

    Thank you for the opportunity to testify on H.R. 2925, the Mining 
Regulatory Clarity Act; H.R. 7003, the National Landslide Preparedness 
Act Reauthorization Act; and H.R. 7004, which would amend the Mineral 
Leasing Act to modify certain terminology. These bills address issues 
related to the Federal mining and mineral leasing programs managed by 
the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the national landslide hazards 
reduction and 3D elevation programs of the U.S. Geological Survey 
(USGS). Specifically, H.R. 2925 would change claimant rights on Federal 
mining claims; H.R. 7003 would reauthorize the National Landslide 
Preparedness Act through 2028; and H.R. 7004 would change all 
references to the term ``gilsonite'' in the Mineral Leasing Act (MLA) 
to ``asphaltite.''
    We appreciate the efforts of the Sponsors and the Subcommittee on 
the bills under consideration today, and we look forward to continuing 
to work with Congress as they move forward through the legislative 
process.
H.R. 2925, Mining Regulatory Clarity Act

    H.R. 2925 would amend the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 
to expand the rights of mining claimants, with respect to locatable 
minerals, by defining the term ``operations'' to include various 
mining-related activities. These include any activity or work carried 
out in connection with prospecting, discovery and assessment, 
development, extraction, or processing; the reclamation of an area 
disturbed by any of these activities; and any action reasonably 
incident to these activities, regardless of whether it is carried out 
on a mining claim, such as the construction and maintenance of any 
road, transmission line, pipeline, or any other necessary 
infrastructure or means of access on public land for a support 
facility.
    This bill would also grant mining claimants the right to use, 
occupy, and conduct operations on public land with or without the 
discovery of a valuable mineral deposit, so long as they have paid the 
location fee and claim maintenance fee. In lieu of paying the claim 
maintenance fee, claimants who qualify for a small miner waiver may 
instead comply with the required work assessment under the general 
mining laws. Under the bill, claimants who have met these requirements 
would be considered to have satisfied any requirements under FLPMA for 
the payment of fair market value to the U.S. for the use of public land 
resources.
    The Department is committed to working with the Sponsor and the 
Subcommittee on reforms that provide certainty and stability for the 
industry, strengthen domestic mineral supply chains, advance 
environmental sustainability, while ensuring a fair return to 
taxpayers. The Department's understanding is that H.R. 2925 seeks to 
address the ruling in Center for Biological Diversity v. U.S. Fish and 
Wildlife Service, 33 F.4th 1202 (9th Cir. 2022), commonly known as the 
Rosemont decision. While the Department supports the goals of H.R. 
2925, it is important to note that we have already addressed this 
decision by issuing a Solicitor's M-Opinion that identifies options for 
operators potentially impacted by Rosemont, and we note that 
legislation to resolve this issue may be unnecessary.
    Furthermore, the Department is concerned that, as written, this 
bill could lead to a number of serious unintended consequences. In 
particular, granting the right of use and occupancy to claimants prior 
to showing the discovery of a valuable mineral greatly expands the 
rights conferred under the Mining Law, and could encourage the filing 
of nuisance claims that attempt to interfere with or prevent other 
authorized uses of public lands such as grazing, hunting, off-highway 
vehicle use, energy development, and more. It could also lead to 
unauthorized non-mining industrial uses and residential occupancy--
often referred to as ``squatting''--which previously necessitated the 
development of regulations to address the issue. It is also important 
to note that discovery of a valuable mineral deposit should always be 
required on lands that have been withdrawn from mineral entry, such as 
units of the National Park System. The Department would like to work 
with the Sponsor and the Subcommittee on improvements to the bill that 
maintain the intent of the legislation while limiting potential 
unintended consequences.
H.R. 7003, National Landslide Preparedness Act Reauthorization Act

    H.R. 7003 would reauthorize the National Landslide Preparedness Act 
(NLPA, P.L. 116-323) through 2028. The NLPA directed the Department, 
acting through the USGS, to create a program to identify and understand 
landslide hazards and risks; reduce losses from landslides; protect 
communities at risk from landslides; and help improve communication and 
emergency preparedness for landslide disasters and impacts. The NLPA 
also authorized the 3D Elevation Program (3DEP), managed by the USGS 
National Geospatial Program, to respond to the growing need for high-
quality topographic data and for a wide range of other three-
dimensional representations of the Nation's natural and constructed 
features.
    The Department appreciates and supports reauthorization of the NLPA 
and would like to work with the Sponsor and the Subcommittee to 
consider amendments that would improve the ability to implement this 
vital authority along with our partners. Such amendments include 
clarifying that certain emergency-management and land-use decisions are 
appropriately made by State, Tribal, and local governments; technical 
corrections to reinforce the need to collect data to maintain quality 
and identify changes in the landscape that are essential criteria for 
landslide-hazard research; and technical changes to better reflect the 
current state of the 3DEP program's implementation and the ongoing need 
for data collection.
H.R. 7004, To amend the Mineral Leasing Act to amend references of 
        gilsonite to asphaltite

    H.R. 7004 would amend the Mineral Leasing Act (MLA) to replace the 
term ``gilsonite'' with ``asphaltite.'' The MLA identifies gilsonite as 
a leasable mineral, but it does not contain any references to 
asphaltite. The Department's general understanding is that the term 
asphaltite can be considered a more inclusive term for all vein-type 
solid hydrocarbons, which includes gilsonite. The proposed change to 
the MLA would not alter how these types of hydrocarbons would be 
leased. We note that the BLM would need to amend its regulations at 43 
C.F.R. Parts 3000, 3140, and 3500 to reflect this change in 
terminology. While the Department does not object to H.R. 7004, we 
would welcome the opportunity to work with the Sponsor and the 
Subcommittee to include a definition for the term ``asphaltite'' in 
order to minimize the potential for confusion regarding the intended 
reach of the change in terminology.
Conclusion

    Thank you for the opportunity to testify on these bills.

                                 ______
                                 

       Questions Submitted for the Record to Dr. Steven Feldgus,
Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Land and Minerals Management, 
                       Department of the Interior

Dr. Feldgus did not submit responses to the Committee by the 
appropriate deadline for inclusion in the printed record.

             Questions Submitted by Representative Lamborn

    Question 1. Dr. Feldgus, mineral mining was added to the FAST-41 
only a few years ago, have there been any concerns that mining 
companies have been taking advantage of this acceleration process 
outside of the intent of the law? I don't understand when mines that 
are not even running yet are having these expedited opportunities 
stripped away.

    Question 2. The Administration has said that they are prioritizing 
national defense and energy security priorities, and I also agree with 
this sentiment, it is what much of my time in Congress has worked hard 
to protect. Dr. Feldgus, would you concur that many of the green 
energies the Administration is prioritizing uses some of these hardrock 
minerals, such as Nickle and Copper use in electric vehicles? I believe 
these policies just seem contradictory to what the Biden administration 
is saying their priorities for national security, when these policy 
decisions are being made behind closed doors that undermine an all of 
the above approach to the energy sector. Additionally, the Natural 
Security issues regarding domestic mining vs the chokehold that China 
has on all mining and mineral refinement is very concerning to me.

             Questions Submitted by Representative DelBene

    Question 1. What have been the barriers to full implementation of 
the National Landslide Preparedness Act to date?

    Question 2. What are the near-term priorities the Department of the 
Interior is working on with respect to implementation of the Act, and 
how will they be affected if the Act expires?

                                 ______
                                 

    Ms. Ocasio-Cortez [presiding]. I thank the witness for his 
testimony.
    Our next witness is Mr. Rich Haddock. He is the Senior 
Advisor for Barrick Gold, and is stationed in Bountiful, Utah.
    Mr. Haddock, you are now recognized for 5 minutes.

     STATEMENT OF RICH HADDOCK, SENIOR ADVISOR, BARRICK 
            GOLD CORPORATION, BOUNTIFUL, UTAH

    Mr. Haddock. Chairman Stauber, Ranking Member Ocasio-
Cortez, and Ranking Member Grijalva, thank you for holding this 
hearing today and inviting me to testify. I appreciate the 
opportunity to testify in support of H.R. 2925 and also in 
support of H.R. 6862. And I thank Representative Lamborn and 
Representatives Amodei and Peltola for their leadership on 
these bills.
    The Ninth Circuit decision in Rosemont and its progeny have 
added meaningless permitting steps, created uncertainty and 
delay, and at some sites made mine permitting unfeasible. H.R. 
2925 reverses Rosemont and restores permitting of mine plans of 
operations to its pre-Rosemont status. It changes no other 
provision or precedent in the Mining Law. It changes none of 
the myriad of environmental laws to which mining is subject.
    The advocacy that resulted in Rosemont was first reflected 
in the 1980 writings of then-Professor John Leshy. He wrote 
that to force Congress' hand to revamp the mining law, ``It 
might even be appropriate for the Interior Department and the 
courts to consciously reach the results that make the Mining 
Law unworkable.'' One way to do that is to take away the 
miners' ability to permit a mine plan that includes the 
necessary surface features of a mine, such as the waste rock 
facilities, the truck shops, the roads, the pipelines, et 
cetera.
    Surface use is supported by two long-standing concepts in 
the law. Ancillary use refers to the use of the surface of 20-
acre lode claims near your mine workings for the essential 
mining-related activities and infrastructure. Mill sites are 5-
acre claims that can be used for some ancillary facilities, but 
the land has to be non-mineral in character and, hence, usually 
further away from the mine. Eliminate these two uses, and the 
law does indeed become unworkable.
    Prior to 1997, the lack of serious issues about ancillary 
use or mill sites was reflected in regulations going back 40 
years, and in practice going back much further. But during the 
last days of the Clinton administration, then-Interior 
Solicitor John Leshy issues a novel legal opinion that a miner 
can only use one 5-acre mill site for each 20-acre lode claim, 
and then followed up with a second legal opinion that ancillary 
use could not be permitted unless the BLM first went through a 
claim validity process and proved the claimant's title was 
valid as against the United States as if it were going to be 
patented, as opposed to just being valid against rival 
claimants.
    These opinions were truly an aberrant blip in this long-
standing mining regulation and practice, but neither was used 
to block a mine. Congress stepped in and prohibited the 
application of the mill site opinion to mines then in the 
permitting process. To remove any lingering confusion, BLM 
rescinded the Leshy opinions and, in 2005 and 2008, promulgated 
regulations reiterating the long-standing interpretations. 
Those regulations are still in place.
    Litigants nevertheless used the arguments from those 
rejected opinion and challenges to mine permitting repeatedly 
and lost until Rosemont. After losing in the D.C. District 
Court, some of the Rosemont lawyers are still challenging the 
mill site regulation on appeal, using the same Leshy theories.
    Against this backdrop, the current Interior Solicitor has 
issued an opinion implementing Rosemont nationwide, not just in 
the Ninth Circuit, and respectfully, the opinion creates more 
issues for litigation and offers only unworkable solutions. The 
uncertainty and delay created by Rosemont and the Solicitor's 
Opinion need to be reversed.
    I know there have been concerns expressed about the 
potential unintended consequences in this bill. I don't agree 
that the language does that. I know the intent is not that. We 
addressed that in the Senate hearing last month, and I am happy 
to address it here today, as well, but I want you to know that 
those concerns can be resolved by the belt-and-suspenders 
approach with simple changes to the savings clause.
    Now, to H.R. 6862. It was only 4 years ago that the FPISC 
voted to add all mining to FAST-41 eligibility to limit it now 
to only specific elements. It is at odds with policy geology, 
and is the fluid definition of critical minerals. The bill is 
consistent with the Biden administration's expressed intent of 
expediting major projects and promoting the health of the 
domestic mining industry.
    On that latter point, it is important. Mining industries 
don't just instantly materialize when and just because you need 
them. All of the human expertise needs to be in place: mining 
engineers, metallurgists, geologists, environmental engineers, 
and more, and the equipment and supply chain to be able to 
respond to the evolving needs of technology and national 
security and discover and produce the minerals we need. Now, 
you can do that in part by keeping the entire mining industry 
viable without regard to the commodity through improved 
permitting.
    Thank you, and I look forward to your questions.

    [The prepared statement of Mr. Haddock follows:]
   Prepared Statement of Rich Haddock, Senior Advisor, Barrick Gold 
                              Corporation
                       on H.R. 2925 and H.R. 6862

    Chairman Stauber, Ranking Member Ocasio-Cortez, and Members of the 
Subcommittee, thank you for inviting me to appear before you on behalf 
of Barrick Gold Corporation and give testimony on H.R. 2925, the Mining 
Regulatory Clarity Act of 2023, and H.R. 6862, to amend the FAST Act. 
We are pleased to support both bills, which in different ways address 
the problem of persistent and intractable permitting delays that keep 
the domestic mining industry from moving forward to meet national 
mineral needs. H.R. 2925, introduced by Nevada Congressman Mark Amodei, 
and co-sponsored by Congresswoman Mary Peltola, would resolve severe 
permitting uncertainty and litigation delays caused by a 2019 outlier 
court decision known as the ``Rosemont'' decision. Congressman Doug 
Lamborn's H.R. 6862 would block an ill-considered proposal by the 
Federal Permitting Improvement Steering Council to keep mining 
operations from accessing Fast 41's expedited permitting tools.
    The House Natural Resources Committee and this Subcommittee have 
been leaders in investigating the reasons for permitting delays, and in 
proposing solutions, all with the goal of strengthening the United 
States' capacity to supply its own mineral needs. Your hearings have 
identified the need for expanded domestic mineral production, including 
mineral processing, so that the U.S. is not dependent on supply chains 
based in countries that may not remain reliable partners. The Committee 
has devoted significant time and attention to important permitting 
reform legislation, including Chairman Stauber's H.R. 209, the 
Permitting for Mining Needs Act of 2023, which includes the provisions 
of H.R. 2925. Barrick is grateful for your attention to these issues.

                        Barrick Gold Corporation

    Barrick is the second largest gold producing company in the world 
and biggest gold producer in the United States. Barrick has gold and 
copper mining operations and projects in 13 countries in North and 
South America, Africa, Papua New Guinea, and Saudi Arabia.
    Most of our U.S. gold production comes from Nevada where we operate 
Nevada Gold Mines LLC, a joint venture of Barrick and the Newmont 
Mining Corporation. Nevada Gold Mines is the largest gold-mining 
complex in the world, with more than 7,000 employees and 4,000 
contractors, who employ thousands more people, in Nevada and around the 
country. These jobs pay average annual wages of $94,000--higher than 
any other industry in Nevada.
    Most of Nevada Gold Mines' operations take place on unpatented 
mining claims on public lands managed by the Bureau of Land Management. 
About 85% of the land in Nevada is owned and managed by the Federal 
Government, more than any other state. Not all of this federal land in 
Nevada is open to mining exploration and development. About 22 percent 
of the federal lands in the State is withdrawn from mineral entry and 
another five percent has been proposed for withdrawal for Greater Sage 
Grouse management.
    Barrick is proud of the progress it is making globally on its 
sustainability objectives and practices. It is a process of continuous 
improvement. Of particular note in North America is our now decades-old 
dialogue with the Native American communities in northern Nevada, 
Southern Idaho and Western Utah. Our efforts have resulted in improved 
communications about a range of issues, including our future planned 
operations, processes for financially supporting community projects, 
cultural resources and cultural understanding. We have increased Native 
American employment. But I am proudest of the scholarship foundation we 
established in 2008 initially with the Western Shoshone tribes, but 
which with their generous consent has been extended to students from 
other Native American Tribes. The scholarship program provides 
financial assistance for university education and/or vocational/
technical training for any eligible student. Over $15 million has been 
donated to the foundation so far, with over 2,760 scholarships awarded. 
Graduates have moved forward to enter all walks of life. We are also 
proud of our 278 MW solar array in Nevada and work to decarbonize our 
mining operations. We are grateful for the letter of support we have 
received from the Native American tribes.
    Before retiring as Barrick's General Counsel in 2022, I worked for 
Barrick for 25 years and was an in-house lawyer in the gold mining 
industry for 30 of the 39 years I have been practicing law. I also 
served as Barrick's global Vice-President of Environment for three 
years. I continue to serve as a Senior Advisor to the company.

          H.R. 2925--The Mining Regulatory Clarity Act of 2023

    Simply stated, H.R. 2925 is absolutely necessary because of one 
court's misreading of the Mining Law, federal land management 
authorities, and regulations implementing those laws. The ``Rosemont'' 
court vacated a plan of operations for the Rosemont copper mine because 
the Forest Service failed to confirm the ``validity'' of mining claims 
before it approved the mining plan.\1\ That decision wreaked havoc on 
100+ years of Mining Law interpretation, and 40+ years of federal 
permitting and land management regulations. The additional permitting 
burden and additional uncertainty caused by Rosemont and its growing 
progeny threatens to add years of litigation delay to virtually any 
proposed mining project on federal lands in the U.S., and in the worst 
case could make some mines unfeasible. This result has to be avoided. 
It is starkly contrary to Congress' and the Biden Administration's 
expressed desire to expedite mine permitting and to build up domestic 
mineral supply chains.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Center for Biological Diversity v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
Service, 409 F. Supp. 3d 738 (D. Ariz. 2019), aff'd 33 F.3d 1202 (9th 
Cir. 2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mining Claims and Claim ``Validity'' Under the Mining Law of 1872

    The Mining Law made lands in the public domain ``free and open'' to 
mining and activities reasonably related to mining.\2\ Under the Law, a 
prospector can ``locate'' a lode mining claim on federal land.\3\ The 
prospector's right in that mining claim is a property right, 
enforceable against third parties, and subject to diminution or 
defeasance only by the ultimate title holder: the United States.\4\ 
Relying on the doctrine of pedis possessio, courts have recognized 
these property rights in unpatented mining claims for more than 100 
years. Miners can use and occupy those claims for mining operations, 
subject, of course, to federal permitting requirements. Similar Mining 
Law provisions also allow use of non-mineral land--called mill sites--
in certain circumstances.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ 30 U.S.C. Sec. 22.
    \3\ Id.
    \4\ Davis v. Nelson, 329 F.2d 840, 846 (9th Cir. 1964).
    \5\ 30 U.S.C. Sec. 42.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    However, a person cannot locate a claim under the Mining Law for 
any purpose other than mining or activities directly relating to 
mining.\6\ Such a location is a nullity, void ab initio.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \6\ U.S. v. Bagwell, 961 F.2d 1450 (9th Cir. 1992) (``good faith'' 
standard limits possession of public lands to locators exploring for 
and developing minerals as contemplated by the Mining Law of 1872); 
John D. Leshy, The Mining Law: A Study In Perpetual Motion, (1987), 62 
(``entries on the federal lands under the Mining Law must be made for 
the purpose of engaging in mineral activity, and not for something 
else.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Until 1994, prospectors could go further, obtaining fee title in 
mining claims by applying for a patent. To obtain a patent, a 
prospector had to be able to prove the claim contained a valuable 
mineral ``discovery.'' \7\ Discovery requires a showing that the 
deposit can be mined, removed and marketed at a profit. Proof of such a 
discovery established the mining claim as ``valid,'' justifying the 
issuance of a patent to a prospector. Applying for patent was never 
required; the Mining Law allows the miner to stake a claim, work it, 
and remove and sell minerals from it without ever seeking a patent. The 
important point here is that proper location and maintenance of a 
mining claim affords the claimant substantial legal rights to use the 
land for mining purposes, without regard to whether the claim has 
undergone a validity examination.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \7\ 30 U.S.C. Sec. 29; Cole v. Ralph, 252 U.S. 286 (1920).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Traditionally, claim ``validity'' as against the United States had 
to be proven only in two contexts: (1) patenting, as just described; 
and (2) withdrawal of federal lands from entry under the Mining Laws. 
The issue no longer arises in the patenting context because Congress 
imposed a moratorium on new patent applications in a 1994 
appropriations bill,\8\ and the moratorium has been extended and 
reimposed every year since, remaining in place until today.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \8\ Department of the Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations 
Act of 1995, Pub. L. No. 103-332 Sec. Sec. 112-113, 108 Stat. 2499, 
2519 (Sept. 30, 1994).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Claim validity remains relevant when the U.S. withdraws federal 
lands from mineral entry, either legislatively or administratively. 
After withdrawal, unpatented mining claims can be extinguished by the 
U.S. unless the claimant can show they contain a discovery, i.e., that 
they were ``valid'' as of the date of withdrawal.
Permitting Mines on Federal Lands

    For more than forty years, the Bureau of Land Management and U.S. 
Forest Service have managed hard rock mining on federal lands through 
permitting regulatory programs that govern mining from initial 
exploration through mine closure.\9\ These similar sets of regulations 
require that operators submit to the agency a full mine plan of 
operations for agency review. Both sets of regulations cover mineral 
activities from initial exploration through production and reclamation, 
mine closure and post-closure maintenance, compliance with 
environmental performance standards--including all federal and state 
environmental laws--and financial assurance at each and every stage of 
the process for all facilities. The agencies have characterized their 
programs as ``cradle to grave'' regulations for mining on federal 
lands.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \9\ Forest Service regulations were initially adopted in 1979 and 
are published at 36 C.F.R. Subpart 228A and BLM regulations were 
initially adopted in 1981 and are published at 43 C.F.R. Subpart 3809. 
Both sets of regulations have been revised and updated since they 
initially adopted.
    \10\ The Biden Administration's Interagency Working Group on Mining 
Laws, Regulations, and Permitting examined these regulatory programs 
and affirmed their effectiveness in the final report issued in 
September 2023: ``The U.S. has set a high standard for environmental 
regulations that apply to today's mining operations.'' IWG Report at p. 
14; ``Current mining operations occur under environmental policies and 
laws designed to manage the impact of mining on people and the 
environment. Environmental laws such as FLPMA, NEPA [and others] have 
been in place for approximately 50 years and have improved 
environmental practices associated with mining in the U.S.'' Id. at 25; 
``Current mining operations on Federal land must comply with Interior's 
and USFS's general and specific performance and environmental 
protection regulatory standards for mining operations.'' Id. at 28.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Mine plans of operations must include provisions documenting all 
manner of environmental compliance and protections, including 
management of waste rock and other mining wastes, as well as placement 
of haul roads and access roads, power lines, pipelines, truck shops, 
and other mining-related infrastructure. Mining operations require 
significant land near the mine site upon which to conduct these mining 
operations. Some of these facilities can be located on mill sites, but 
the majority of them are located on mining claims. Throughout the long 
history of the Mining Law, miners put together land packages of lode 
claims and mill sites as made sense based on the geology and to support 
the operations necessary to for the mine. Pre-Rosemont the law was 
clear that a miner could use the surface of any lode claim for mining 
purposes--prospecting, mining, or processing operations, and uses 
reasonably incident thereto. Though these latter uses are commonly 
referred to as ``ancillary;'' it is a misnomer: without these crucial 
facilities, mining cannot happen.
    Because claim validity is not and never has been a prerequisite to 
conducting mining activities on mining claims, BLM and Forest Service 
land management regulations do not require operators to submit 
information relating to mining claim status as part of a plan of 
operations, and the agencies have never restricted their review of the 
mine plan facilities to locations only on ``valid'' mining claims, or 
even on claims. Both BLM and Forest Service regulations define mining 
operations to include all lands of any type that are necessary to 
implement the approved mine plan.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \11\ 43 C.F.R. Sec. 3809.5; 36 C.F.R. Sec. 228.3(a). Of course, as 
a practical matter, operators stake claims on all lands included in a 
proposed plan of operations to hold those claims against third parties.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Origins of the ``Rosemont'' Theory
    The Rosemont decision that threatens to upset these norms has its 
roots in the writings of Mining Law critics, who have sought 
legislative Mining Law reform since the 1980s. Apparently frustrated 
with the inability to gain traction for their preferred solution in 
Congress, a law professor named John Leshy wrote in 1987: ``it might 
even be appropriate for the Interior Department and the courts to 
consciously reach results that make [the Mining Law] unworkable.'' \12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \12\ John D. Leshy, Reforming the Mining Law: Problems and 
Prospects, 9 Pub. L. L. Review, 1, 11 (1988) and John D. Leshy, The 
Mining Law: A Study in Perpetual Motion, 282 (1987).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Professor Leshy later became Interior Solicitor Leshy in the 
Clinton Administration. His work as Solicitor included two Solicitor's 
opinions designed to implement the ideas he wrote about in the 1980s. 
One, the so-called ``Ancillary Use'' Opinion, concluded a miner could 
not use the surface of a lode claim for activities that support mining 
unless that claim was legally ``valid,'' using that legal term as 
explained above.\13\ The other opinion, referred to as the ``Mill 
Site'' Opinion, concluded that miners could locate only one 5-acre mill 
site for each 20-acre mining claim.\14\ These opinions, which ignored 
BLM regulations and decades of practice and precedent under both the 
Mining Law and the Federal Land Policy Management Act (``FLPMA''), 
became the blueprint for mining law opponents in attacking the Mining 
Law administratively and in the courts for the next three decades. 
Although Solicitors' opinions have no precedential value, they are 
binding on the Department of Interior while they remain in force, and 
these opinions clearly were intended to disrupt the administration of 
rights under the Mining Law. As Professor Leshy suggested a decade 
before, these legal opinions and related rulemakings were designed to 
make the Mining Law unworkable, presumably so that Congress would have 
to take up Mining Law reform as he envisioned it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \13\ Department of Interior, Solicitor's Opinion M-37004, Use of 
Mining Claims for Purposes Ancillary to Mineral Extraction (Jan. 18, 
2001).
    \14\ Department of Interior, Opinion M-36988, Limitations on 
Patenting Millsites Under the Mining Law of 1872, (1997).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Congress did react, but perhaps not in the way Solicitor Leshy 
expected. In 1999, Congress prohibited the application of the Mill Site 
Opinion to any mine plan of operations that had been submitted for 
approval prior to issuance of the Opinion.\15\ Subsequent 
administrations, Republican and Democratic, rejected both Leshy 
Opinions and restored in rulemakings and policy statements the 
permitting rules that were in place for decades before Solicitor Leshy 
set out to disrupt them.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \15\ Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2000, Pub. L. No. 106-31, 
Sec. 3006, 113 Stat. 57.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Leshy opinions represent a short blip in an otherwise 
uninterrupted decades-long record of interpreting and administering the 
Mining Law and permitting mining operations on Federal lands. Even 
though the Department of Interior rejected the Leshy opinion and 
returned to its prior reading of law and regulations, anti-mining 
litigants have continued to press Leshy's legal arguments--in lawsuit 
after lawsuit--to challenge the approval by BLM and the Forest Service 
of numerous mine plans. Those efforts failed repeatedly and 
consistently, both in administrative and judicial appeals, until 2019, 
when mining opponents challenged the Rosemont copper mine in the 
Federal District Court for the District of Arizona.
The Rosemont Decision

    The Rosemont copper mine was a typical large, open pit copper mine 
proposed to be located on National Forest lands in Arizona. The open 
pit was on a mix of private land and unpatented mining claims. The 
Forest Service reviewed the proposed plan under its mining regulations 
at 36 C.F.R. pt. 228 and prepared an extensive environmental impact 
statement (``EIS''). The EIS evaluated five different configurations 
for the storage of waste rock and tailings. In the decision approving 
the plan, the Forest Service selected a particular alternative that had 
the smallest disturbance footprint and avoided an important cultural 
site. The Forest Service also approved a reclamation plan that would 
require that the waste rock and tailings storage areas be reclaimed and 
returned to the prior land uses--wildlife habitat and grazing--after 
mining was concluded. Consistent with practice since the inception of 
the Mining Law, the Forest Service did not investigate the status of 
any of the mining claims in the plan of operations and did not 
constrain its selection of the preferred alternative based on mining 
claim status. The Forest Service considered alternative locations for 
the waste rock and tailings without regard for mining claim boundaries 
or status.
    Mining opponents challenged the Forest Service's approval of the 
Rosemont plan of operation on numerous grounds, including that the 
Forest Service inappropriately approved the placement of waste rock and 
tailings on unpatented mining claims whose ``validity'' had not been 
established; in other words, an updated version of the long-abandoned 
Leshy Ancillary Use Opinion. After many defeats before administrative 
law judges and the courts, for the first time, a federal court agreed. 
The Rosemont court vacated the plan of operations.
    The Forest Service and the Rosemont operator appealed to the Ninth 
Circuit Court of Appeals. Two judges in the three-judge panel affirmed 
the lower court's decision, but on different reasoning. A third judge 
dissented, finding that the Forest Service properly reviewed the mining 
plan of operations under its surface management regulations.
Rosemont Fallout

    The 9th Circuit Rosemont majority's holding is narrow but 
nevertheless problematic, based as it is on an incorrect reading of the 
agency administrative record. However, of more concern is the 
majority's long discourse on the Mining Law. Though much of that 
narrative is unnecessary dicta to the court's holding, it is taking 
hold in lower courts and at the Department of Interior, imposing new 
requirements and leaving mining regulation on federal lands incredibly 
muddled. Further litigation over the meaning of Rosemont is guaranteed 
unless Congress acts to remedy the problem.
The Thacker Pass Litigation

    The myriad problems unleashed by the Rosemont cases are already on 
display. In a 2023 decision, the United States District Court for the 
District of Nevada applied Rosemont in a case challenging BLM's 
approval of the Thacker Pass lithium mine in northern Nevada. The judge 
did not vacate the plan approval, but she directed BLM to inquire into 
the validity of certain mining claims on which the company planned to 
deposit tailings and waste rock.\16\ Opponents appealed that decision 
to the 9th Circuit. During the appeal, mining opponents argued that the 
Thacker Pass claims in question must be subjected to a detailed 
validity determination akin to the mineral examination required to 
support a patent application. The appeals court denied the appeal, 
concluding that the district court's remand without vacatur was 
appropriate, and further finding appellants' validity argument to be 
premature, ruling that those arguments properly should be raised at the 
district court level first. To date the Thacker Pass opponents have not 
returned to the Nevada district court, but under the general federal 
statute of limitations, they have six years to do so. This is just one 
of many legal questions raised but not resolved by the Rosemont 
decision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \16\ Bartell Ranch v. McCullough, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19280 (D. 
Nev. 2023) (the ``Thacker Pass'' case).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Mount Hope Mine Litigation

    A more recent Nevada case illustrates even more dramatically the 
absurd impacts of Rosemont in the 9th Circuit. A Nevada Federal 
District Court relied on Rosemont to vacate BLM's approval of the 
proposed Mount Hope molybdenum mine.\17\ The Mount Hope molybdenum mine 
has been seeking BLM approval for almost two decades. That deposit is 
considered one of the largest and highest-grade molybdenum deposits in 
the world.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \17\ Great Basin Resource Watch v. Dep't of the Interior, 2023 WL 
2744682 (D. Nev. 2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The history of the Mount Hope Mine is a case study in permitting 
delays that can be caused by endless litigation. The proposed plan of 
operations for the Mount Hope Mine was originally submitted to BLM in 
June 2006. The notice of intent to prepare an EIS was published in the 
Federal Register in March 2007. The Draft EIS was made available for 
public comment in December 2011, and the final EIS was published in 
October 2012. The Record of Decision approving the project was issued 
one month later.
    BLM's decision approving the Mount Hope Mine was challenged by 
Great Basin Resource Watch and the Western Shoshone Defense Project. 
The Federal District Court for the District of Nevada upheld BLM's 
decision in July 2014. Notably, in that appeal, the plaintiffs argued 
that BLM erred when it did not confirm the validity of the Mount Hope 
mining claims before approving the plan of operations--the Rosemont 
argument. Consistent with every other decision on mining opponents' 
ancillary use attacks up to that time, the Nevada court applied 
established precedent and rejected the argument, finding that the 
Mining Law did not require that BLM inquire into claim validity.
    Plaintiffs appealed the 2014 decision to the Ninth Circuit Court of 
Appeals raising several environmental claims, but they did not pursue 
the claim validity argument. In December 2016, the 9th Circuit affirmed 
most of BLM's decision, but remanded the project back to the agency for 
additional environmental analysis on two air quality issues, and asked 
BLM to clarify the legal status of certain springs. BLM completed that 
work and published a Draft Supplemental EIS (``SEIS'') for public 
review in February 2019, and a final SEIS in July 2019. The Record of 
Decision approving the project was reinstated the following month. The 
same plaintiffs challenged BLM's decision again. In April, 2023, 
following briefing on the impact of the new Rosemont decision, the same 
federal judge who approved the project nine years earlier, vacated the 
decision and sent the project back to BLM to evaluate the project's 
mining claims in light of the Rosemont decision. Eighteen years after 
Mount Hope submitted its plan of operations, and two decisions 
approving the mine plan, the project remains in limbo.
    The Thacker Pass and Mount Hope Mine litigation illustrate just how 
disruptive and counterproductive the Rosemont decision has proven to 
be, and more litigation is certain. Both cases demonstrate that mining 
opponents' efforts to pursue ``results that make [the Mining Law] 
unworkable'' are bearing fruit. The resulting uncertainty is 
intolerable for a country that says that it wants to encourage a 
domestic mining industry. H.R. 2925 is absolutely necessary to fix the 
Rosemont mess.
The Department of Interior May 2023 Solicitor's Opinion

    In response to Rosemont, the Solicitor of the Department of 
Interior issued an opinion in May 2023,\18\ binding on the agency, that 
extended the Rosemont court's strained reading of the Mining Law beyond 
the 9th Circuit and applied it to BLM's decision-making nationwide. The 
Opinion ignored the explicit text of the 3809 regulations and BLM's 
application of those regulations over the past 40 years. Interior's 
position is that the Solicitor's Opinion, and perhaps some subsequent 
guidance that has not yet been made public, can resolve the practical 
problems created by the Rosemont decision, obviating the need for a 
legislative solution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \18\ Department of the Interior, Office of the M 37077, Use of 
Mining Claims for Mine Waste Deposition, and Rescission of M-37012 and 
M-37057, May 16, 2023.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Barrick does not agree. Despite Interior's efforts to resolve the 
many questions raised by Rosemont, the Solicitor's Opinion creates more 
uncertainty, guarantees further legal challenges to mining projects, 
and undermines the stated policy of this administration and a 
bipartisan majority of this Congress to encourage domestic mineral 
exploration and production. Most importantly, the Solicitor's Opinion 
ensures that mine projects on Federal land will face more permitting 
hurdles and delays.
    The Solicitor's Opinion directs BLM not to approve ``plans of 
operations where the operator proposes to place significant waste or 
tailings facilities on mining claims where BLM's record lacks evidence 
of the discovery of valuable mineral deposits underlying those 
facilities.'' The Opinion does not advise how BLM should proceed where 
evidence of validity does not exist. The agency is given no guidance 
but to reject the proposed plan of operations. In such circumstances, 
the burden shifts back on to the operators to: 1) submit additional 
evidence, of the type in a ``mineral potential report;'' 2) ``re-site 
the ancillary uses on mill sites (as appropriate);'' 3) seek a land use 
authorization under other BLM regulations (i.e., a different permit); 
or 4) seek to acquire title to the needed land through a land exchange 
or sale.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \19\ Solicitor's Opinion at 5-6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Opinion effectively rewrites the 3809 regulations without any 
public notice or comment. The current regulations and 40 years of 
practice are dismissed in a footnote where the Solicitor, giving the 
``Leshy blip'' more weight than its due, ``acknowledges that the 
Department's reading of the Mining Law has not remained static in the 
last several decades, and that BLM may have approved mining plans that, 
at least in part, are not strictly consistent with this memorandum.'' 
\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \20\ Solicitor's Opinion at p. 9, n.7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    This Subcommittee should not assume that the new Solicitor's 
Opinion will more effectively survive legal challenges than other prior 
opinions. For example, the majority opinion in the Rosemont case at the 
9th Circuit swept aside in two sentences a 2020 Solicitor's Opinion 
that comprehensively evaluated the Mining Law and BLM practice and 
interpretation, according the Opinion no deference because ``the 
Solicitor has taken inconsistent positions'' on the issue.\21\ The new 
Opinion is simply another inconsistent position that courts may well 
ignore.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \21\ Center for Biological Diversity, 33 F.4th at 1216.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Rosemont decision left many questions unanswered--targets for 
further legal challenges. The Solicitor's Opinion attempts to limit the 
Rosemont decision to its facts: an inquiry into claim validity is 
necessary only where an operator proposes to permanently occupy land 
with significant waste rock or tailings facilities. But mining 
opponents have already challenged that attempt to limit Rosemont 
impacts.
    In the Thacker Pass litigation, for example, some plaintiffs argued 
that the Rosemont decision applied to every facility in the plan of 
operations, not just large ``permanent'' features as suggested by the 
Solicitor's Opinion. If this argument were adopted by courts, 
pipelines, transmission lines, roads, stockpiles, processing 
facilities, and all other such uses could be sited only on valid mining 
claims. The Thacker Pass appeals court refused to entertain these 
arguments, but only because plaintiffs first raised them on appeal. 
This expansive interpretation of Rosemont remains on the table for 
further litigation.
    The same Thacker Pass litigants complained to the 9th Circuit that 
BLM must conduct a full claim validity examination, like those that 
used to be conducted for patent applications, for each claim included 
in a plan of operations, and that the Nevada District Court's decision 
instructing BLM to search for evidence of validity in its record is 
inconsistent with the 9th Circuit's Rosemont ruling. As noted above, 
the 9th Circuit concluded that such an argument should be made in the 
first instance at the court below. Whether Thacker Pass opponents 
eventually challenge the BLM's validity review remains to be seen, but 
it is certain that the issue will be litigated, whether in Thacker Pass 
or elsewhere.
    Thus, despite the Department of Interior's assurances, the 
Solicitor's Opinion has resolved nothing. Mining opponents are 
challenging its reasoning and limits, and courts are not likely to be 
bound or even persuaded by the Opinion. The Opinion does not obviate 
the need for H.R. 2925.
    The alternatives suggested by the Solicitor's Opinion will also 
result in further uncertainties and delays, frustrating rather than 
speeding mine approvals. The BLM's 3809 regulatory program was designed 
to review mining operations holistically. Requiring different permits 
and/or use authorizations--not to mention land sales or exchanges--for 
individual mine features will result in an absurd fragmenting of the 
permitting process, which can only mean more complexity, permitting 
delay, uncertainty, and metastasizing grounds for litigation. Under 
BLM's 3809 regulations, mine plans are approved if the BLM finds that 
those plans include adequate measures to prevent ``unnecessary or undue 
degradation,'' the standard imposed by FLPMA and defined in the 
regulations. Rights-of-way and other permits are intended for different 
kinds of projects, such as discrete roads, and have different 
standards; they afford BLM more discretion in making decisions, and 
litigants more opportunities to challenge. Rosemont--and Interior's 
attempt to address it--requires mine proponents to engage in a guessing 
game to determine which facilities should be permitted under which 
regulations. Issuing special use permits or rights-of-way for mining 
facilities, rather than permitting them through the mining-specific 
regulations governing plans of operations (as intended under FLPMA and 
done for decades) is a recipe for gridlock.
Criticism of H.R. 2925

    I have reviewed letters and statements--provided to this 
Subcommittee and also submitted to the Senate Subcommittee on Public 
Lands, Forests, and Mining--criticizing H.R. 2925 (and its Senate 
companion S. 1281) and predicting dire consequences, including mines of 
unlimited size, unlimited land grabs, location of claims for non-mining 
purposes, and mining in National Parks and wilderness areas. These 
criticisms are misplaced. H.R. 2925 is a straightforward fix to a mine 
permitting problem created by a court decision that is an outlier in 
the jurisprudence. It simply restores the status quo that existed for 
decades before the Rosemont decision. It does not replace the Mining 
Law with a new framework. Rather it is a surgical amendment that 
restores the original intent of the Mining Law and keeps all other 
provisions and their relationship with other statutes, like FLPMA, 
intact. The opposition's arguments are all based on the false premise 
that Rosemont was always the law and that it somehow was the sole 
governing principle that prevented their list of problems. H.R. 2925's 
purpose is to cut off the harmful and counterproductive litigation over 
the meaning and extent of Rosemont, which, as I have illustrated above, 
is already underway. Nothing more, nothing less.
    Every mine plan approval from the BLM or the Forest Service 
includes language disclaiming any decision on mining claim validity, 
emphasizing the long-established distinction between mining claims and 
rights, as determined by the Mining Law, and mine permitting as 
authorized and required by Interior and Forest Service land management 
statutes and rules. The definition of ``operations'' in H.R. 2925 
tracks the regulatory definitions in the BLM and Forest Service 
regulations.
    Arguments that H.R. 2925 will somehow expand mining into parks and 
other withdrawn areas are simply incorrect. Areas that are withdrawn 
from the operation of the mining laws--of which parks and wilderness 
areas are only two examples--remain unaffected by H.R. 2925 and subject 
to separate laws and regulations. As I explained at the beginning of 
this testimony, when land is withdrawn from mineral entry, either 
legislatively or administratively, existing mining claims can be 
extinguished by the United States, except for claims that were 
``valid'' on the date of withdrawal.\22\ Any activity of any kind on 
such surviving valid claims would be subject to special rules that are 
more stringent and more restrictive than the rules that govern mining 
on lands open to mineral entry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \22\ Lara v. Sec'y of the Interior, 820 F.2d 1535, 1537 (9th Cir. 
1987) (``[a] mining claimant has a right to possession [on withdrawn 
lands] only if he has made a mineral discovery on the claim.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    H.R. 2925 in no way affects--indeed it cannot affect--these 
surviving valid claims. The whole purpose of H.R. 2925 is to make clear 
the understanding of the law that existed prior to Rosemont: that 
property rights exist in mining claims even before a mineral discovery 
is made, and that claim validity need not be established before 
unpatented mining claims are used for mine-related activities in 
approved plans of operations. In contrast, any mining claim within a 
withdrawn area persists only because it is valid, i.e., that its owner 
has been able to establish a mineral discovery. Any other claim can be 
contested and extinguished by the United States. Critics make the same 
mistake as the Rosemont court, interpreting rights under the Mining Law 
as an ``all or nothing'' approach. In fact, as the Department of 
Interior and federal courts have recognized since 1872, the Mining Law 
offers a range of rights: the right to explore open land, the right to 
exclude rival claimants from properly located claims, the right to use 
lands to support mining, and, until 1994, the right to patent claims 
with a proven discovery of valuable minerals. Without the discovery, 
these rights fall short of the ``valid existing right'' historically 
needed to maintain possession of claims in withdrawn areas.
    Arguments that H.R. 2925 will somehow make a mine's footprint 
bigger are likewise incorrect. The miner has a huge economic incentive 
to minimize the size of its footprint. In the permitting process BLM 
will evaluate the location of all features, particularly the large 
features like waste rock dumps and tailings, and choose an alternative 
that meets the purpose and need of the project, and that is 
environmentally preferable. Size of waste rock dumps and tailings and 
their location is always a factor the BLM and the Forest Service 
consider when they evaluate a proposed mining plan under NEPA and their 
mining regulations.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \23\ BLM regulations require that an operator ``must avoid 
unnecessary impacts and facilitate reclamation by following a 
reasonable and customary mineral exploration, development, mining and 
reclamation sequence.'' 43 C.F.R. 3809.420(a)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Arguments that claims will now be used for non-mining purposes, are 
likewise spurious. Nothing in H.R. 2925 purports to change the existing 
law that a mining claim located for a purpose other than exploration 
and mining purposes is void ab initio. Rather the language is clear, 
tied back to the pre-Rosemont law and interpretation, that the surface 
of a lode claim can only be used for legitimate mining related purposes 
in an approved mining plan.
    In summary, I believe that the intent and language of H.R. 2925 are 
simple and clear, but acknowledge the concerns that have been 
expressed. The Committee can easily resolve any such concerns with a 
belt and braces approach by expanding the savings clause in section 3 
of the bill to make clear that H.R. 2925 does not create, change, or 
expand the rights associated with any mining claim in an area that has 
been withdrawn or is withdrawn in the future.

                               H.R. 6862

    On September 22, 2023, the Federal Permitting Improvement Steering 
Council (``FPISC'') proposed to amend its existing regulations to limit 
application of the FAST-41 permitting process to projects that produce 
or process ``critical minerals,'' as defined by the U.S. Geological 
Survey.\24\ Congressman Lamborn's bill, H.R. 6862, would block this 
unjustified and indefensible step. We support H.R. 6862.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \24\ Revising the Scope of the Mining Sector of Project That Are 
Eligible for Coverage Under Title 41 of the Fixing America's Surface 
Transportation Act, 88 Fed. Reg. 65350 (September 22, 2023)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The FPISC's proposal is inconsistent with the Biden 
Administration's expressed interest in expediting permitting of major 
projects and promoting the growth of the domestic mining industry. It 
was only four years ago that the FPISC voted to add mining to FAST 41 
eligibility, without limiting access to projects that involve critical 
minerals. Since then, only a handful of mining projects have sought 
FAST-41 coverage.\25\ Meanwhile, mining projects are compatible with 
the purposes of FAST-41 to expedite permitting of major infrastructure 
projects, and especially with FAST-41's ``objective'' criteria: (1) the 
project is subject to NEPA review; (2) the project is likely to require 
a total investment of $200 million or more; and (3) the project does 
not qualify for abbreviated review under any other law.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \25\ 88 Fed. Reg. at 65352-53.
    \26\ 88 Fed. Reg. at 65351.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The FPISC offers no data that would justify limiting access for the 
mining industry to FAST-41 benefits. Few mining companies have asked to 
participate in FAST-41; there is no evidence that the process is being 
abused, or that FAST-41 is being burdened by too many requests for 
inclusion. There is simply no rational basis for the proposal.
    Indeed, by limiting the type of mining projects eligible for the 
FAST-41 permitting process to those involving critical minerals 
identified by the USGS, the Biden administration would be barring 
projects to recover minerals identified on the Department of Defense's 
Strategic and Critical Materials List and the Department of Energy's 
Critical Materials List. Differentiating these high-priority minerals 
from those listed by USGS is the definition of arbitrary, and is 
inconsistent with the Administration's national defense and energy 
security priorities. H.R. 6862 would prevent this exercise of bad 
policy.
    In addition to opposition from the National Mining Association, 
Barrick, and others in the mining industry, the FPISC proposal is 
opposed by the National Infrastructure Alliance--a coalition of leading 
construction unions--and by a large contingent of bipartisan and 
bicameral Members of Congress. Further, during consideration of H.R. 
4664, the FY2024 Financial Services and General Government 
Appropriations Act before the full House of Representatives, an 
amendment offered by Rep. Blake Moore (R-Utah)--which is nearly 
identical to H.R. 6862--was adopted unanimously by voice vote without 
opposition.

                                 *****

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                ***
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                ***
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


                                ***
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                 __
                                 

  Questions Submitted for the Record to Rich Haddock, Senior Advisor, 
                        Barrick Gold Corporation

             Questions Submitted by Representative Stauber

    Question 1. Dr. Feldgus was asked if somebody located a mining 
claim and just after it was included in a national park, could the 
locator keep the claim from becoming part of the National Park? What 
would be the legal status of the claim, under existing law, and under 
H.R. 2925?

    Answer. Dr. Feldgus answered that the claimant in this 
hypothethical would have ``the right to use and occupy the claim.'' His 
answer is incorrect, under existing law, or pursuant to H.R. 2925. The 
opportunistic claim locator in this hypothetical could not keep her 
claim from being included in the newly created national park. Federal 
lands within national parks are withdrawn from location under the 
mining laws. See 43 C.F.R. Sec. 3811.2-2 (``The Mining in the Parks Act 
. . . effectively withdrew all National Parks and Monuments from 
location and entry'' under the Mining Law). The withdrawal is subject 
only to ``valid existing rights.'' Id. This means that to keep the 
claim located just before the park was established, the claimant would 
have to prove that the claim was ``valid,'' i.e., that she had 
discovered a valuable mineral on her mining claim as of the date of the 
Park's creation. Proving a mineral discovery requires exploration and 
voluminous data. Typically, that takes years of work, and millions of 
dollars of investment. It would be impossible to prove a mineral 
discovery on a claim located just before the creation of a national 
park, because there would be little or no exploration data to support 
it. The claim would be void. BLM could extinguish it.
    The claim described in this hypothetical also would be void if H.R. 
2925 were enacted. The Mining Regulatory Clarity Act changes nothing 
about how such a claim would be regarded under federal mining laws, or 
laws governing management of national parks. Indeed, H.R. 2925 has 
nothing to do with claim location or the status of claims in areas 
withdrawn from entry under the mining laws. All it does is re-establish 
the long-standing pre-Rosemont law that if you file a plan of 
operations with BLM to build a mine, you can use the surface of any of 
your claims for mining-related purposes only without having to prove 
the validity of that claim as against the United States.
    H.R. 2925's savings clause, especially as amended during the 
markup, places this matter beyond dispute. That language now provides 
(in relevant part): ``Nothing in this subsection--(D) limits the right 
of the Federal Government to regulate mining and mining-related 
activities (including requiring claim validity examinations to 
establish the discovery of a valuable mineral deposit) in areas 
withdrawn from mining . . . . ; or (E) restores any right (including a 
right of entry, use, or occupancy, or right to conduct operations) of a 
claimant that existed prior to the date that the lands were closed to 
or withdrawn from location under the general mining laws and that has 
been extinguished by such closure or withdrawal.''

    Further, any ``valid'' claims that do survive the creation of the 
national park would be governed by The Mining in the Parks Act, 54 
U.S.C. 100732, and regulations promulgated by the National Park Service 
and codified at 36 C.F.R. Part 9. Those regulations impose additional 
procedural and substantive requirements on all mining claims in 
national parks. This means that a locator may be able to prove that his 
claim is ``valid'' and keep possession of it, but he cannot keep the 
claim from becoming part of the new national park. Further, even 
patented claims--those claims for which title has transferred from the 
U.S. to the claimant--are subject to The Mining in the Parks Act. NPS 
regulations implementing the Mining in the Parks Act ``control 
activities within units of the National Park System resulting from the 
exercise of valid existing mineral rights on patented or unpatented 
claims . . . .'' 36 C.F.R. Sec. 9.1 (emphasis added). In other words, 
the Act regulates activity on all land--private and public--within the 
boundaries of a national park. The Park Service rules provide:

        The purpose of these regulations is to insure that such 
        activities are conducted in a manner consistent with the 
        purposes for which the National Park System and each unit 
        thereof were created, to prevent or minimize damage to the 
        environment or other resource values, and to insure that the 
        pristine beauty of the units is preserved for the benefit of 
        present and future generations. These regulations apply to all 
        operations, as defined herein, conducted within the boundaries 
        of any unit of the National Park System.

Id. (emphasis added).

    The legal status of mining claims within national park boundaries 
is not affected in any way by H.R. 2925.

    Question 2. Dr. Feldgus was also asked if a nuisance claim were 
filed to interfere with a proposed solar project, wind project, or 
transmission line, could those projects be stopped or delayed under 
H.R. 2925 by the nuisance claim? Please explain the status of nuisance 
claims in this hypothetical, under existing law, and under H.R. 2925?

    Answer. H.R. 2925 does not change the government's authority or 
ability to manage federal lands for solar projects, wind projects, 
transmission lines, or the legal status of mining claims as they may 
relate to these projects. Nuisance claims are already addressed under 
existing law, and H.R. 2925 would not make it easier or more difficult 
to establish a nuisance claim, or make it easier or more difficult for 
BLM to extinguish the nuisance claim. BLM regulations and H.R. 2925 
define ``occupancy'' to require activities that are ``reasonably 
incident'' to prospecting, exploring, mining or beneficiating locatable 
minerals, and calculated to lead to the extraction and beneficiation of 
minerals. See 43 C.F.R. Sec. 3715.2 see also p. 5 below. Nuisance 
claims cannot meet these requirements. Further, occupancy cannot occur 
until the miner submits a notice or plan of operations to BLM. 43 
C.F.R. Sec. Sec. 3715.3-1-.3-6. H.R. 2925 does not invalidate or amend 
these regulations. Occupancy in contravention of these requirements 
would violate existing law, and the law as amended by H.R. 2925. Any 
claim that is not located in a good faith effort to develop a mine is 
void ab initio. U.S. v. Zimmer, 81 IBLA 41, 43 (1984). Where claims are 
located before lands are segregated or withdrawn, BLM can contest and 
extinguish such claims unless the claimant can prove he has discovered 
a valuable mineral on the claims. Nuisance claimants will not be able 
to make this showing.
Wind and Solar Projects
    BLM has taken specific action to address concerns about potential 
conflicts between mining claims and renewable energy projects. In 2013, 
BLM adopted rules allowing it to temporarily ``segregate'' lands 
included in a pending solar or wind energy generation right-of-way 
application. 78 Fed. Reg. 25204 (April 30, 2013) (regulations codified 
at 43 C.F.R. Part 2091). The preamble to the final rule noted that 
while such ``situations are not common,'' the rule would prevent 
claimants from placing encumbrances on public land that might delay 
processing of right-of-way applications, so that no claims may be 
located. BLM has segregated hundreds of thousands of acres for these 
purposes. See, e.g., 89 Fed. Reg. 7408 (Feb. 2, 2024) (Notice to 
Segregate Lands from Mineral Entry for the Proposed Libra Project in 
Mineral County, Nevada).
    43 C.F.R. Sec. 2804.25(f) also authorizes BLM to segregate such 
lands ``if necessary for the orderly administration of the public 
lands.'' ``Segregation'' under these rules has the same effect as a 
withdrawal: it means that the lands segregated cannot be appropriated 
under the public land laws, including the Mining Law.\1\ Other existing 
regulations allow BLM to withdraw lands in connection with various 
types of land disposals, including land sales, land exchanges, and 
transfers of lands to local governments and other entities. 43 C.F.R. 
Part 2300.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ BLM explained the distinction between segregations and 
withdrawals in the 2013 final rule preamble: ``Segregations under this 
rule are not withdrawals. Temporary segregations are different from 
withdrawals in that segregations prevent certain uses of public lands 
for a short period of time, not to exceed four years for any type of 
segregation, while withdrawals are generally for longer terms 
(generally 20 years) and must be approved by an Assistant Secretary or 
a higher ranked position within the Department.'' 83 Fed. Reg. at 
25209.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Transmission Lines
    Transmission lines--as a linear overhead feature--present a 
different management issue for BLM, but one that would not be affected 
in any way by H.R. 2925. Rights of way for transmission lines can be, 
and frequently are, granted to third parties over mining claims. BLM 
may authorize rights of way over the surface of any claims subject to 
``valid existing rights.'' 43 C.F.R. Sec. 2805.14. Transmission lines 
and mining operations are compatible uses. Transmission lines may need 
to be moved if mineral deposits are identified and developed in an 
existing right-of-way. The cost of moving the transmission line would 
be borne by the mining claimant. We know of one gold mining project 
where transmission lines were moved at the miner's expense to 
facilitate mineral development.
    With this context, it becomes clear that the question posed to Dr. 
Feldgus in the hearing on January 31 was not based on situations that 
arise frequently in the real world. And Dr. Feldgus' response--that 
nuisance claims could pose a real risk to renewable energy and 
transmission projects--reveals a lack of knowledge about his agency's 
experience with nuisance claims.
    As documented above, BLM has concluded that conflicts between 
mining claims and renewable energy projects ``are not common,'' but BLM 
nonetheless has addressed how it will deal with such conflicts. And 
transmission lines and mining claims clearly are compatible uses in the 
vast majority of cases. A nuisance claimant could not block a right-of-
way grant for a transmission line. Additionally, the federal government 
knows for the most part where transmission lines are likely to be 
sited. Most of the major transmission line corridors on public and 
other federal lands in the western United States were designated by the 
government in 2009 pursuant to Section 368 of the Energy Policy Act of 
2005. 42 U.S.C. Sec. 15926. BLM, in consultation with other federal 
agencies, has recently conducted a review of these energy corridors and 
is in the process of amending resource management plans and preparing 
an environmental impact statement evaluating adjustments to the 
corridors. 88 Fed. Reg. 83959 (December 1, 2023).\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ More information about the corridors and the ongoing planning 
effort is available at BLM's landing page for the ``West-Wide Energy 
Corridor. See https://corridoreis.anl.gov/, last visited on February 
15, 2024.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    H.R. 2925 grants no new rights to a mining claimant. It restores 
rights by reversing the Rosemont decision, no more and no less.

    Question 3. Dr. Feldgus was also asked if the holder of a group of 
nuisance claims could extract large sums of money from the federal 
government. Please explain the status of nuisance claims, under 
existing law, and under H.R. 2925?

    Answer. An opportunist could locate mining claims under existing 
law and attempt to extract a payout from the U.S. to relinquish them, 
but the attempt would not be successful. The law as amended by H.R. 
2925 would not change the outcome in any way. In my 30+ years working 
in the U.S. mining industry, I am unaware of anything like this ever 
happening. And H.R. 2925 does not make any changes to the law that 
would suddenly bolster opportunities for nuisance claimants to extract 
large sums of money from the federal government. All H.R. 2925 does is 
reverse Rosemont and reinstate the status quo ante: when a miner has 
progressed a mineral discovery on public lands and obtained approval of 
its plan of operations, the approved plan of operations can authorize 
use of the surface of the mining claims for mining related purposes 
without having to prove the validity of every claim.
    We have been unable to locate any circumstance where the federal 
government has compensated nuisance claimants to remove them from 
federal lands. As noted above, any claim that is not located in a good 
faith effort to develop a mine is void ab initio; BLM can contest and 
extinguish it. By definition, nuisance claims are not located in a good 
faith effort to develop a mine. The supposed concern underlying the 
question to Dr. Feldgus is not rooted in any real-world scenario.
    On very rare occasions, the federal government has purchased valid 
claims to address a particular national interest. For example, in the 
late 1990s the government acquired mining claims from Crown Butte 
Mines, Inc. near Yellowstone National Park to foreclose future mining 
activity near the Park and facilitate cleanup of historic mine wastes 
from 100+ years of past mining.\3\ These were not nuisance claims; 
Crown Butte had invested $65 million in the New World Mine, and was 
moving towards production.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\ William J. Clinton, Statement on Acquisition of the New World 
Mine (August 7, 1998) (``Today's action culminates an extraordinary 
collaboration by the administration, the State of Montana, Crown Butte, 
and conservationists to protect both Yellowstone and the economy it 
sustains''), available at The American Presidency Project, https://
www.presidency.ucsb.edu/node/224378.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    There also have been circumstances where the owner of mining claims 
sought compensation under the Fifth Amendment when lands were withdrawn 
and mining prohibited. However, the U.S. typically challenges such 
attempts, and overcoming any such challenge imposes a heavy burden on 
claimants. The recent (2009) segregation and withdrawal of more than 
one million acres of federal land around Grand Canyon National Park has 
generated a number of administrative and judicial challenges that 
illustrate how federal land managers proceed in these circumstances. 
One of those is the case of Vane Minerals. Vane held 678 uranium mining 
claims in the withdrawn area and had invested more than $8.5 million in 
uranium exploration. Vane brought suit in the Federal Court of Claims 
seeking compensation for its claims. The Court found that it could not 
hear the case until Vane: (1) proposed a plan of operations for uranium 
mining, and (2) completed a mineral examination confirming the validity 
of any claims. Vane Minerals (US) LLC v. United States, 116 Fed. Claims 
Rptr. 48 (2014). Doing all the work necessary to prepare and submit a 
plan of operations and complete a mineral examination would involve 
years of work and millions of additional dollars beyond those Vane 
already spent. That is a burden of time and expense that only viable 
mining projects could or would bear. No nuisance claimant would spend 
millions of dollars to drill and collect data trying to prove a 
discovery to extract money from the U.S., when the work and investment 
likely would demonstrate the opposite: that no mineral discovery 
existed and the claims were not valid. The Vane Minerals example 
demonstrates that even where a company makes a significant and 
legitimate investment in developing a mineral deposit and seeks 
compensation, it must meet a high burden to overcome U.S. opposition.
    In short, it is unreasonable to think that the federal government 
would pay for nuisance claims. We have not been able to identify any 
such circumstance. As the savings clause of H.R. 2925 makes clear, 
nothing in that legislation changes the law relative to claim location 
or land withdrawals in such a way as to allow or encourage nuisance 
claims. The status of nuisance claims remains the same under H.R. 2925.

    Question 4. Dr. Feldgus was asked if H.R. 2925 would allow a 
claimant to build a house on a mining claim, occasionally pan for gold, 
and claim that her occupancy was part of her operation? How would this 
activity be treated under existing law, and under H.R. 2925?

    Answer. Under existing law, the occupancy would be illegal and 
would be extinguished. BLM has the tools--and uses them--to address 
illegal occupancy. Under BLM's mining surface use regulations, anybody 
building structures (including living quarters), storing equipment, or 
taking any other action that disturbs the surface of the public lands 
must first seek and obtain BLM approval. H.R. 2925 does not change 
those requirements.

    In 1996, in response to concern over unauthorized uses of mining 
claims, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) adopted new rules 
addressing use and occupancy of claims under the Mining Laws. 61 Fed. 
Reg. 37116 (July 16, 1996) (rules codified at 43 C.F.R. Subpart 3715). 
In order to occupy public lands under the mining laws for more than 14 
calendar days in any 90-day period, a claimant must be engaged in 
activities that:

  1.  Are reasonably incident to mining;

  2.  Constitute substantially regular work;

  3.  Are reasonably calculated to lead to the extraction and 
            beneficiation of minerals;

  4.  Involve observable on-the-ground activity that BLM may verify; 
            and

  5.  Use appropriate equipment that is presently operable.

43 C.F.R. Sec. 3715.2. In addition to these requirements, the occupancy 
must involve one or more of the following:

  1.  Protecting exposed, concentrated, or otherwise valuable minerals 
            from theft or loss;

  2.  Protecting from theft or loss equipment which is regularly used, 
            is not portable, and cannot be protected by means other 
            than occupancy;

  3.  Protecting the public from appropriate, operable equipment which 
            is regularly used, is not readily portable, and if left 
            unattended, creates a hazard to public safety;

  4.  Protecting the public from surface uses, working, or improvements 
            which, if left unattended, create a hazard to public 
            safety; or

  5.  Being located in an area so isolated or lacking in access as to 
            require the claimant or operator to remain on site in order 
            to work a full shift (ordinarily 8 hours).

43 C.F.R. Sec. 3715.2-1.

    Most importantly, under BLM's current regulations, the occupancy 
described in the hypothetical would be illegal unless the claimant 
first consulted with BLM explaining the need for and scope of the 
proposed occupancy, and then submitted either a notice or plan of 
operations for BLM review and approval. 43 C.F.R. Sec. Sec. 3715.3, 
3809.11, 3809.21. The operator must also submit a reclamation plan 
(including removal of any structures) and post financial assurance to 
guarantee that the reclamation plan is implemented at the miner's 
expense.
    Notably, the use and occupancy rules also include expedited 
enforcement measures. BLM may issue an immediate suspension order if 
use and occupancy is not reasonably incident to prospecting, mining, or 
processing operations; if the operator is not in compliance with all 
applicable Federal and State standards, including obtaining all 
required permits; or an immediate, temporary suspension is necessary to 
protect health, safety, or the environment. 43 C.F.R. Sec. 3715.7-1. 
Operators who fail to comply with such an order may be subject to a 
civil action in federal court and BLM can demand monetary compensation 
for damages. 43 C.F.R. Sec. 3715.7-2. BLM has issued 89 suspension 
orders since 2000 under the 3809 regulations, and 12 immediate 
suspension and 10 cessation orders under the 3715 regulations.\4\ The 
data demonstrate that BLM has the authority and enforcement tools it 
needs to deal with unauthorized use of mining claims.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\ Interagency Working Group, Recommendations to Improve Mining on 
Public Lands, Sept. 2023 at p. 32.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Unauthorized occupancy of claims would be treated no differently 
under H.R. 2925 than it is under current law. H.R. 2925, as with 
existing rules, allows surface occupancy only for mining-related 
purposes. Claimants would still have to consult with BLM before any 
occupancy happened, and would have to justify their proposed activities 
as ``reasonably incident to mining'' and ``reasonably calculated to 
lead to the extraction and beneficiation of minerals.'' Occasional 
panning for gold does not meet the regulatory standard.

                                  ***

    The questions posed to Dr. Feldgus in the January 31 Subcommittee 
hearing embody some of the most extreme allegations made by opponents 
of the Mining Regulatory Clarity Act. Opponents complain that H.R. 2925 
would open the floodgates, allowing mines in National Parks, and 
proliferating nuisance claims, frustrating the ability of federal land 
managers to protect parks and other protected places. However, when the 
questions are examined closely, it becomes clear that the conduct they 
hypothesize has nothing to do with H.R. 2925. The legislation does one 
thing: it reinstates the law regarding mining-related uses of mining 
claims on public lands that existed prior to the Rosemont litigation. 
It does not enable or incentivize nuisance claims. It does not 
authorize or legitimize new mining claims in national parks or other 
lands withdrawn from mineral entry. It does not change the fact that 
pre-existing mining claims in withdrawn lands survive the withdrawal 
only if the claimant can prove the claim is ``valid,'' i.e., that it 
contains a discovery of a valuable mineral.

    To address the concerns raised by critics, the H.R. 2925 savings 
clause was extensively amended at the Committee markup to make clear 
that the bill does not change the Mining Law's provisions regarding 
claim location, or authorize new mining activity in lands withdrawn 
from mineral entry. The savings clause should resolve concerns about 
abuse of H.R. 2925. It seems clear that those who continue to oppose 
H.R. 2925 do so because they do not want the permitting disruptions 
caused by the Rosemont case to be resolved.

             Questions Submitted by Representative Lamborn

    Question 1. Mr. Haddock, Barrick Gold mines gold and copper at this 
time, can you talk about the hardrock mining industry and perhaps opine 
a little on where these minerals are going? Are they for national 
security assets, do they help us secure the supply chain? Are they even 
in support of clean energies?

    Answer. As you point out, Barrick produces copper and gold.
Copper
    We produce both copper concentrates and cathode copper. Copper 
concentrates are crushed rock, still in mineral form, processed to 
separate and concentrate the copper bearing minerals. Copper cathode is 
produced by leaching elemental copper from the crushed rock and then 
passing an electrical current through the solvent to remove the copper. 
Barrick sells its copper concentrate to smelter operators that are 
typically part of metals trading companies. Barrick sells its cathode 
to metals trading companies and to end users who fabricate piping, 
wire, and other copper products. The metals trading companies sell the 
copper product from Barrick's mines onward into the global copper 
market.
    Copper produced by Barrick and sold into the market is used for all 
of the traditional uses of copper as well as the uses that support the 
transition to clean energy. Put simply, copper is the ``metal of 
electrification.'' Its traditional use includes the wiring in all 
buildings and infrastructure, including our homes, and virtually 
everything that uses electricity, including automobiles and, of course, 
military vehicles, aircrafts, and weapon systems, making copper an 
obvious national security asset. It is also important to recognize that 
in the next 25 years, the world will need to produce the same amount of 
copper that has been produced over the last 5,000 years just to meet 
global demand.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \5\ https://www.worldbank.org/en/news/infographic/2019/02/26/
climate-smart-mining
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The predicted spike in copper demand--if not an immediate 
emergency--should be a wake-up call for U.S. policymakers. Current U.S. 
mineral policy is not promoting the increased development of domestic 
copper supplies. Copper mines, like other mines and other major 
infrastructure projects, suffer from lengthy, multi-layered permitting 
processes, policy uncertainty, and inevitable delays from litigation. 
There appears to be growing bipartisan agreement in Congress that 
permitting reform is needed, but that emerging consensus has yet to 
produce permitting reform legislation. These hurdles lead to 
uncertainty for investors about the climate in the U.S. for mine 
projects. The U.S. Geological Survey's recent Mineral Commodity 
Summaries for 2024 \6\ indicated that last year, the U.S. was 46 
percent reliant on foreign sources of copper, which is the highest 
level recorded amount in the last decade. Without new domestic sources 
of copper, the percentage of foreign copper reliance is likely to grow.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \6\ https://pubs.usgs.gov/periodicals/mcs2024/mcs2024.pdf

    Daniel Yergin, the Vice Chairman of S&P Global, recently summarized 
the increasing demand for copper, including ``energy transition 
demand'' in testimony before the Senate Energy and Natural Resources 
Committee.\7\ A few key facts from his testimony are as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \7\ Prepared Testimony of Daniel Yergin, U.S. Senate Committee on 
Energy and Natural Resources, September 28, 2023.

  1.  Each electric vehicle uses two and a half times more copper than 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
            a combustion car.

  2.  The global demand for copper will double over the next 12 years. 
            U.S. demand will more than double in order to meet both 
            traditional demand and energy transition demand over the 
            same period.

  3.  The U.S. energy transition demand alone will be for 2.6 million 
            tons of copper in the year 2035.

  4.  The US currently relies on Chile for 60% of its copper imports. 
            The U.S. competes with China for sourcing copper from 
            Chile.

  5.  There is a serious gap between projected worldwide copper supply 
            and projected demand necessary to meet 2050 climate 
            targets.

    Other researchers have reached similar conclusions.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \8\ See, McKinsey & Company, The net-zero materials transition: 
Implications for global supply chains. July 2023.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gold
    By various processes that are customized to each of our precious 
metals mines, Barrick produces a product called gold ``dore'' 
(pronounced ``door-A.''). Gold dore is a brick of gold about the size 
of a loaf of bread. The dore, though relatively pure, is then sent to a 
refinery where it is refined to 99.9% fine gold. The resulting gold 
bullion is sold on a global market. While major uses of gold over 
recent decades include use as a financial product to central banks, 
ETF's and similar investment mechanisms, bullion investors, or in 
jewelry, it is an increasingly important component of technologies that 
are the foundation of modern life.
    Like copper, gold is one of the primary metals used as a conductor 
of electricity. All computers, cellphones, cars, and anything else that 
runs on a chip contain some amount of gold. Because gold does not 
corrode it is used in those connections where reliability and 
durability are critical. Accordingly, gold is used in various 
applications in spacecraft because of the extreme conditions 
encountered in space along with limited ability to repair/replace 
nonfunctioning wiring and equipment. The U.S. Space Force relies on it. 
Our nation's advanced weapons systems all use chips and therefore all 
use gold.
    Gold is also increasingly used in cutting edge battery and fuel 
cell research and production because in certain alloy configurations it 
has been found to enhance battery life. Gold is used in medical 
technology, not just in instruments and dental applications, but in new 
nano-procedures for early detection and treatment of diseases, 
including cancer. Finally, advanced computing technologies, such as 
quantum computing and artificial intelligence, do and will continue to 
rely on gold in chips for superior conductivity, reliability, and 
durability.
Copper and Gold as National Security Assets
    As surveyed above, both copper and gold have critical uses in 
defense, computing, and aerospace technology, making them important as 
national security assets. Although gold bullion is sold on global 
markets, the domestic gold mining industry is an advantage and benefit 
to the United States. The U.S. is the fifth largest global producer, 
behind China, Australia, Russia, and Canada, and the Nevada Gold Mines 
complex in northern Nevada is the largest gold-mining complex in the 
world. In an emergency, the U.S. would be able to produce enough gold 
to meet defense and other demands.
    The U.S. also has significant copper reserves, but the difficulty 
in permitting new copper mines, along with the predicted dramatic 
increase in global demand, should be a warning signal to U.S. 
policymakers. As copper demand rises for energy transition, economic 
growth, and other needs, competition for global supplies will increase, 
along with prices. The U.S. needs its own domestic copper supplies.
    I am not an expert with respect to why, when, and how much gold 
central banks buy and hold to support their currencies and economies. 
However, I can say that historically, gold has functioned as a currency 
and a store of wealth, and nations--including the U.S.--continue to own 
gold to support currencies. Despite currencies no longer being tied to 
a gold standard, gold remains very attractive compared to other reserve 
assets. It has no political risk, it cannot be debased, and it cannot 
be talked down in a currency war of words. Gold is not subject to 
cyber-attacks. Gold remains an important reserve asset--valued for its 
performance in times of crisis, its long-term store of value, and lack 
of default risk.
    The current high gold prices--even as the U.S. economy grows and 
stock markets reach all-time high values--speak to rising global 
uncertainty about the future. As the U.S. Department of Commerce has 
recognized, ``Economic security is national security.'' \9\ Being able 
to produce such an important asset domestically in times of uncertainty 
and when global markets might be disrupted is therefore obviously 
important.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \9\ U.S. Department of Commerce, Strengthen U.S. Economic and 
National Security, https://2017-2021.commerce.gov/about/strategic-plan/
strengthen-us-economic-and-national-security.html, last visited 
February 19, 2024.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                 ______
                                 

    Mr. Graves [presiding]. Thank you. Our next witness is Mr. 
Craig Mueller, who is the President and CEO of American 
Gilsonite Company, and based out of Houston, Texas.
    Mr. Mueller, you are recognized for 5 minutes.

       STATEMENT OF CRAIG MUELLER, PRESIDENT AND CEO,
         AMERICAN GILSONITE COMPANY, HOUSTON, TEXAS

    Mr. Mueller. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member 
Ocasio-Cortez, and distinguished members of the Committee. My 
name is Craig Mueller. I am the CEO of American Gilsonite 
Company, AGC for short. I appreciate the opportunity to testify 
today, and I especially want to thank Congressman John Curtis, 
who sponsored the bill I am here to discuss, along with three 
of his delegation from Utah's Congressional Delegation who 
joined him as original co-sponsors, Representatives Celeste 
Maloy, Blakemore, and Burgess Owens.
    AGC is one of two enterprises in the Uintah Basin of 
northeastern Utah that produce a naturally occurring carbon-
based resin, an asphaltite called uintaite.
    There are three types of asphaltites which differ mostly in 
terms of their carbon and sulfur content, specific gravity, and 
the temperature at which they soften. Apart from uintaite in 
the United States, there are two lower-quality asphaltites: 
grahamite, found in Argentina and other portions of the United 
States; and glance pitch, which is found principally in Iran 
and, to a lesser extent, Colombia.
    Uintaite is unique, with its own chemical fingerprint that 
distinguishes it from other asphaltites in lab testing. Its 
strength, flexibility, extreme lightweight, and environmentally 
friendly profile make it a superior additive in drilling fluids 
and cementing applications, as well as improving performance 
and quality in asphalt, inks, paints, stains, construction 
materials, and foundry castings.
    To fully appreciate the impetus behind H.R. 7004, a bit of 
history is in order. In 1885, geologist William Phipps Blake 
gave the asphaltite located in Utah its scientific name, 
uintaite. The following year our company's namesake, Samuel 
Gilson, began producing and selling uintaite. In 1895, the 
company registered a trademark for the name Gilsonite with the 
U.S. Patent Office. The company subsequently registered it in 
Germany, the UK, Japan, Ireland, and Brazil, and we are careful 
to keep our registrations current.
    Later, in the wake of the 1970s energy crisis, America 
sought to reduce its dependence on foreign oil. The nation 
adopted a multi-faceted approach, including fossil fuel 
alternatives. In 1976, the EPA stated there are no significant 
existing or anticipated processes for the recovery of U.S. tar 
sand hydrocarbon materials through at least the year 2000.
    Nevertheless, in 1981, Congress amended the Mineral Leasing 
Act through a bill titled, ``An Act to Facilitate and Encourage 
the Production of Oil from Tar Sand and Other Hydrocarbon 
Deposits.'' In the text of that bill, Congress mistakenly 
aggregated uintaite with tar sand, and significantly dubbed it 
lowercase ``gilsonite,'' minus the Circle-R symbol that 
attaches to legally registered trademarks. Based on the 
substance of naming history alone, Congress erred in using 
Gilsonite generically for legislative purposes.
    Here is why this is so important to American Gilsonite and 
our clients. Foreign competitors have long been marketing 
mineralogically similar but inferior asphaltites labeled as 
Gilsonite. Unfortunately, the lowercase gilsonite in the MLA 
encourages this trademark infringement. When AGC defends its 
trademark in court, the company must overcome claims that 
Gilsonite is a valid generic term for a range of asphaltites 
that in truth are not identical in terms of their chemistry or 
their performance.
    It is important to note that the primary offender is the 
nation of Iran. Iran produces glance pitch at a state-
subsidized cost and sells it abroad as Gilsonite, including in 
the United States by trans-shipping product through countries 
such as Turkey, India, and China, in violation of U.S. 
sanctions. Given that a sizable portion of Iran's economy is 
supported by its government, it is reasonable to suspect that 
proceeds flow to Iranians' Revolutionary National Guard.
    This bill simply corrects a 43-year-old legislative 
drafting error by substituting the word ``asphaltite'' for the 
word ``gilsonite.''
    Mr. Chairman, we have worked with Customs and Border 
Protection and the State Department, yet such products are 
still finding their way into the United States. This simple 
legislative change would allow AGC's efforts to defend its 
trademark and allow for appropriate differentiation of the 
different types of asphaltites. Continuing to litigate 
``gilsonite'' imposes a financial burden on our company, 
impacts employment, and distracts us from our mission of 
providing a solid supply chain for our clients.
    Thank you for the time today. I will be happy to answer any 
questions the Committee may have.

    [The prepared statement of Mr. Mueller follows:]
  Prepared Statement of Craig Mueller, CEO, American Gilsonite Company
                              on H.R. 7004

    Good morning, Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the 
Committee. My name is Craig Mueller, I am CEO of the American Gilsonite 
Company, AGC for short.
    I appreciate the opportunity to testify this morning, and I 
especially want to thank Congressman John Curtis, who sponsored the 
bill I am here to discuss, along with three of his colleagues from 
Utah's congressional delegation who joined him as original co-sponsors: 
Representatives Celeste Maloy, Blake Moore, and Burgess Owens.
    AGC is one of two enterprises in the Uinta Basin of northeastern 
Utah that produce a naturally occurring carbon--based resin, a type of 
asphaltite called uintaite. There are three types of asphaltites, which 
differ mostly in terms of their carbon and sulfur content, specific 
gravity, and the temperatures at which they soften. Apart from uintaite 
in the U.S., there are two lower quality asphaltites: grahamite found 
in Argentina and portions of the U.S., and glance pitch, which is found 
principally in Iran and to a lesser extent in Colombia.
    Uintaite is unique, with its own chemical fingerprint that 
distinguishes it from other types of asphaltite in lab testing. Its 
strength, flexibility, extreme light weight and environmentally 
friendly profile make it a superior additive in drilling fluids and 
cementing applications, as well as improving performance and quality in 
asphalt, inks, paints, stains, construction materials, and foundry 
castings.
    To fully appreciate the impetus behind H.R. 7004, a bit of history 
is in order. In 1885, geologist William Phipps Blake gave the 
asphaltite located in Utah its scientific name: uintaite. The following 
year, our company's namesake, Samuel Gilson, began producing and 
selling uintaite.
    In 1895, the company registered a trademark for the name 
Gilsonite' with the U.S. Patent Office. The company 
subsequently registered it in Germany, the U.K., Japan, Ireland, and 
Brazil, and we are careful to keep our registrations current.
    Later, in the wake of the 1970s energy crisis, America sought to 
reduce its dependence on foreign oil. The Nation adopted a multifaceted 
approach, including fossil fuel alternatives.
    In 1976, the EPA stated, ``There are no significant existing or 
anticipated processes for the recovery of United States' tar sand 
hydrocarbon materials'' through at least the year 2000. Nevertheless, 
in 1981 Congress amended the Mineral Leasing Act through a bill titled, 
``An Act to facilitate and encourage the production of oil from tar 
sand and other hydrocarbon deposits.''
    In the text of that bill, Congress mistakenly aggregated uintaite 
with tar sand and, significantly, dubbed it lower-case ``gilsonite'' 
minus the Circle R symbol that attaches to legally registered 
trademarks. Based on the substance's naming history alone, Congress 
erred in using ``gilsonite'' generically for legislative purposes.
    Here is why this is so important to AGC and our clients. Foreign 
competitors have long been marketing mineralogically similar but 
inferior asphaltites labeled as Gilsonite'. Unfortunately, 
the lower-case ``gilsonite'' in the MLA encourages this trademark 
infringement. When AGC defends its trademark in court, the company must 
overcome claims that ``gilsonite'' is a valid generic name for a range 
of asphaltites that in truth are not identical in terms of their 
chemistry or their performance.
    It is important to note that the primary offender is the nation of 
Iran. Iran produces glance pitch at state-subsidized cost and sells it 
abroad as ``gilsonite,'' including in the U.S. by transshipping product 
through third-party countries like Turkey, India and China in violation 
of U.S. sanctions. Given that a sizable portion of Iran's economy is 
controlled by its government, it is reasonable to suspect that proceeds 
flow to Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard.
    This bill simply corrects a 43-year-old legislative drafting error 
by substituting the word ``asphaltite'' for the word ``gilsonite.''
    Mr. Chairman, we have worked with Customs and Border Protection and 
the State Department, yet such product still finds its way into the 
U.S. This simple legislative change would aid AGC's efforts to defend 
our trademark and allow for appropriate differentiation of the 
different types of asphaltites. Continuing to litigate ``gilsonite'' 
imposes a financial burden on our company, impacts employment, and 
distracts us from our mission of maintaining a reliable supply chain 
for our clients.
    Thank you again for the opportunity to testify today. We look 
forward to working with the Committee to ensure the bill's passage in 
the House and Senate, and I would be happy to answer any questions the 
Committee has at this time.

                                 ______
                                 

    Mr. Stauber [presiding]. Thank you very much for your 
testimony. Our next witness is Mr. Jeffrey Stiffarm, and he is 
the President of the Fort Belknap Indian Community, and he is 
stationed in Harlem, Montana.
    Mr. Stiffarm, you are now recognized for 5 minutes.

     STATEMENT OF JEFFREY STIFFARM, PRESIDENT, FORT
       BELKNAP INDIAN COMMUNITY, HARLEM, MONTANA

    Mr. Stiffarm. Good afternoon, everyone, and thank you for 
your time and this honor to speak on behalf of our people back 
at Fort Belknap.
    Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee of Energy and 
Mineral Resources, my name is Jeffrey Stiffarm, and I am the 
President of the Fort Belknap Community in central Montana. I 
would like to talk about how hardrock mining has devastated the 
Fort Belknap Reservation, and to illustrate this tribe's 
opposition of the Mining Regulatory Clarity Act and vital need 
for meaningful reform of the 1872 Mining Law to prevent what 
happened to my people from happening to others.
    The Fort Belknap Indian Reservation is the home of the Gros 
Ventre and Assiniboine Tribes. To us, we call ourselves the 
Aaniiih and the Nakoda people. Our reservation was established 
and set aside for the Tribes' use by an Act of Congress in 
1888. At the time, the Tribes received assurances from the U.S. 
Government that we would retain our rights to all water 
necessary to fulfill the purposes of the reservation, including 
waters originating from the Little Rocky Mountains that the 
tribal members used for irrigation, domestic supplies, and 
other purposes.
    The original Fort Belknap Reservation included the Little 
Rocky Mountains, which are considered sacred by the Tribe's 
members, and were traditionally used by tribes for hunting, 
fishing, culture, and spiritual purposes. When gold was 
discovered in the Little Rockies in the 1880s, the Federal 
Government pressured our tribes to cede the gold-bearing areas 
of the reservation to the United States. Congress carved out 
the Little Rocky Mountains from the reservation boundaries in 
1896.
    [Slide.]
    Mr. Stiffarm. As you can see on our map on the southern 
border, that little notch, that is what we call the Grinnell 
Notch. That was taken from our people in 1896. And the reason 
why our ancestors gave that up was there was threat of 
starvation of our people. That is where gold was found.
    A Canadian-owned mining company, Pegasus Gold, filed claims 
on these lands. Two modern cyanide leach gold mines were 
approved and operated on these lands under BLM-approved plans 
of operations from 1981 to 2003. At its largest, the mining 
complex covered over 1,200 acres. The Zortman and Landusky mine 
sites are surrounded on three sides by the Fort Belknap 
Reservation, and sits at the headwaters of many creeks that 
eventually flow through the reservation. Leaching at the 
Zortman and Landusky mines resulted in vast amounts of acid 
mine drainage that contaminate the water supply that supports 
the Fort Belknap community and the town of Zortman.
    [Slide.]
    Mr. Stiffarm. As you can see in this next picture, the acid 
drainage from the mining, you can tell by the color of the 
water. And it is like that, and all that drainage is down into 
our reservation and into our towns and our homes. That caused a 
lot of sickness. We live with cancer, it causes a high rate of 
autism in our children.
    We had some grassroots community members called protectors 
and Red Thunder back in the 1970s and 1980s fighting these 
mines. And here we are today, in 2024, still doing the same 
thing and fighting for our rights, for our lives, for our 
people.
    This mining drainage on that first map we showed you, you 
saw the watershed where the water drained onto the reservation 
directly coming from the Little Rocky Mountains and where the 
mines were.
    [Slide.]
    Mr. Stiffarm. On this last picture, if you can put it up, 
please, that is the picture of our Sundance grounds. And to our 
people, that is the highest ceremony for us. It is like the 
Catholic cathedral. That is Mother Earth. And you can see in 
the front of that picture there, that orange, that is a 
creekbed running from the mines, acid tailings. And you can see 
the color of the rock.
    Now, imagine that in your backyard, your homes, and your 
communities where you live, where you raise your children, or 
your grandchildren are going to live. Would you allow that? I 
think not. But that is what is happening to our people at Fort 
Belknap, and we have been living in that for generations.
    I thank you for your time, and I look forward to your 
questions.
    [Speaking Native language.]

    [The prepared statement of Mr. Stiffarm follows:]
    Prepared Statement of Jeffrey Stiffarm, President, Fort Belknap
                            Indian Community
                       on H.R. 2925 and H.R. 6862

I. Introduction

    Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral 
Resources, thank you for the opportunity to testify before you. My name 
is Jeffrey Stiffarm, and I am the President of the Fort Belknap Indian 
Community in Central Montana. I'd like to talk about how hard rock 
mining has devastated the Fort Belknap Reservation to illustrate the 
Tribes' opposition to the Mining Regulatory Clarity Act and the vital 
need for meaningful reform of the 1872 Mining Law to prevent what 
happened to my people from happening to others.
II. History of Mining in the Little Rocky Mountains

    The Fort Belknap Indian Reservation is home to the Gros Ventre and 
Assiniboine Tribes. Our Reservation was established and set aside for 
the Tribes' use by an Act of Congress in 1888.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ 25 Stat. 113 (May 1, 1888).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    At that time, the Tribes received assurances from the United States 
government that we would retain our rights to all water necessary to 
fulfill the purposes of the Reservation, including waters originating 
in the Little Rocky Mountains that Tribal members used for irrigation, 
domestic supplies, and other purposes.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ See Gros Ventre Tribe v. United States, 469 F.3d 801, 804-05 
(9th Cir. 2006); see also Winters v. United States, 207 U.S. 564, 567, 
576 (1908) (recognizing Tribes' right to all waters flowing to and 
entering Reservation lands, ``undiminished in quantity and 
undeteriorated in quality'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The original Fort Belknap Reservation included the Little Rocky 
Mountains, which are considered sacred by Tribal members, and were 
traditionally used by the Tribes for hunting, fishing, cultural, and 
spiritual purposes.
    When gold was discovered in the Little Rockies in the 1880s, the 
federal government pressured our Tribes to cede the gold-bearing areas 
of the Reservation to the United States. Congress carved out the Little 
Rocky Mountains from the Reservation's boundaries in 1896.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\ 29 Stat. 350 (1896).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    A Canadian owned mining company, Pegasus Gold, filed claims on 
these lands and two modern cyanide leach gold mines were approved, and 
operated on these lands under BLM-approved Plans of Operations from 
1981-2003.\4\ At its largest, the Zortman-Landusky mining complex 
covered over 1,200 acres.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\ U.S. Bureau of Land Management, Action Memorandum for Water 
Management at the Zortman And Landusky Mines, Non Time-Critical Removal 
Actions, Malta Field Office, Bureau of Land Management, Phillips 
County, Montana. September 2006.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
III. The Contamination

    The Zortman and Landusky mine sites are surrounded on three sides 
by the Fort Belknap Reservation and sit at the headwaters for many 
creeks that eventually flow through the Reservation.
    Heap leaching at the Zortman-Landusky mines resulted in vast 
amounts of acid mine drainage that contaminated the water supply that 
supports the Fort Belknap Indian Community and the Town of Zortman.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \5\ Montana Department of Environmental Quality v. Luke Ployhar 
Blue Arc LLC. et al., Case No. DV-2023-10. April 18, 2023. Finding of 
Fact, p. 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In fact, the Tribes are facing permanent surface and groundwater 
contamination and continue to suffer from multiple devastating and 
lasting harms to the Tribes' beneficial uses, including impairment of 
drinking water, fish and wildlife habitat, recreation, agricultural, 
and industrial uses.\6\ Acid mine drainage has likewise resulted in 
public health risks and continues to threaten the Tribes' powwow 
grounds, ceremonial and sacred sites, including other areas of cultural 
significance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \6\ Montana Department of Environmental Quality, Landusky Metals 
Total Maximum Daily Loads and Framework Water Quality Improvement Plan, 
March 2012, Available at: https://deq.mt.gov/files/water/wqpb/CWAIC/
TMDL/M31-TMDL-01a.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
IV. Continued Contamination and Threats from New Mining

    As stated by the U.S. District Court for Montana, ``[i]t is 
undisputed that the Zortman-Landusky mines have devastated portions of 
the Little Rockies, and will have effects on the surrounding area, 
including the Fort Belknap Reservation, for generations. That 
devastation, and the resulting impact on tribal culture, cannot be 
overstated.'' \7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \7\ Gros Ventre Tribe, et al. v. United States, et al., No. CV 00-
69-M-DWM, slip op. at 12 (D. Mont. June 28, 2004).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    After Pegasus Gold declared bankruptcy, the mine was designated a 
CERCLA site under the Superfund program.\8\ On October 5, 2000, the 
Interior Secretary issued Public Land Order (PLO) 7464 withdrawing 
approximately 3,500 acres from new mine claims in order to facilitate 
CERCLA (Superfund) cleanup.\9\ Since then, state and federal agencies 
have contributed tens of millions of dollars for reclamation and water 
treatment at the site, and the BLM estimates that an additional $2.2 
million will be needed every year for water treatment for the 
foreseeable future.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \8\ U.S. Bureau of Land Management, Action Memorandum for Water 
Management at the Zortman And Landusky Mines, Non Time-Critical Removal 
Actions, Malta Field Office, Bureau of Land Management, Phillips 
County, Montana. September 2006.
    \9\ Please see PLO 7464 (65 FR 59463, Oct. 5., 2000) The Secretary 
has subsequently extended this mineral withdrawal in PLOs 7643, 7753, 
and 7841.
    \10\ U.S. Bureau of Land Management, Press Release, Withdrawal 
Established to Protect Zortman Landusky Mine Reclamation Site, 
September 9, 2022. Available at: https://www.blm.gov/press-release/
withdrawal-established-protect-zortman-landusky-mine-reclamation-site
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In order to continue the ongoing reclamation work, the BLM 
continued to establish mineral withdrawals to prevent new mining 
activities that could interfere with that work.\11\ Unfortunately, a 2-
day lapse in the mineral withdrawal renewal resulted in ten new mining 
claims being staked on BLM lands within the Zortman Landusky 
Reclamation Area \12\--jeopardizing the enormous investment in existing 
and ongoing reclamation work.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \11\ Id.
    \12\ Specifically, reclamation efforts within the Zortman-Landusky 
Reclamation Area were jeopardized by the Department of Interior's 
failure to maintain the mineral withdrawal protections between the 
expiration of PLO 7464 on October 4, 2020 and the segregation of lands 
under this proposed mineral withdrawal on October 7, 2020. This 48-hour 
lapse in protection allowed 10 mining claims to be staked on October 5, 
2020 by Luke Ployhar/Blue Arc LLC on BLM lands within the mineral 
withdrawal boundaries.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The owner of the company that staked the new claims, Blue Arc LLC, 
is currently the subject of an enforcement action by the State of 
Montana for alleged illegal exploration activities on other nearby 
lands.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \13\ See Montana DEQ, Violation Letter #VLHRM20220330-00071 to Luke 
Ployhar/Blue Arc LLC, April 1, 2022 (The Montana Department of 
Environmental Quality recently issued notices of violations against 
Luke Ployhar/Blue Arc LLC for allegedly conducting exploration and 
mining activities at seven locations in Township 25N, Range 25E, 
Section 7 without a permit. The disturbance associated with these 
unpermitted and unbonded mining activities contributes further to the 
degradation of the reclamation efforts in the Zortman Landusky 
Reclamation Area.) Montana DEQ subsequently filed a request for a 
preliminary injunction to allow DEQ to reclaim the disturbed lands to 
prevent any additional infiltration of groundwater into the water 
treatment system and previously reclaimed areas . . . This order was 
issued in Phillips County District Court case DV-2023-10 (August 2023)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Under existing law, Blue Arc would not be able to move forward with 
a plan of operations on its mining claims within the mineral withdrawal 
without demonstrating that it has valid claims.\14\ If the Mining 
Regulatory Clarity Act were law, however, these claims would 
automatically be considered a ``valid existing right,'' which would 
establish a vested property right here and on mining claims on all 
federal public lands. This would interfere with the US Government's 
cleanup here, and come at the expense of protecting Tribal, 
environmental, and natural resources across the West.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \14\ The withdrawal of federal lands from mineral exploration and 
development does not apply to claimants with ``valid existing rights'' 
on mining claims previously located on the segregated lands. However, 
existing mining claims on lands going through the withdrawal process 
must be valid in order for the claim to be exempt from the segregative 
effects of a withdrawal notice. 43 C.F.R. Sec. 2091.0-7. As BLM 
regulations currently state: ``After the date on which the lands are 
withdrawn from appropriation under the mining laws, BLM will not 
approve a plan of operations or allow notice-level operations to 
proceed until BLM has prepared a mineral examination report to 
determine whether the mining claim was valid before the withdrawal, and 
whether it remains valid.'' 43 C.F.R. Sec. 3809.100(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    This is a public health and safety threat of the highest magnitude. 
Future exploration or mining activities at the site not only threatens 
the health and welfare of tribal members and tens of millions in CERCLA 
clean-up work, it threatens to further desecrate sacred tribal land, 
including the potential to disturb the graves of relatives and 
ancestors of tribal members.
    The 1872 Mining Law is an outdated law that has failed to protect 
communities like mine. It's hard to believe that Congress is 
considering legislation today that would make this law worse. The 1872 
Mining Law must be reformed to better protect communities and Tribes, 
such as the legislation outlined in the Clean Energy Mineral Reform 
Act, introduced by Senator Heinrich and Congressman Grijalva.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \15\ https://democrats-naturalresources.house.gov/media/press-
releases/ranking-member-grijalva-sen-heinrich-introduce-mining-reform-
legislation-to-protect-communities-tribal-consultation-and-environment-
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
V. Closing
    The water is flowing orange from acid mine drainage. The events at 
the Fort Belknap Indian Community are not unique. Other such scenarios 
exist and more will occur in the future if the 1872 Mining Clarity 
Regulatory Act is passed. And it won't just affect Indian Country. Our 
planet is in a vulnerable state. Unsubstantiated claims cannot be 
allowed.
    Reform of U.S. mining laws must include meaningful consultation 
with Tribes and also the ability to say ``no'' to mines that would harm 
other important land uses. It cannot allow mining companies to trample 
communities and Indigenous rights by allowing a company to stake an 
indefinite number of claims and allow that company to move forward with 
activities on those claims without any demonstration that there are 
even valuable minerals there.
    The Fort Belknap Tribes appreciate the opportunity to testify today 
against the Mining Regulatory Clarity Act, and to urge support for 
meaningful reform of the 1872 Mining Law.
VI. President Stiffarm's Press Quote In Full

    The Fort Belknap Indian Community opposes the Mining Regulatory 
Clarity Act. The Gros Ventre and Assiniboine Tribes have been directly 
affected by mining atrocities and to this day, suffer the harmful 
effects of mining under the 1872 Mining Law. The Mining Regulatory 
Clarity Act would make this outdated law worse by allowing mining 
companies, including foreign-owned companies, to dispose of mine waste 
on public lands without demonstrating that the companies hold valid 
claims. The Fort Belknap Indian Community faces permanent surface and 
groundwater contamination from decades of hard rock mining in the 
Little Rocky Mountains on and adjacent to the Fort Belknap Reservation 
and continues to suffer from multiple devastating and lasting harms to 
the Tribes' beneficial uses, including impairment of drinking water, 
fish and wildlife habitat, recreation, agricultural, and industrial 
uses.
    We urge Congress to reject legislative proposals that make this 
colonial-era law worse, and to move forward with meaningful reform of 
the 1872 Mining law as outlined in the Clean Energy Mineral Reform Act, 
introduced by Senator Heinrich and Congressman Grijalva.

                                 *****

                           When Science Wins

For more than 20 years, researchers at Aaniiih Nakoda College and the 
Fort Belknap Reservation's Environmental Protection Department have 
worked to document the harm done by an abandoned gold mine adjacent to 
the reservation. Their findings are now helping block efforts to 
restart exploration within the mine site.

By Paul Boyer
Native Science Report
May 31, 2022

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


    South Big Horn Creek, which flows from the Zortman and Landusky 
Mines onto the reservation, is stained red from acid mine drainage. 
Aaniiih Nakoda College researchers found that the water was no longer 
able to support life. Photo courtesy of Aaniiih Nakoda College

For decades, a massive open pit gold mine on the southern border of the 
Fort Belknap Reservation of Montana methodically transformed a forested 
mountain landscape sacred to the Aaniiih and Nakoda people into a 
moonscape of craters and crushed rock. Highly acidic water, tainted by 
cyanide used to extract particles of gold and silver from ore, flowed 
down the mountains and onto reservation land, turning streams red and 
killing aquatic life.

The Zortman and Landusky Mines closed in 1997 when the value of gold 
dropped and Pegasus Gold Corp, its parent company, went bankrupt, but 
the damage remains and may be irreparable. Declared a federal Superfund 
site, millions of dollars are spent every year by the state of Montana 
to treat polluted water draining out of abandoned pits and leach 
fields. Experts say this work will continue ``in perpetuity,'' meaning, 
for all practical purposes, forever.

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


    One of two water treatment plants constructed to neutralize 
acidic water draining from the mine. Because there is no way to stop 
the exposed rock from generating acidic runoff, mitigation must 
continue around the clock and ``in perpetuity.'' Photo by Paul Boyer

But the urge to squeeze profit from the land, despite its grim history 
and lasting harm, also remains. An effort is now underway to restart 
exploration and potentially renew mining on privately owned land within 
the mine's boundaries and a short distance from the tanks, pipes, 
containment ponds and water treatment plant working around the clock to 
mitigate the damage already done.

This incongruous turn of events was triggered by a seemingly small 
bureaucratic oversight when, in 2020, a five-year federal moratorium on 
issuing mining claims expired 48 hours before a new moratorium, also 
known as a ``mineral withdrawal,'' was issued. During this two-day gap, 
according to a 2021 complaint filed by the Fort Belknap Indian 
Community and several conservation groups, ten claims were filed in the 
Zortman Landusky Reclamation Area by Blue Arc LLC, a mining exploration 
company owned by Luke Ployhar, who purchased mine claims totaling over 
1,000 acres after Pegasus declared bankruptcy.

At first, it looked like Montana's Department of Environmental Quality 
would give the green light to Blue Arc's proposal to dig an exploratory 
trench in anticipation of renewed mining. That's what many community 
members expected. Between 1979 and the mid 1990s, state and federal 
regulators approved eleven requests to expand mining operations with 
only minimal environmental review. These expansions happened despite 
strong opposition from the Fort Belknap Community.

But then something unexpected happened: In the wake of a public meeting 
held on January 4, 2022, the DEQ announced that it would require 
additional analysis of Blue Arc's request, citing strong community 
opposition and what it called ``conflicting evidence from credible and 
potentially expert sources.''

``This evidence raises substantial questions regarding whether 
significant impacts could occur to historical, archeological, social 
and cultural resources as a result of the proposed actions,'' according 
to a DEQ statement. ``Based on the current information before us, DEQ 
cannot say with certainty that potentially significant impacts do not 
exist.''

To say that the tribe and other mine opponents were surprised by this 
favorable ruling is putting it mildly. As a story in the Havre Daily 
News put it, ``this decision came as a shock to many on Fort 
Belknap''--not simply because the project was at least temporarily 
blocked, but because tribal members were heard, and their arguments 
carried weight. Perhaps for the first time, they were called a 
``credible'' and ``potentially expert'' source of information by an 
agency that many tribal activists had long viewed as their adversary.

Of course, the battle is not yet won, but this particular victory is 
evidence, some say, of the tribes' growing capacity to fight back. 
Initially, the Fort Belknap Community, constrained by limited 
resources, relied on the work of local environmental groups, recalled 
tribal Environmental Manager Ina Nez Perce. ``They were fighting the 
fight,'' she said, but it was a lopsided battle against what was, for a 
time, the world's largest cyanide heap leach mine.

In the early 1990s, however, the work of citizen-activists was 
strengthened by leadership from the tribal government, Nez Perce said. 
The tribes' environmental protection office now has more staff and 
resources to monitor water quality and habitat conditions, and elected 
officials are also vocal advocates for the reservation's water quality 
and water rights.

But essential to this activism and political leadership is the growing 
research capacity of Aaniiih Nakoda College, the local tribal college, 
which has been gathering data on water quality for over 20 years and 
recently established, with $3.5 million in funding from the National 
Science Foundation, the interdisciplinary Nic?-Mni (Water) Center to 
expand its research and share findings through an annual forum. Data 
collected by STEM faculty and Nic?-Mni staff provide compelling 
evidence of ongoing environmental damage to waterways, groundwater and 
ecological systems.

In a statement provided to the Daily Montanan following the DEQ ruling, 
Luke Ployhar, owner of Blue Arc, appeared to argue that the Zortman and 
Landusky Mines had not impacted tribal watershed, asserting, ``Any and 
all claims by the Tribes of bad water extending onto their lands is a 
blatant falsehood. The water treatment facilities put in place by 
Pegasus Mining are able to capture and contain and process any 
historical elevated acidic waters.''

In fact, data collected by the college paints a very different story. 
Examining water from streams flowing out of the mine's land and onto 
the reservation, tribal and college scientists have filled boxes with 
evidence documenting significant damage to several key waterways.

A paper coauthored by college scientists and students in the natural 
resources program, recently published in the White Clay and Nakoda 
Circle Speaker Environmental Newsletter, summarized findings from a 
years-long aquatic study managed by the college's EPA-funded Water 
Laboratory, a research program that predates the new Water Center. 
Purposefully following EPA procedures and protocols so that findings 
could be presented in court, the study found significant damage to key 
waterways, even years after mining ended.

King Creek, which has its headwaters in the mine, ``remains a severely 
impacted drainage,'' according to the paper. Another stream, Swift 
Gulch, ``has been totally disrupted by mining activity and reclamation 
efforts.''

``With extensive field and laboratory studies we found that the 
contamination from the mine, as it continues toward the reservation, is 
rapidly moving downstream with rain or storm events,'' the paper 
reported, turning the water in some creeks bright red. Tailings and 
sediment collected along the drainages of these and other creeks found 
``heavy metal contamination with some exceeding health levels allowed 
in surface water.''

``We have the water quality data to back up that water coming onto the 
reservation is impacted,'' said Mitchell Healy, the tribes' water 
quality coordinator, who holds an associate degree in natural resources 
from Aaniiih Nakoda College and a master's degree in environmental 
management from the University of Maryland University College. ``It's 
from the mines. It's obvious. There are no ifs, ands or buts about 
it.''

Additionally, data collected by Aaniiih Nakoda College faculty member 
Dan Kinsey and natural resource students also document the impact of 
polluted water on invertebrate life. Using fine-mesh kick nets to 
collect larvae and insects from several streams, he and the students 
report that most impacted streams are nearly lifeless.

``All of those drainages are polluted,'' said retired faculty member 
Liz McClain, summarizing findings from the accumulating data at the 
January 4 public meeting. ``And the water is so polluted nothing will 
live in it.''

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


    Aaniiih Nakoda College faculty member Dan Kinsey (right) with 
students Teeha Roberts, Doug Anderson and Tia Zander collecting 
macroinvertebrates from North Fork of Little People's Creek.

Researchers also investigated the mine's impact on the larger 
ecosystem, including land that has been ``reclaimed.'' Before mining, 
the mountainous region was forested and supported a rich variety of 
animal and plant life, with equally complex microbial life in the 
topsoil. Mining stripped away the soil, leaving deep cavities and acres 
of bare ground and crushed rock.

Much of this remains, but some parts have been covered with dirt and 
planted with grass, reflecting a long-standing approach to land 
reclamation that focuses more on covering an eyesore than on restoring 
a habitat. While this work softened the edges of excavated cavities, 
research conducted between 2002 and 2006 by Water Lab personnel, 
supported by funding from the USDA Tribal Colleges Research Grants 
Program and carried out in partnership with restoration ecologists at 
the University of Wyoming, found that soil in these reclaimed regions 
cannot break down organic matter as efficiently as soil in undisturbed 
parts of the surrounding mountains.

Analysis of two test sites found that soil contained ``minimal levels 
of organic matter needed to support microbial activity as well as 
sustain plant growth and nutrient recycling,'' compared with 
undisturbed test sites, according to a paper published in Circle 
Speaker. College scientists caution that it is important to continue 
monitoring the soil to better understand the process of regeneration, 
but their work provides more evidence that the mine's harm is systemic, 
long term, and may require many years--possibly generations--to restore 
what was lost.

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


    A view into the Landusky mine pit. Collectively, the Zortman 
and Landusky Mines encompass 1,200 acres of land that formerly belonged 
to the Fort Belknap Reservation. Photo by Paul Boyer

This evidence, combined with a history of mistrust toward state and 
federal officials, is shaping the response to the proposed exploration. 
State DEQ officials, speaking at the January 4 public meeting, argued 
that Luke Ployhar was only requesting approval for a relatively small 
exploratory trench. Tribal leaders and state environmental 
organizations who spoke at the meeting rejected this reassurance.

To insist that the proposal is only about a trench the size of a city 
bus and will have no environmental impacts ``only serves the purpose of 
ignoring reality,'' said Derf Johnson, a staff attorney with the 
Montana Environmental Information Center. ``Mining exploration leads to 
mining. It's the first step in what could be a whole range of 
activities and impacts.''

Multiple speakers also emphasized what they characterized as the DEQ's 
track record of minimizing potential risk, inadequately investigating 
the damage done and failing to seek input from the tribe.

``Fort Belknap opposes this new mining permit that you guys are looking 
at for Luke Ployhar, based on the fact that, first of all, you guys 
didn't consult the Tribes,'' asserted Fort Belknap Community Tribal 
President Jeff Stiffarm. The only time that you did consult the Tribes 
was when we filed a lawsuit against you guys for not following your 
laws.''

Stiffarm also pressed the DEQ officials to explain how Ployhar was able 
to complete and submit all of the paperwork required for approval of 
excavation during the brief 48-hour gap in the moratorium. ``Maybe it 
was you guys that notified Mr. Ployhar about this two-day window,'' 
Stiffarm said. ``There's a lot of unanswered questions that you guys 
are not answering for us.''

At a deeper level, opposition to mining is guided by the spiritual 
significance of the Little Rocky Mountains, which are known, 
respectively, as Bii0 oto? (Fur Cap) and Jyahe wida (Island) Mountains 
by the Aaniiih and Nakoda nations.

``These mountains are our churches,'' Stiffarm said. ``That's how 
sacred they are to us.''

In his statement made following the DEQ's decision, Luke Ployhar 
charged that the Fort Belknap Community opposes his bid only because 
the tribes want to profit from the land. ``Make no mistake, the tribes 
are interested in this area due to its significant economic 
possibilities and not cultural heritage.''

It's a claim strenuously rejected by tribal members fighting renewed 
mining.

``Mr. Ployhar is mistaken, President Stiffarm said. ``The Aaniiih and 
Nakoda people have zero interest in any more gold mining on or near our 
reservation . . . For years, we bathed in and ingested the chemical 
remnants of more than a century of gold mining. We are now continuously 
fighting to clean up and restore the safety of the waters flowing to 
our permanent homeland.''

The land where the mine now sits was originally part of the 
reservation, but sold to the federal government when prospectors 
discovered gold in the late 19th century. The acreage removed from 
tribal lands, known as the Grinnell Notch, is named after George Bird 
Grinnell, the federal government's negotiator, who, many tribal members 
say, coerced tribal leaders into relinquishing the land.

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


    The North Fork of Little People's Creek, which is not impacted 
by mining, is used by college researchers as a control site. This is 
what all reservation streams should look like. Photo courtesy of 
Aaniiih Nakoda College.

Fort Belknap Community Environmental Manager Ina Nez Perce said it is 
her hope--one shared by many--that the land will be returned to the 
tribes and that, to the greatest extent possible, the damaged landscape 
will be restored and returned to its traditional cultural and spiritual 
uses.

The land is usable, she agreed--but not for mining. ``That's out of the 
question.''

For decades, the tribes had only limited ability to fight mining 
companies and their allies in government. The finding from the state 
DEQ, which acknowledges credible opposition to the planned exploration, 
suggests that a new era of empowerment is emerging, led by the 
continuing work of community activists, tribal leadership, and the 
growing research capacity of both Aaniiih Nakoda College and the tribal 
environmental protection office.

Even if mining companies and state officials don't understand the 
cultural significance, said retired science faculty member Liz McClain, 
``science can beat them.''

                                 ______
                                 

    Mr. Stauber. Thank you for your testimony.
    And our final witness today is Dr. John Metesh, and he is 
the President of the Association of American State Geologists 
and is stationed in Butte, Montana.
    Dr. Metesh, you are now recognized for 5 minutes.

     STATEMENT OF JOHN J. METESH, PRESIDENT, ASSOCIATION
        OF AMERICAN STATE GEOLOGISTS, BUTTE, MONTANA

    Dr. Metesh. Chairman Stauber and members of the 
Subcommittee, thank you for the invitation to testify on H.R. 
7003.
    My name is John Metesh. I am the Montana State Geologist 
and Director of the Montana Bureau of Mines and Geology. I am 
testifying today as President of the Association of American 
State Geologists. AASG represents the directors and state 
geological surveys in 50 states and Puerto Rico.
    The responsibility of each state survey varies depending on 
legislation and traditions, but most function as an information 
source for government and society on geology as it relates to 
water, energy development, mineral development, and geologic 
hazards, including, of course, landslides.
    The sobering fact about landslides is that the geologic 
conditions under which they occur have been in place for 
millennia, or eons. The geologic structure that is the type of 
rock to make up the layers, their weaknesses, fractures, 
porosity that provides a pathway for water to infiltrate and 
flow between weak and strong layers, the slope in the hillside, 
the state of erosion from stream action along the base of the 
hill have all been in place waiting for a trigger.
    And triggering events are familiar. Rain or snowmelt in 
excess of normal, forest and wildland fires that strip 
vegetation and roots and alter the soil, and earthquake just 
strong enough to finally break the bond between layers of rock, 
or even one too many passes with a Caterpillar at the base of a 
hill, or a combination of all the above.
    As the sponsor mentioned, March 2024 will mark the 10th 
anniversary of the Oso landslide in northeast Washington State, 
the deadliest landslide in U.S. history. Heavy rainfall in the 
previous month triggered a slide that moved 70 million cubic 
feet, blocking the Stillaguamish River, destroying access 
roads, and tragically resulted in the death of 43 people and 
upending the community.
    August 2024 will mark the 65th anniversary of the famous 
Madison Slide just outside Yellowstone Park in Montana. The 
trigger in this case was a larger-than-normal earthquake that 
caused nearly 1 billion cubic feet of rock to slide off the 
mountain, bury the Madison River, and flow hundreds of yards 
uphill on the opposite side of the valley. Twenty-six campers 
were buried in moments. Nineteen were never recovered. Three 
more people were lost in rockfalls and other landslides up the 
valley, another 250 were stranded.
    The Landslide Preparedness Act established two programs: 
the National Landslide Hazard Reduction Program and the 3D 
Elevation Program, both of which are especially important to 
state surveys. Both programs have many important components, 
but I will use my time to highlight some of those in which 
state surveys have participated. In fact, the core program of 
the Landslide Hazard Reduction Program includes mapping and 
coordinating event response that has already fostered 
partnerships between the U.S. Geological Survey and the state 
surveys in Arizona, California, Colorado, Kentucky, North 
Carolina, Oregon, and, of course, Washington. And these 
partnerships are well on their way to developing strategy, 
developing risk preparedness for their respective states.
    The U.S. Landslide Inventory is an interactive map that 
provides landslide data from all sources, especially state 
surveys and USGS, and this is a crucial repository for new 
landslide data nationwide.
    The second program under the Landslide Preparedness Act is 
the 3D Elevation Program, 3DEP. It also collects LiDAR data 
that are used to create detailed digital images of the Earth's 
surface with accuracy of centimeters. Its applications are 
wide-ranging in geologic studies, but for mapping landslides is 
a revolutionary tool. One of the best ways to assess risk of 
landslides is to find old landslides, and LiDAR has been 
instrumental in finding these features, even under dense 
vegetation.
    Chairman Stauber and members of the Subcommittee, for these 
and many other reasons the Association of American State 
Geologists fully supports H.R. 7003. Thank you for your time.

    [The prepared statement of Dr. Metesh follows:]
            Prepared Statement of John J. Metesh, President,
               Association of American State Geologists,
 and State Geologist and Director, Montana Bureau of Mines and Geology
                              on H.R. 7003

    Chairman Stauber and other Members of the Subcommittee, thank you 
for the invitation to testify on H.R. 7003, the National Landslide 
Preparedness Act Reauthorization Act of 2024
    My name is John Metesh. I am the Montana State Geologist and 
Director of the Montana Bureau of Mines and Geology. I am testifying 
today as President of the Association of American State Geologist 
(AASG). AASG represents the directors of the state geological surveys 
in all 50 states and Puerto Rico. The responsibilities of each state 
survey vary, depending upon legislation and traditions. But most 
function as an information source for government and society on geology 
as it relates to water, energy development, mineral development, and 
geologic hazards--including, of course, landslides.
    The sobering fact about landslides is that the geologic conditions 
under which they occur have been place for millennia or eons. The 
geologic structure--that is, the type of rock that make up the layers 
and their weakness, the fractures or porosity that provide pathways for 
water to infiltrate and flow between weak and strong layers, the slope 
of the hillside, the state of erosion from stream action along the base 
of the hill have all been in place for centuries or millennia or eons--
waiting for a triggering event.
    The triggering events are familiar: rain or snowmelt in excess of 
normal, forest or wildland fires that strip vegetation and roots and 
alter the soil, an earthquake just strong enough to finally break the 
bond between layers of rock, or even one too many passes with a 
caterpillar building a road at the base of a hill.
    March 2024 will mark the 10th anniversary of the Oso landslide in 
northeast Washington State--the deadliest landslide in US history. 
Heavy rainfall in the previous months triggered a slide that moved 70 
million cubic feet blocking the Stillaguamish River and destroying 
access roads. This slide tragically resulted in the deaths of 43 people 
and upended an entire community.
    August 2024 will mark the 65th anniversary of the famous Madison 
Slide just outside Yellowstone Park in Montana. The trigger--a larger 
than normal earthquake--caused nearly 1 billion cubic feet of rock to 
slide off the mountain, cross the Madison River, and flow hundreds of 
yards uphill on the opposite side of the valley. Twenty-six campers 
were buried in moments--19 were never recovered. Three more people were 
lost in rock falls and other landslides up the valley. Another 250 
people were stranded and required rescue by helicopter.
    The Landslide Preparedness Act established two programs: the 
National Landslide Hazards Reduction Program and the 3D Elevation 
Program--both of which are especially important to state surveys. Both 
programs have many important components, but I will use my time to 
highlight some of those in which state surveys have participated.
    In fact, the core activities of the Landslide Hazards Reduction 
Program which include mapping and coordinating event response has 
already fostered partnerships between the USGS and state surveys in AZ, 
CA, CO, KY, NC, OR, and WA. These partnerships are well on their way to 
developing strategy and risk preparedness for their respective states.
    The US landslide inventory is an interactive map that provides 
landslide data compiled from local, state, and federal agencies with 
links to the original sources. The data come from maps and reports 
published by state geologic surveys as well as the USGS. This will be a 
crucial repository of new landslide data nationwide, while each survey 
will be able to host their data on their own websites. These are the 
data that will help state and local government assess risk and assist 
in planning for development as well as preparedness.
    Of course, AASG members look forward to participating in the 
nascent grant program. The USGS and AASG members share many cooperative 
funding efforts related to geology and groundwater. A new funding 
opportunity for state surveys to support our efforts to map, report, 
and assisting in preparedness is exciting--we look forward to the 
pending announcement in FY24.
    The second program under the National Landslide Preparedness Act is 
the 3D Elevation Program, often referred to as 3DEP. This program 
coordinates efforts of many state and Federal agencies to collect and 
collate digital elevation data across the country. Digital Elevation 
Models, or DEMs, or lately LiDAR, or Light Detection and Ranging, are 
used to create detailed digital images of the earths surface with an 
accuracy of centimeters. Its applications are wide ranging in geologic 
studies, but for mapping landslides--it is a revolutionary tool. One of 
the best ways to assess risk of landslides is to find old landslides 
and LiDAR has been instrumental in finding such features--even under 
dense vegetation.
    Chairman Stauber and other Members of the Subcommittee, for these 
and many other reasons, the Association of American State Geologists 
fully supports H.R. 7003. Thank you for your time.

                                 ______
                                 

   Questions Submitted for the Record to John J. Metesh, President, 
                Association of American State Geologists

             Questions Submitted by Representative DelBene

    Question 1. From the perspective of the Association of American 
State Geologists, what are the key parts of the act that state 
geological surveys would like to see implemented to make an immediate 
impact on landslide hazard preparedness at the local level?

    Answer. The following components of the act would have important 
immediate impacts on landslide preparedness at the local level, in 
order of priority to state surveys:

    Section 3.e.1: Many states have begun landslide/geohazard 
inventories in response to recent geohazards events; climate change as 
well as housing and transportation development in hazard-prone areas 
will likely increase the frequency of such events. The Cooperative 
Landslide Hazard Mapping and Assessment Grant Program, when 
implemented, will provide direct support to state geologic surveys to 
map and compile a digital inventory of landslide hazards in each state. 
The grant program funds will be matched by state funds--a model that 
has proven very successful in other programs in the USGS (eg National 
Cooperative Geologic Mapping Program).

    Section 5.a.1: The 3D Elevation Program (``3DEP'') has proven to be 
crucial to state geologic surveys; these data have greatly enhanced our 
ability to map hydrologic features, seismic hazards/faults, aquifers, 
and pre-historic landslides as well as probability assessment of new 
landslides. Timely collection of Light Detection and Ranging (LiDAR) 
data are critical for identification of new and immediate threats to 
public safety. Of particular interest to state geologic surveys, 
clarification that 3DEP is intended to include ongoing refresh and 
improve resolution of 3D elevation data; repeated elevation surveys 
document how the landscape is changing over time and will help identify 
high-risk areas.

    Section 3.b.5: Local emergency managers are reliant upon the 
National Landslide Preparedness Act Debris Flow Early Warning System. 
Large storm/large snowmelt events are becoming commonplace throughout 
the western states; housing and transportation development is debris-
flow prone areas is increasing as is the need for early warning 
systems. Similarly, wildland fires in upland areas require calibration 
of post-fire debris flow models to regional climates to inform timely 
evacuations.

                                 ______
                                 

    Mr. Stauber. Thank you very much. I want to thank you all 
for your testimony today.
    The Chair will now recognize Members for 5 minutes of 
questioning, and I will recognize myself for 5 minutes.
    Dr. Feldgus, in your written testimony you argue that the 
Mining Regulatory Clarity Act is unnecessary because the 
Department of the Interior issued a Solicitor's Opinion in May 
2023 that addressed the issue at hand in the Rosemont decision. 
What would prevent this Administration or future 
administrations from rescinding this opinion?
    Dr. Feldgus. We think we have a number of options for 
operators that are facing a similar situation to Rosemont, and 
those options are laid out in the opinion, but they are not 
purely dependent on the opinion. Those options would remain.
    Mr. Stauber. Could another Solicitor in another 
administration in the future change your opinion on that?
    Dr. Feldgus. It is always possible.
    Mr. Stauber. Yes. There is actually nothing stopping this 
Administration or future administrations from rescinding the 
Solicitor's Opinion. If the Solicitor's Opinion were rescinded, 
would the issue at hand still be solved?
    Dr. Feldgus. I think the different ways to resolve this in 
the opinion would still be available to operators. What the 
opinion does is lay it out very clearly for the operators and 
for our field staff, so they know what those options are.
    Mr. Stauber. I think, Dr. Feldgus, it is clear the issue 
would not be solved without the opinion or enduring legislation 
like the bill before us today. We would be right back to the 
same problem without this legislation.
    Mr. Haddock, I have heard that the Solicitor's Opinion 
raises more concerns than it actually settles, and that it does 
not provide the certainty that many operators need to move 
forward with the exploration and, ultimately, development phase 
of a domestic mining project. Would you like to expand upon 
this and respond to Dr. Feldgus' testimony?
    Mr. Haddock. There are a few ways that I will highlight 
that it creates uncertainty.
    The first is that it sets a standard for this validity 
determination that the Rosemont litigants have already 
indicated that they are going to challenge, that it does not 
establish the bar as high as proving that the claim could be 
patented and require that full mineral examination.
    The alternatives that it creates are likewise untenable. 
They are things like land exchanges, and we have seen how those 
get litigated for decades before a project can be permitted. It 
proposes the use of rights-of-way for the surface uses, and 
that doesn't really accommodate some of the normal uses you 
would have. And the regulations for rights-of-way are basically 
static. The roads on a mine site have to change constantly as 
the mine changes.
    And like any other Solicitor's Opinion, it can be swept 
away with a pen by a judge, and therefore it really doesn't 
create any certainty at all.
    Mr. Stauber. Yes, well said. Without a Rosemont fix in 
place, we are effectively giving the Administration the 
opportunity to shut down domestic mining, just like they did in 
northeastern Minnesota. What is stopping them from rescinding 
the Solicitor's Opinion in the future in order to shut down 
mining activity? As Dr. Feldgus testified, there is nothing 
holding them back.
    And, frankly, we have seen this Administration go back on 
their word time and time again. During the 2020 election, then-
candidate Biden told the American people we would mine, 
process, and manufacture right here in the United States during 
the time he was a candidate. Yet, during his time in office, 
President Biden has pulled mineral leases, off-shored work to 
countries using slave labor, and eliminated Buy American 
protections in the IRA-referenced EV charging stations.
    In a more recent example, consider the debt ceiling passed 
by Congress just last year. Despite the President negotiating 
and signing it into law, the permitting reforms, his 
Administration is now blatantly disregarding the reforms 
included. In fact, the Chair of the Council on Environmental 
Quality testified before this Committee just last year that she 
would not be taking into account the law of the land and 
implementing the bipartisan reforms that were passed by 
Congress and signed by the President. This Administration 
cannot be trusted, and it especially cannot be trusted to 
support domestic mining.
    Mr. Haddock, can you explain to the Committee the process 
of staking a claim, and what this entails, including 
regulations and timelines claimholders must abide by, and the 
consequences of not complying with these regulations, in 10 
seconds?
    [Laughter.]
    Mr. Haddock. The land has to be open, you have to go out 
and you have to post the land, as was indicated at the 
beginning. You have to file a notice, you have to put the 
notice on the claim, and you have to file your documents with 
the BLM within 90 days and pay your fees. If you fail to do so, 
there is no claim, it is void.
    Mr. Stauber. Thank you very much. I will now turn it over 
to Ranking Member Ocasio-Cortez for 5 minutes.
    Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. Thank you so much, Chairman.
    There have been some discussions about different 
interpretations of what is proposed today, but we have the 
Deputy Secretary right here, so we can just ask how the 
interpretation would be administratively.
    Dr. Feldgus, under this legislation, if I filed a mining 
claim just before a national park was established, could I 
potentially prevent that national park from being designated on 
my claim?
    Dr. Feldgus. Thank you for the question. I don't think you 
could prevent the designation of a national park around your 
claim, but you would have the right to use and occupy that 
claim that you have staked.
    Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. Thank you. And to reiterate, there are 
about 1,100 active mining claims within national parks 
presently. And under this legislation they would potentially 
all be deemed valid.
    Dr. Feldgus, if I built a house on my claim and told the 
Federal Government that it was part of my mining operation, 
panned for gold every once in a while, would that be allowed if 
this law were to be passed?
    Dr. Feldgus. It is very difficult to tell exactly what 
would be allowed under this law, because it is a little bit 
vague, and these rights under the law have not been tested in 
court yet. But it would certainly be very time consuming and 
expensive for the Federal Government to try to address a 
situation like that.
    Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. Thank you. And Dr. Feldgus, if I decided 
I wanted to prevent a new solar farm, a wind project, or a 
transmission line, and I filed a mining claim in the path of a 
project before the renewable energy project secured their 
rights of way, might I be able to stop or delay that project?
    Dr. Feldgus. That is certainly a concern under the 
legislation, yes.
    Also, any other authorized use, whether it is grazing, 
recreation, and so on would be at risk.
    Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. Thank you. And if I wanted to file a 
handful of these claims, known otherwise as ``nuisance 
claims,'' might I be able to potentially extract large sums of 
money from the Federal Government in exchange for giving up my 
claim?
    Dr. Feldgus. Yes, you would have probably a cause for a 
takings claim against the Federal Government.
    Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. Thank you. And if the government 
suspected I was trying to use my mining claims to extract money 
from other land users, or even proved that I was using the land 
for something other than mining, would the Federal Government 
be able to effectively invalidate my mining claim under this 
proposal?
    Dr. Feldgus. Not quickly or cheaply. It would take quite 
some time.
    Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. Interesting. You see, this bill includes 
extremely broad definitions of what it means to ``use and 
occupy land'' for ``mining-related activities.'' Almost 
anything would be allowed or the argument could be made that it 
is allowable, including dumping toxic mining waste, building 
housing on a mining claim in a national park, or even just 
claiming land to lock it up to make sure no one else can use 
it.
    Anyone, and I do mean anyone, you, me, a family member, a 
foreign company through an American subsidiary, could gain 
permanent rights to occupy claimed public land for just about 
$10 per acre per year. It sounds like a deal.
    I recognize that we will need some quantity of new minerals 
to support the transition to clean energy. Nobody denies that. 
But I believe with significant reforms and a whole-of-supply-
chain approach that maximizes efficiency and, importantly, 
recycling, we can achieve our clean energy future in a way that 
minimizes impact, protects tribal sovereignty, and supports 
labor and, importantly, equity.
    Unfortunately, the bills on the agenda today do not support 
that path, but I look forward to us figuring out a way where we 
can accommodate all of these needs.
    With that, I yield back to the Chair. Thank you.
    Mr. Stauber. Thank you very much. The Chair now recognizes 
Representative Graves from Louisiana for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Graves. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate all of 
you all being here today, and thank you for your testimony.
    Dr. Feldgus, last time I looked, I think it was 2022, there 
were 280 mining applications that were still in a process 
backlog with the Department of the Interior. Do you know where 
that stands now?
    Dr. Feldgus. I don't have the backlog number on me right 
now, I am sorry, the number of mines that we are currently 
processing. But I will say we have approved 36 new mines in the 
past 3 years.
    Mr. Graves. Thirty-six in 3 years. OK, so 12 a year with 
280 again in 2022 that had been stuck in backlog.
    On Friday, the Administration announced that they were 
going to effectively stop issuing export approval for liquefied 
natural gas. Did you support that decision?
    Dr. Feldgus. Well, I can't speak to that decision from 
another department.
    Mr. Graves. Well, I mean, it is exporting natural gas. It 
is related to what you do, in terms of mineral production. Does 
that sound like it makes sense?
    Dr. Feldgus. We certainly process applications for gas 
drilling permits and oil drilling permits as they come in. But 
when it comes to what happens to that gas afterwards, that is 
not the purview of the Department of the Interior.
    Mr. Graves. Sure. Well, I guess I disagree because you 
provide E&P approval, right?
    Dr. Feldgus. Which approval?
    Mr. Graves. E&P, exploration and production.
    Dr. Feldgus. Oh, yes.
    Mr. Graves. So, if you do that, why would you approve 
something if you believe there is not demand for it?
    Dr. Feldgus. Well, we approve permit applications as they 
come in.
    Mr. Graves. Actually, you don't, and that is the problem, I 
think, where we are going right now.
    [Chart.]
    Mr. Graves. Dr. Feldgus, in 2022, 280 project backlogs, you 
have said you have approved 36 of them. We have all seen this 
chart, everybody has seen it, that shows the U.S. dependence 
upon critical minerals. It is absolutely extraordinary. It is 
not just the mining, it is also the processing and refining.
    We have also seen predatory practices by countries like 
China. For example, when a cobalt mine was approved in my 
friend from Idaho's state, we saw this dumping of cobalt on 
U.S. markets, dropping prices down significantly.
    Have you all had any conversations with the Department of 
Commerce about fair trade practices and ensuring that remedies 
are in place to ensure the level playing field for U.S. 
production?
    Dr. Feldgus. Yes, absolutely. We are involved in a number 
of interagency efforts as part of the Administration's all-of-
government approach to try to increase mineral security in the 
United States.
    Mr. Graves. So, you all are working with the Department of 
Commerce to put tariffs or ensure a fair trade with the United 
States and other countries in regard to----
    Dr. Feldgus. We are not involved in tariff policy, but we 
are involved in discussions about supply chains and other 
critical mineral issues.
    Mr. Graves. Dr. Feldgus, this Administration has this 
policy of we are just going to not do anything. We are not 
going to approve mines, we are not going to allow for the 
export of liquefied natural gas, with this imaginary outcome 
being that there is not going to be demand for those things.
    What we are seeing is the exact opposite. We are seeing, as 
our allies across the world are asking for more of our 
liquefied natural gas, they don't have to get it from Iran, 
they don't have to get it from Russia and other producers.
    So, what we are seeing out of the Administration, it is 
consistent in that we are not approving projects that would 
actually improve our security, we are not carrying out policies 
that would be compatible with the data. For example, the fact 
that the Department of Energy shows there is going to be a 57 
percent global demand increase for natural gas between now and 
2050, why wouldn't we want to meet that demand? It doesn't make 
sense.
    And, similarly, if you take the Biden administration's 
policies and what they are trying to do, the objectives they 
are trying to hit on electric vehicles, on renewable energy 
generation and deployment, you don't have anything close to the 
critical minerals that are required.
    Look at what happened to our friends in Europe when they 
were dependent upon Russia for energy. Look at what happened to 
them. They effectively paid for themselves to be attacked. Look 
at what is happening when this Administration is carrying out 
awful energy policies to where Iran has profited to the tune of 
$60 billion. And now we have our own troops that are dead 
because of the attack in Jordan. We are having our own ships 
that are being shot at. And we effectively have paid for it by 
bad energy policy and giving Iran $60 billion that they are 
turning around and giving to their proxies.
    So, Dr. Feldgus, what we are seeing right now is the same 
thing. We are seeing policies that are being carried out that 
are actually rewarding countries like China that are coming out 
and using those resources to challenge U.S. assets and 
interests all over the world. It doesn't make sense and it is 
not compatible with your own Biden administration's policies or 
objectives on EV deployment, renewable energy deployment, and 
others.
    And I just urge that there be some reconciliation here. It 
is incredibly dangerous, and all we are doing is enriching our 
enemies. I yield back.
    Mr. Stauber. Thank you very much. The Chair now recognizes 
Representative Kamlager-Dove for 5 minutes.
    Ms. Kamlager-Dove. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to 
our witnesses for being here today.
    President Stiffarm, I am especially grateful to see you 
here today. Too often, the conversation about our country's 
minerals needs have left out those who would be, and already 
have been, impacted by these mining interests.
    Many of the minerals needed for the energy transition are 
located near or within areas of cultural or environmental 
importance to Indigenous peoples: 97 percent of nickel, 89 
percent of copper, 79 percent of lithium, and 68 percent of 
cobalt reserves and resources are within 35 miles of tribal 
lands. But as we have heard here today, mining is not a new 
threat to tribal lands.
    President Stiffarm, can you briefly tell us about some of 
the environmental impacts of mining that have been left behind 
near your community?
    Mr. Stiffarm. Thank you for your question. The impacts that 
have been left behind and what they did to our sacred lands and 
our Little Rockies is pretty devastating. It is a CERCLA site, 
so it is going to be perpetually looked at and cleaned up at 
the rate of $2.2 million a year to help clean up and take care 
of that site.
    And what I know about this is the water that drains onto 
the reservation, they don't have cleaning ponds or cleaning 
stations to filter out our water. They do to the towns south of 
us, Zortman and Landusky, they have clean drinking water. As a 
matter of fact, they drilled a deep well to pump water into 
those two communities, but they don't onto the Fort Belknap 
Indian Reservation.
    Now, I will paint you a quick picture. Like I spoke about 
earlier, those mountains are like our church, our prayer. We go 
up there and we fast. Our Sundance Grounds are in those 
mountains. We go up there and we pray. We make offerings. Now, 
what if they had a mine right in the backyard of a church or 
synagogue, and they left it unattended, and the water and the 
ground got contaminated in one of these major cities, or even 
in one of our small towns? That would be a big issue.
    But to me, the people, the first people of this country, 
the Native Americans, we are second-class citizens still. We 
are a third-world country. People don't take that into concern 
about how it affects our lives, our children's lives, our 
grandchildren's, and our future generations. And we are still 
battling this from 1888 to where we are here today.
    And you take a look at that mining law, that was 1872. It 
has never been changed. And we were forced to be put on 
reservations and our treaties have been changed over, and over, 
and over that affects us. But these mining companies and these 
mining laws have never been touched. There is something wrong 
with that picture in that what is wrong with that picture, it 
boils down to profit, lining their pockets, and while our 
people are starving, 70 percent unemployment rate, suicide rate 
is very high amongst our people.
    Ms. Kamlager-Dove. So, President Stiffarm, rather than 
enacting legislation like this which tips the scales further 
towards the interests of the mining industry, what would you 
like to see?
    Mr. Stiffarm. I would like to see these mining companies 
held accountable for what they leave behind, the devastation. I 
come here to speak for life for our people, not for profit. We 
just want to live like we used to. And we do live like that. We 
just practice our own language, our culture from centuries ago.
    But what happened in the mountain that they did cut down, 
we called that Spirit Mountain, where they cut it pretty much 
in half, and they used cyanide heap leach to extract the gold. 
It is still there. But we can't sit there and pray on it 
anymore because they took that away from us also.
    Ms. Kamlager-Dove. I want to thank you for your testimony, 
and I wanted to give you my time so that we could listen to 
you.
    With that, Mr. Chair, I yield back.
    Mr. Stauber. Thank you very much. Next up is Representative 
Fulcher for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Fulcher. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. To the panel, thank 
you for being here. I always learn something by being here, and 
I was able to go through some of the written testimony, as 
well, so thank you for that.
    Mr. Chairman, my colleague from Louisiana talked about the 
Administration's policy when it comes to mineral extraction or 
exploration, certainly on public lands. And I think he has 
appropriately identified that it is largely a do-nothing 
strategy, and there are always reasons to do nothing. I think 
we all know that, and we can always figure out ways or reasons 
to do nothing.
    But the reality is that we live in a world where there are 
certain minerals that we just need to have, and we need to have 
those for critical consumer use, we need to have those for 
military, for homeland security purposes. And somehow, some way 
we are going to get them, because of that demand and because of 
that critical need.
    So, the question then goes to how do we get them? Do we get 
them as responsibly as we humanly can, and control the process, 
or do we do what we are all too often doing now and empower our 
enemies by purchasing from them, who have some or maybe little, 
very little environmental concerns or processes? And that is 
just the world that we live in.
    So, Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for your leadership. 
Over and over again, we bring things to the table to try to 
navigate this process and put some sanity into the real-life 
situation that we are all confronted with. And therein lies the 
list of bills that we have today. And I am thankful for the 
sponsors for bringing that.
    I do have a question specifically for Mr. Haddock.
    In your written testimony, you spoke about the criticisms 
of H.R. 2925, and the one that I would like you to expand on a 
little bit is how do you address the argument that we have 
already heard here, where this bill may lead to the use of 
mining claims for non-mining purposes? How do you address that?
    Mr. Haddock. Thank you for that question. The answer to 
that is that this just simply returns the state of permitting 
to the way it was pre-Rosemont, and it doesn't change any other 
provision of the mining law, including the clear regulations in 
the BLM surface use regulations about the use of surface for 
inappropriate purposes.
    The BLM has the ability at any time to go out and police 
their mining claims, and they do, and remove non-conforming 
uses. Any mining claim that is located for any purpose other 
than mining and prospecting purposes is void ab initio. It is a 
non-entity. And under the law the BLM can, as we have talked 
about, go out to file a lawsuit, and they can void the claim. 
But to say, well, let's not let anybody do that, it is kind of 
saying let's take away all of our deductions under the IRS 
because some people cheat on it.
    The government has to enforce when people cheat, and they 
do.
    Mr. Fulcher. All right. Thank you for that, Mr. Haddock. I 
appreciate you expanding on it.
    I do have some other questions I am going to submit for the 
record.
    But I have about a minute and a half left. I would like to 
yield that to the Chairman.
    Mr. Stauber. Thank you very much for yielding.
    Dr. Feldgus, Representative Graves asked you how many new 
mines that this Administration has approved. I will ask you a 
little bit more specific. Are they new mines or mine 
modifications or expansions?
    Dr. Feldgus. I would have to go back and check exactly how 
many are expansions or modifications.
    Mr. Stauber. Do you want me to tell you? Two, and two were 
approved via EIS statement and one was lost in court and that 
was Resolution Copper. The EIS wasn't approved. They went to 
court and filed. Resolution Copper is not mining copper right 
now. We know that Resolution Copper will provide 25 percent of 
this nation's copper.
    So, I want to be very accurate. You said 36. That is not 
accurate answering the question from Representative Graves. He 
said how many new mines, and you used Secretary Haaland's 
number, 36. Those are modifications and expansion. I want to be 
very clear. There have only been two, and the courts took away 
one.
    My time is up, and I will refer to the Ranking Member of 
the Full Committee, Representative Grijalva, for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Grijalva. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And if I 
may, I would like to request unanimous consent to enter into 
the record section 2, lines 6 through 15 of H.R. 2025, dealing 
with the language issue.
    Could somebody build a hotel? Could somebody build a waste 
dump? Could somebody build housing on that property? And the 
claimant shall have the right to use, this is according to the 
bill, the right to use, occupy, and conduct operations on 
public land with or without the discovery of a valuable mineral 
deposit if the claimant makes a timely payment on a location 
fee and the claim maintenance fee.
    Mr. Stauber. Without objection.
    Mr. Grijalva. Thank you very much.
    President Stiffarm, thank you for being here, sir, and most 
of the questions I was going to ask you, you answered in 
response to my colleagues here.
    As you have been listening, mining is considered the 
highest and best use of our public lands, meaning if there are 
minerals present on the land and someone stakes a claim on 
eligible public land, then they get to mine that. And land 
managers and communities don't have a great deal of say, they 
don't have the right to say no to a project and much less have 
the right to significantly weigh in on the project prior to 
exploration and prior to development. These impact lives very 
directly.
    And for the last 150 years, the mining industry has had to 
at least prove that there were valuable minerals on the land 
before they had the rights to claim it. The bill that I just 
referenced is so extreme that it takes that even a step 
further. The bill gives anyone the ability to stake a mining 
claim, whether there are valuable minerals on the land or not, 
i.e. Rosemont needed that extra land so they could dump their 
waste there because community and state land was not available.
    The reason for this change, mining companies want to dump 
toxic mining waste whenever they want to and as a convenience 
for the operation. Under this bill, the highest and best use of 
any public land would be, it is OK to dump toxic waste or any 
other thing the mining industry wants to get rid of.
    President, can you tell us about this particular section, 
and more about the legislation and what it creates for your 
community as I referenced those points just now?
    Mr. Stiffarm. Thank you for your question.
    I guess how I have explained and how it is read in this, it 
brings it back to probably the 1800s when the Homestead Act was 
taken, when they were allowed to take our land, our Native 
peoples' land, as they wished.
    With this law that you have here now, these mining 
companies, they stake claims anywhere and wherever they want. 
And it sounds like you guys are going to be doing that 
yourselves now, to take land, whether it is in a national park 
or unclaimed land, and claim it as a mining claim and take it 
as their own. That is what happened to us. That is what put us 
on reservations.
    And where I see it now, you are all turning around on 
yourselves and letting these mining companies do it to you, do 
it to these people's lands here, the national parks or wherever 
they recreate, or wherever they think they want to find a claim 
at, claim that land as their own. I guess they come full 
circle. I see in my eyes where you all are going to allow these 
people to take your land as they took ours. That is the way I 
see it. Thank you, sir.
    Mr. Grijalva. Thank you. And just to that point, I think 
there is historical context to what we are talking about, and I 
appreciate all the witnesses and their comments, that the 
moment is now. Yes, I don't disagree with that. This is real 
time. But there is a historical context here. And to merely 
open the floodgates to the use of our public lands without any 
protections, due process, community involvement on the part of 
the communities, including Indigenous communities across this 
country, is going back to a time that got us into this 
situation.
    The reaction to mining in this country and the oppositions 
that you find at Rosemont and at Resolution in my home state of 
Arizona are not organic, they just pop up, there is a history 
there. And the San Carlos Tribe and the O'Odham Tribe, and 
environmentalists are opposed to that because of the lack of 
transparency and the overpowering control that the mining 
industry has over the law of 1872. That has to change if we 
want sustainable, quality, good mining in this country.
    With that, I yield back, sir.
    Mr. Stauber. Thank you very much. Next up, Representative 
Tiffany from Wisconsin for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Tiffany. Thank you.
    Dr. Feldgus, do you believe the Ninth Circuit decision was 
ruled correctly on the Rosemont decision?
    Dr. Feldgus. I don't know if I should opine on court 
decisions.
    Mr. Tiffany. I was just reading in this, I think it was 
your testimony, I am reading here that there is basically great 
uncertainty, and you are just not sure, and we need to work 
through this.
    Isn't the Rosemont decision leading basically to chaos in 
trying to sort it out?
    Dr. Feldgus. I don't believe so. We are able to move, we 
are advancing mines after the Rosemont decision. We are using 
the options that are laid out in our Solicitor's M Opinion to 
give companies an option for how they would like to move 
forward, and we are able to do that.
    Mr. Tiffany. Do you think companies are going to be able to 
mine post-Rosemont?
    Dr. Feldgus. I believe they are mining and we have approved 
mines post-Rosemont.
    Mr. Tiffany. How many mines have you approved?
    Dr. Feldgus. I can't tell you the exact number since 
Rosemont.
    Mr. Tiffany. Mr. Chairman, didn't you just cite that 
number?
    Mr. Stauber. Representative Tiffany, if I may----
    Mr. Tiffany. I will yield to the Chairman.
    Mr. Stauber. Representative Tiffany, Representative Graves 
asked Dr. Feldgus how many mines that they approved, and he 
stated there was 36. In fact, that is not accurate. When we 
talk about new mines, we are not talking about modifications or 
expansions. It is actually two for EV batteries and critical 
minerals.
    Mr. Tiffany. So, do you think that is going to be able to 
be sufficient to satisfy our needs for minerals here in the 
United States of America, just doing two mines over the course 
of, Mr. Chairman, if I could yield back to you, over the course 
of how many years?
    Mr. Stauber. The last 3 years.
    Mr. Tiffany. Do you think we are going to have a sufficient 
amount of critical minerals to be able to continue a life of 
prosperity in America?
    Dr. Feldgus. Well, that is why the Administration is in 
favor of increasing domestic mineral production, and why we put 
out a report last year with over 60 recommendations for how to 
improve mining and how to build more public trust and 
confidence in the process.
    Mr. Stauber. Representative Tiffany, will you yield to me?
    Mr. Tiffany. I would be happy to yield to you.
    Mr. Stauber. Dr. Feldgus, I can't let that comment go. You 
have shut down mines in northeastern Minnesota, the biggest 
copper nickel find in the world. Your Administration pulled the 
leases for political purposes. They wouldn't even let an EIS go 
forward. Ninety-five percent of our nickel is in that find, 88 
percent of our cobalt, over a third of our copper and other 
platinum group metals. I can't let you get by with that 
statement that you support domestic mining.
    In fact, with this Administration, Dr. Feldgus, that 
couldn't be further from the truth. They are working on 
Memorandums of Understanding with the Chinese Communist Party, 
who owned 15 of the 19 industrial mines in the Congo, no 
environmental standards, no labor standards, and use child 
slave labor. I can't let you, on behalf of the Administration, 
say that to the American people.
    I yield back.
    Mr. Tiffany. Mr. Haddock, if we continue in this direction 
that we have seen over the, and I wouldn't say just the last 3 
years, but over a series of administrations here, where we have 
seen this hostility towards mining, where are we headed, as a 
country?
    Mr. Haddock. Well, ultimately, we will not be able to 
permit mines.
    And the one comment I would make is I think there is a big 
misunderstanding about what Rosemont said. Rosemont didn't say 
that you have to be able to prove that you have a valuable 
mineral deposit to mine the mine. Rosemont said you had to 
prove you had a valuable mineral deposit to put the road to the 
mine. You never had to patent, and you don't have to patent a 
mine to operate it.
    But with a decision like Rosemont hanging out there and 
continued moves to make permitting more difficult, we won't be 
able to mine.
    Mr. Tiffany. Are you challenging that decision?
    Is anyone challenging the decision that came out of the 
Ninth Circuit?
    Mr. Haddock. I do, I think it is wrong, and I think it 
needs to be reversed.
    Mr. Tiffany. Is anybody challenging it, though? Is it 
currently being challenged?
    Mr. Haddock. It is used in numerous situations, and there 
are still open statutes of limitations periods. There are 
briefs that have been filed in other cases that suggest they 
are going to use Rosemont to make other arguments, including 
that you can't put even a transmission line across the claim 
until you have proved that it has a valuable mineral deposit.
    Mr. Tiffany. Mr. Chairman, I will just conclude with this.
    Dr. Feldgus, I give you great credit for standing up here 
before the Administration. We have seen you doing this multiple 
times on behalf of the Administration. I would just go back to 
Superior, Wisconsin, when the President was just here in my 
district last week and talking about, boy, we have to build 
this infrastructure, and I am going to give a big, billion-
dollar check to build this bridge that spans Minnesota and 
Wisconsin, which I support. But the price tag is $1 billion.
    And why is the price tag $1 billion that is going into 
that, plus? It is because we are not producing those minerals 
and we don't have permitting, we don't have permitting reform 
that we could do this in less than 10 to 15 years. But we have 
the minerals to produce the steel that goes into that bridge in 
northern Minnesota, yet the Administration is stopping that 
from being produced.
    How are we going to build infrastructure in America in a 
friendly environment where we can do it in a way that is not 
cost-prohibitive? And we can't do it. And President Biden and 
his Administration should stop this charade that they believe 
in building infrastructure in America because they are doing 
everything to kill it, including by killing mining projects.
    I yield back.
    Mr. Stauber. Thank you very much. The Chair now recognizes 
Representative Gosar from Arizona for 5 minutes.
    Dr. Gosar. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate 
the opportunity to discuss critical legislation initiatives 
that address challenges facing our nation in the realms of 
mining, resource management, and the community safety.
    The recent Rosemont decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals 
for the Ninth Circuit and the Biden administration's proposed 
rule regarding mining projects under the FAST-41 Act underscore 
the need for legislative clarity and foresight. Today, I want 
to highlight the Rosemont decision.
    According to the AP article, the Rosemont decision conveys 
that the government must prove that ``valuable minerals are 
present'' on the land before they establish rights to adjacent 
land for waste disposal. Well, here is an obvious problem: how 
can you prove that valuable minerals are present if you can't 
even mine?
    The answer is that it is impossible to prove this. Unless 
you actually get your hands dirty and start the process of 
extracting ore from the ground, there is no way to truly prove 
that a mine has valuable minerals. Essentially, you can't mine 
unless you prove valuable minerals are present, and you can't 
prove valuable minerals are present unless you mine. This 
harmful Catch-22 negatively affects my home state of Arizona, 
and neighboring Nevada suffers from the fallout also.
    I represent a district that was founded because of 
minerals. They are essential to the communication and the 
national security of our country. I will continue to oppose the 
attacks on our mines by activist judges and the Biden 
administration.
    Mr. Haddock, is the Mining Regulatory Clarity Act a 
bipartisan proposal?
    Mr. Haddock. Yes.
    Dr. Gosar. How is this reflected in the outside support 
throughout the mineral supply chain and with the broader 
industry such as labor and workforce?
    Mr. Haddock. Well, at this point I can tell you that our 
vendors are very concerned about it. Our contractors, the 
providers, the people who make the haul trucks.
    And I can also tell you that our workers are very concerned 
about it, and I suspect that some of my colleagues back in 
Nevada are watching this hearing today, and this is of great 
importance to them and our 7,000 employees in Nevada.
    Dr. Gosar. So, what are some of the irrational outcomes of 
Rosemont?
    Mr. Haddock. Well, there are many, but one of them is that 
the Rosemont decision taken to its extreme means that you 
actually have to dump your materials or build your facilities 
on top of the minerals you are supposed to be mining. That is 
how irrational it is.
    But it also means that when the BLM, as they did in the 
Rosemont case, looked at the configuration of the mine and 
where the waste rock had to go, and they tried to make it 
compact and to avoid cultural resources and to avoid 
environmental values, it now means that you can't do that, that 
you have to spread it out, that you have to take the waste 
somewhere far away on some other piece of ground to do this.
    Dr. Gosar. Does the Rosemont decision present any risk to 
some existing mines?
    Mr. Haddock. In the Solicitor's Opinion, they recognize 
that there is an issue there. And it was kind of an interesting 
footnote that they put at the end and said, well, we recognize 
that some mines might not have been exactly permitted with 
Rosemont, or consistent with this opinion, and said, well, your 
honors, you judges, if anybody challenges those mines, you 
should not upset those approvals, and there are a bunch of good 
reasons you should do that.
    Of course, that is not enforceable against the courts, and 
the litigants can say whatever they want. We don't think you 
should be able to upset existing approvals, but I suppose 
someone could make that argument.
    Dr. Gosar. Got you. So, does this bill allow mining 
activities to occur in conservation areas, national parks, or 
prior withdrawn lands?
    Mr. Haddock. It does not. Those are governed by their own 
regulations and statutes.
    Dr. Gosar. Does this bill create new property rights that 
were not previously part of the mining law?
    Mr. Haddock. No, it does not. This bill is not about 
property rights. It is simply about how you permit a mine.
    Dr. Gosar. Why shouldn't we be concerned about the Grand 
Canyon and the Central Arizona Project, examples of 
inappropriate use of mining claims cited by the opponent of 
this bill?
    Mr. Haddock. I would say that those are examples that show 
just the opposite, that shows the government can void claims 
that are located for inappropriate motives.
    Dr. Gosar. Should we be incentivizing mining in the United 
States? And if so, what is needed?
    Mr. Haddock. Well, the one thing that I would love to see 
is the return of a Bureau of Mines, somebody who gathers all 
the data from we that are out operating on the ground 
commercially, thinks about that suite of things on the periodic 
table that are really important to the country, does research 
to find ways to extract those commercially, and keeps that 
database as a nation. Most nations do that, and we don't have 
anything like that now.
    Dr. Gosar. My last question for you is, are we stronger or 
weaker when we are dependent upon others for our natural 
resources?
    Mr. Haddock. We are weaker.
    Dr. Gosar. So, this is a national security issue.
    Mr. Haddock. Yes, sir.
    Dr. Gosar. There is a bigger plan here. This isn't the end 
of this issue, is it? There is something else behind this, 
right?
    Mr. Haddock. I don't know.
    Dr. Gosar. Well, take it from me, there is.
    I yield back.
    Mr. Stauber. Thank you very much. Before we wrap it up, the 
Ranking Member of the Full Committee, Ranking Member Grijalva.
    Mr. Grijalva. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I would 
just like unanimous consent to enter into the record a letter 
from the Patagonia Area Resource Alliance in my district in 
Arizona which is home to the first mining project considered 
under FAST-41. They raise issues on that in opposition to H.R. 
6862, and for the record, sir.
    Mr. Stauber. Without objection.

    [The information follows:]

                    PATAGONIA AREA RESOURCE ALLIANCE

                             Patagonia, AZ

                                               January 24, 2024    

Full Committee Chairman Bruce Westerman
Full Committee Ranking Member Raul Grijalva
Sub-Committee Ranking Member Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez

Re: H.R. 6862

    Greetings Representatives Westerman, Grijalva, and Ocasio-Cortez:

    I write to you in opposition to H.R. 6862 (Rep Lamborn), a bill to 
amend the FAST Act to include certain mineral production activities as 
a covered project. This bill would codify Trump-era regulations that 
make all mining eligible for FAST-41. FAST-41's project-specific 
permitting timetables do not conform with the well-documented risks 
mining poses to land, waters, public health, and other resources, 
especially with tribal consultation requirements.

    I live in Patagonia, AZ where an Australian mining company is 
currently operating the only mine project that is designated as a FAST-
41 project; a designation received in July 2023. As a frontline 
community, we are very concerned about the impacts of 21st century 
industrialized mining activity in an area of rapidly declining 
groundwater and increasing drought. WATER IS LIFE--DON'T MINE IT AWAY!

    The Town of Patagonia and Santa Cruz County are part of the Madrean 
Archipelago a region identified by scientists as one of the top regions 
in the world most in need of research and protection for species 
survival. These mountains are home to more than 100 federally 
designated endangered, sensitive, threatened species.

    ``Effective democratic governance depends upon informed public 
participation, and several international conventions and policy 
guidelines call for enhanced public participation in environmental 
management. Yet, large-scale resource development projects generally 
receive insufficient oversight by, and engagement with, civil society. 
And in the absence of effective supervision and public engagement, 
corporate and government vigilance can weaken, complacency increases, 
environmental and social standards decline, and risks increase. Such 
insufficient oversight, lower standards, and complacency can result in 
acute and catastrophic damage, such as oil spills, chemical explosions, 
mine disaster, over harvest and stock collapse; long-term, chronic 
environmental degradation; and social tension, mistrust, litigation, 
and even violence between local people and industry.'' United Nations 
Environment Program Citizens' Advisory Councils to Enhance Civil 
Society Oversight of Resource Industries by Richard Steiner.

    Patagonia Area Resource Alliance (PARA) works to hold federal and 
state agencies to the laws and regulations on exploratory and mining 
activities in the Patagonia Mountains and the Sonoita Creek watershed; 
collaborates with Strategic Partners to (i) assure that any mining 
activities meet the highest science-based standards and (ii) protect 
the water, land, and wildlife of the Patagonia Mountains from the 
negative impacts of modern industrialized mining; and supports the 
expansion of the nature based restorative economy that depends on the 
remarkable biodiversity and cultural heritage of our region.

    PARA is currently involved in two legal actions with respect to 
state water permits because AZ Department of Environmental Quality is 
not following state statutes nor complying with Clean Water Act 
regulations. PARA wrote to EPA in July and October 2023 requesting the 
federal agency exercise its oversight of the state agency.

    PARA is one of the organizations involved in a lawsuit against the 
Coronado National Forest for its failure to perform a cumulative 
impacts analysis. PARA is also aware of several FOIAs to the Forest 
Service that have not yet been responded to. In the summers of 2021 and 
2022, the Town of Patagonia asked the Coronado Forest Service to 
conduct a comprehensive groundwater study. The Coronado provided an 
unsatisfactory response. How can any Plan of Operations be approved 
without knowing the impact that this massive activity will have on a 
unique hydrologic system?

    PARA is working with the Town and the County on the process of 
drafting a Community Protection & Benefits Agreement. Both the Town of 
Patagonia and Santa Cruz County are designated as Participating Agents 
in this FAST-41 process for this project. WHO is the point of contact 
for how this process should work for the community and to be able to 
address issues and concerns as they arise. It is important for all 
information to be publicly available as this project moves through the 
NEPA process. When will we be able to review the Plan of Operations 
that has been accepted by the Coronado National Forest?

    I end this letter with the same statement I opened with: I write to 
you in opposition to H.R. 6862 (Rep Lamborn), a bill to amend the FAST 
Act to include certain mineral production activities as a covered 
project. This bill would codify Trump-era regulations that make all 
mining eligible for FAST-41. FAST-41's project-specific permitting 
timetables do not conform with the well-documented risks mining poses 
to land, waters, public health, and other resources, especially with 
tribal consultation requirements.

                                            Carolyn Shafer,
                             Board Co-Chair and Mission Coordinator

                                 ______
                                 

    Mr. Grijalva. Thank you.
    Mr. Stauber. I would also like to, without objection, 
submit for the record testimony from the National Mining 
Association in support of H.R. 2925 and H.R. 6862; a letter 
from American Exploration and Mining Association expressing 
support for H.R. 2925, along with H.R. 6862; a letter from NMA 
and ZETA in support of H.R. 2925 and critical mineral 
development in the United States; a statement for the record 
from Advanced Energy United in support of H.R. 2925; a letter 
from the National Infrastructure Alliance in support of H.R. 
6862; a bipartisan letter sent to the Federal Permitting 
Improvement Steering Council, signed by 22 Senators; a letter 
sent to the Federal Permitting Improvement Steering Council 
signed by Senator Christine Sinema, both of which are in 
opposition to the Biden administration's proposed rule to limit 
the FAST-41 covered sector list to critical mineral projects 
only; and also the most recent USGS mineral commodity summaries 
for 2024.

    [The information follows:]
                        Statement for the Record
                      National Mining Association

    America's mining industry supplies the essential materials 
necessary for every sector of our economy--from technology and 
healthcare to energy, transportation, infrastructure and national 
security. The National Mining Association (NMA) is the only national 
trade organization that serves as the voice of the U.S. mining industry 
and the hundreds of thousands of American workers it employs before 
Congress, the federal agencies, the judiciary and the media, advocating 
for public policies that will help America fully and responsibly 
utilize its vast natural resources.
    We work to ensure America has secure and reliable supply chains, 
abundant and affordable energy, and the American-sourced materials 
necessary for U.S. manufacturing, national security and economic 
security, all delivered under world-leading environmental, safety and 
labor standards. The NMA has a membership of more than 280 companies 
and organizations involved in every aspect of mining, from producers 
and equipment manufacturers to service providers. The NMA appreciates 
the opportunity to offer written testimony on behalf of the mineral and 
hardrock mining industry in support of H.R. 2925--the Mining Regulatory 
Clarity Act of 2023--and H.R. 6862, which would amend the Fixing 
America's Surface Transportation (FAST) Act to include certain mineral 
production activities as a covered project.
Introduction

    Despite being home to vast mineral reserves, the U.S. is facing 
unprecedented and precarious mineral supply chain challenges. Our 
import reliance has been a well-documented and increasingly problematic 
issue for decades and has now become a crisis, exacerbated by pandemic 
and war-related supply chain challenges, and exponentially increasing 
mineral demands due to the rapid electrification of our economy. As 
documented by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), the U.S. reached 
record mineral import reliance in 2022 as imports made up more than 
one-half of the U.S. apparent consumption for 51 nonfuel mineral 
commodities--up from 2021, when only 47 commodities met that metric.\1\ 
USGS numbers for 2023 are expected any day with this upward mineral 
import trend likely to continue.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ U.S. Geological Survey, 2023 Commodity Summary, available at 
https://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/mcs2023.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    There is recognition by some within the Biden-Harris administration 
of the immense challenge we now face and the importance of domestic 
mining to nearly every piece of the President's agenda. Several of the 
administration's early executive actions, including its comprehensive 
supply chain review, made clear the inherent vulnerabilities of our 
overreliance on mineral imports, the need for domestic mining support 
and lack of domestic processing and refining capabilities. Despite the 
rhetoric from the administration about the need to address the minerals 
challenge, actions have not lived up to the words.\2\ There can be no 
mineral and supply chain security--no meeting the enormous mineral 
demand at our doorstep--without fundamental recognition that we need 
more domestic mining and the policies to achieve it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ The administration recently memorialized its policy 
recommendations with the Sept. 12, 2023, release of the White House 
Interagency Working Group (IWG) on Mining Regulations, Laws, and 
Permitting released its report, ``Recommendations to Improve Mining on 
Public Lands.'' The NMA strongly disagrees with the report's 
overarching conclusion that fundamental reform of the Mining Law is 
necessary to achieve the best outcomes. The NMA's comments to the IWG 
are available at https://www.regulations.gov/comment/DOI-2022-0003-
26954. A recent NMA op-ed, the Biden mining policy train wreck, 
outlines concerns regarding many of the key policy recommendations is 
available at https://elkodaily.com/opinion/column/commentary-the-biden-
mining-policy-train-wreck/article_3036f00e-80c5-11ee-bc20-
1bade970ae33.html. These NMA concerns apply equally to provisions of S. 
1742 that are similar to the IWG policy recommendations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Solutions to meet anticipated mineral demand, while simultaneously 
rebuilding our domestic supply chains, must be comprehensive. Friend-
shoring of our minerals supply, however, cannot come in place of the 
essential work of standing up production and these supply chains at 
home. Regulatory certainty must be the cornerstone of minerals policies 
to enable the ramping up of domestic production and processing under 
our rigorous environmental and safety standards.
    The NMA appreciates the opportunity to discuss the importance of 
regulatory certainty in the context of the legislation that is the 
subject of this hearing. The NMA strongly supports the bipartisan 
Mining Regulatory Clarity Act of 2023 (H.R. 2925) to restore long-
standing interpretations of the Mining Law upended by the U.S. Court of 
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit's fundamentally flawed decision in Center 
for Biological Diversity v. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (Rosemont 
Decision). Additionally, the NMA strongly supports H.R. 6862, which 
prohibits the Federal Permitting Improvement Steering Council from 
finalizing, implementing or enforcing its proposed rule titled 
``Revising Scope of the Mining Sector of Projects That Are Eligible for 
Coverage Under Title 41 of the Fixing America's Surface Transportation 
Act'' (88 Fed. Reg. 65350; September 22, 2023). These bills restore 
regulatory certainty to strengthen the domestic mining industry and 
improve investor confidence.
Ever-increasing Demand for Minerals

    The most mineral intensive moment in human history is upon us and 
the U.S. is woefully unprepared. Looking solely at demand coming from 
the electric vehicle market: the Energy Transitions Commission 
estimates up to 250 new mines may be required by 2030.\3\ Benchmark 
Minerals says we will need 384 new mines by 2035.\4\ The Fraser 
Institute recently said 388 new mines must be built by 2030.\5\ It's 
clearly not a question of if we must mine, but where? The ``where'' 
matters because producing minerals here at home, as opposed to the 
administration's proposals to partner with countries such as Congo and 
Zambia, ensures mining will be conducted in accordance with the world's 
most stringent environmental, labor and safety regulations, while 
simultaneously creating high-paying American jobs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\ Energy Transitions Commission, ``Material and Resource 
Requirements for the Energy Transition,'' July 2023; https://
www.energy-transitions.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/ETC-Material-and-
Resource-Requirements-ExecSummary_vF.pdf
    \4\ https://source.benchmarkminerals.com/article/more-than-300-new-
mines-required-to-meet-battery-demand-by-2035.
    \5\ Fraser Institute, ``Failure to Charge: A Critical Look at 
Canada's EV Policy,'' Nov. 2023; https://www.fraserinstitute.org/sites/
default/files/can-metal-mining-match-the-speed-of-planned-electric-
vehicle-transition.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Biden administration has articulated a desire to scale back 
U.S. reliance on Chinese minerals. In April 2023, President Biden's 
national security adviser, Jake Sullivan, warned that ``clean-energy 
supply chains are at risk of being weaponized in the same way as oil in 
the 1970s, or natural gas in Europe in 2022.'' \6\ In his remarks, he 
specifically mentioned concerns about minerals that form ``the backbone 
of the clean-energy future.'' \7\ His concerns were a foretelling of 
future actions. In July 2023, China announced restrictions on the 
export of gallium and germanium, minerals integral to semiconductors, 
solar panels and missile systems. The U.S. is currently 100 percent 
reliant on China for these critical commodities. As accurately 
described by The Wall Street Journal, the action was ``more than a 
trade salvo. It was a reminder of China's dominant hold over the 
world's mineral resources--and a warning of its willingness to use them 
in its escalating rivalry with the U.S.'' \8\ The July restrictions 
were followed by an October 2023 announcement by China setting export 
restrictions on graphite, a move Geoffrey Pyatt, Assistant Secretary of 
State for Energy Resources, called a ``wake-up call' that reflects both 
the dangers and urgency the U.S. faces in ramping up critical mineral 
supply chains to meet its climate goals.'' \9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \6\ Remarks by National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan on Renewing 
American Economic Leadership at the Brookings Institution, April 27, 
2023. Available at https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/speeches-
remarks/2023/04/27/remarks-by-national-security-advisor-jake-sullivan-
on-renewing-american-economic-leadership-at-the-brookings-institution/.
    \7\ Id.
    \8\ Jon Emont, Wall Street Journal, China Controls Minerals That 
Run the World--and It Just Fired a Warning Shot at U.S., July 11, 2023. 
Available at https://www.wsj.com/articles/china-controls-minerals-that-
run-the-worldand-just-fired-a-warning-shot-at-u-s-5961d77b.
    \9\ E&E Greenwire, ``State Dept. official: China's graphite 
restriction a 'wake-up call'.'' November 2, 2023. Available at https://
subscriber.politicopro.com/article/eenews/2023/11/02/state-dept-
official-chinas-graphite-restriction-a-wake-up-call-00125003.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    China's willingness to employ such tactics for decades, has led to 
skyrocketing prices for many minerals and has required a drawdown of 
limited stockpiles that will last two to three months at most.\10\ A 
former U.S. Trade Representative for China notes that China's past 
retaliation patterns are the best clues for predicting what to expect 
next, and their most effective passive option would be an export 
suspension of key inputs that would ``inflict direct, reciprocal 
pain.'' \11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \10\ Reuters, ``China gallium, germanium export curbs kick in; wait 
for permits starts.'' August 1, 2023. Available at https://
www.reuters.com/markets/commodities/chinas-controls-take-effect-wait-
gallium-germanium-export-permits-begins-2023-08-01/.
    \11\ The Hill, ``China's retaliation playbook can't meet the US 
export control challenge,'' October 20, 2022; https://thehill.com/
opinion/international/3697077-chinas-retaliation-playbook-cant-meet-
the-us-export-control-challenge/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    China's dominance in mineral production and processing will take 
focused and durable policies to overcome. As the primary producer and/
or supplier of mineral commodities listed as essential to U.S. economic 
and national security,\12\ China controls more than 80-90 percent of 
global rare earth element production, nearly 90 percent of global 
mineral processing capabilities, as well as the market prices for rare 
earth elements at each step of the process. China also refines 68 
percent of the world's cobalt, 65 percent of nickel, and 60 percent of 
battery grade lithium needed for electric vehicle batteries and energy 
technologies. Goldman Sachs Research also estimates the extent of the 
vertically integrated nature of China's dominance, with 65 percent of 
battery components, 71 percent of battery cells, and 57 percent of the 
world's electric vehicles being made in China.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \12\ Notably this reliance comes despite existing U.S. resources. 
In the 2022 Mineral Commodity Summaries, the USGS indicated the U.S. 
had an estimated 48 million metric tons (mt) of copper that can be 
mined and processed economically, 69 million mt of cobalt, 340 million 
mt of nickel and 750 million mt of lithium. Regardless, in 2021, the 
U.S. imported 48 percent of U.S. consumption of nickel, 76 percent of 
cobalt, 45 percent of copper, and more than 25 percent of lithium.
    \13\ Goldman Sachs, ``Resource realism: The geopolitics of critical 
mineral supply chains,'' Sept. 2023. https://www.goldmansachs.com/
intelligence/pages/resource-realism-the-geopolitics-of-critical-
mineral-supply-chains.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Notably, China's strong supply chain position does not result from 
an inherent geographic advantage in reserves for most materials, but 
rather from heavy non-market activities and government subsidization of 
mining, processing and manufacturing industries and excesses capacity. 
With its much longer planning horizon, China has pursued its ``Going 
Global'' strategy since the late 1990s, which involves deployment of 
significant direct investments across the globe to secure mineral 
supply chains.14,15
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \14\ Humphries, Marc. Congressional Research Service, ``China's 
Mineral Industry and U.S. Access to Strategic and Critical Minerals: 
Issues for Congress,'' March 20, 2015. http://fas.org/sgp/crs/row/
R43864.pdf).
    \15\ See also, USGS 2020 Investigation of U.S. Foreign Reliance on 
Critical Minerals (There are instances where the mineral deposit or 
mining and mineral processing operation of a commodity is partially or 
completely owned and (or) controlled by foreign companies with strong 
ties to their governments. For example, Chinese firms have purchased 
equity stake in lithium deposits and operations in Australia and Chile, 
niobium operations in Brazil, a rare earth deposit in Greenland, and 
cobalt operations in the D.R. Congo, Papua New Guinea, and Zambia (S&P 
Global Market Intelligence, 2020). Investigating China's investment in 
cobalt assets worldwide, Gulley and others (2019) found that when 
taking into account Chinese companies' ownership in foreign assets on 
an equity-share basis, China's share of global cobalt production 
increases from 2 to 14 percent for cobalt mine materials and from 11 to 
33 percent for cobalt intermediate materials (figure 6). Furthermore, 
if the Chinese companies' equity shares of the production from these 
assets are assumed to be as secure as its domestic production, then 
these acquisitions have the effect of reducing China's NIR from 97 
percent to an adjusted 68 percent, thereby reducing China's exposure to 
supply disruptions (Gulley and others, 2019).) p. 8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Biden administration's electrification and national security 
objectives must begin with domestic mining. They cannot be achieved by 
outsourcing our mineral supply chains to countries like China, Russia 
and the Democratic Republic of Congo, all of which have far less 
environmental, safety and labor oversight, or in some cases none. 
Unfortunately, we only increase our dependence on these and other 
sources for our minerals needs when we stand in the way of 
opportunities to enact meaningful policies, instead choosing policies 
that limit or completely block responsible domestic mineral 
development.
    The U.S. has all the ingredients necessary to counter China's 
global mineral dominance. However, the wrong policies are creating 
substantial setbacks to attaining such dominance. Today's legislation, 
the Mining Regulatory Clarity Act and H.R. 6862, are necessary help 
ensure U.S. minerals policy provides the necessary regulatory certainty 
to support responsible domestic mining.
Destabilizing The Mining Law
Backdrop: Rosemont Project and Subsequent Litigation
    The decade-long Rosemont permitting process began in 2008 when it 
submitted a mining plan of operations and was subsequently followed by 
a draft environmental impact statement (EIS) in 2011 and a final EIS in 
late 2013. The U.S. Forest Service issued a final record of decision in 
2017, but final approval was delayed until Rosemont received a Clean 
Water Act section 404 permit in 2019. The approved plan of operations 
included authorization to place waste rock on surrounding unpatented 
claims as a ``use reasonably incident'' to its operations.
Years of Litigation
    Several environmental groups challenged the approval of the 
Rosemont project, including the placement of waste rock on the 
unpatented claims. The Rosemont litigation was a strategic assault on 
the Mining Law in an attempt to make it wholly unworkable, knowing that 
the economic viability of a mine depends upon the ability to use 
surrounding lands for activities incidental to mining, known as 
ancillary use activities. In 2019, the United States District Court for 
the District of Arizona issued a fundamentally flawed decision vacating 
the Forest Service's record of decision supporting the agency's 
approval of Rosemont plan of operations.\16\ The decision conflicted 
with more than a century of legal precedent, including numerous U.S. 
Supreme Court decisions, related to the Mining Law. The District 
Court's reversal focused on the failure of the Forest Service to 
confirm that the mining claims underlying proposed waste rock and 
tailings storage facilities were valid before approving the plan.\17\ 
In doing so, the court misconstrued existing legal precedent regarding 
rights conveyed by the Mining Law to owners of unpatented claims and 
the ability to use surface resources to further the development of 
those claims.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \16\ Center for Biological Diversity v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
Service, 409 F. Supp. 3d 738 (D. Ariz. 2019).
    \17\ Center for Biological Diversity v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
Service, 33 F.3d 1202 (9th Cir. 2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The district court decision was appealed and in May 2022, the 
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (9th Circuit) 
affirmed the underlying decision on slightly different grounds. The 
narrow and unprecedented reading of the Mining Law and U.S. Forest 
Service 36 C.F.R. Sec. 228 Subpart A regulations, severely restricts 
the Forest Service's ability to approve ancillary use activities 
incidental to mining operations.
    The environmental groups involved in the Rosemont litigation have 
tried to further leverage the Rosemont decision to prevent other mining 
projects from moving forward nationwide. For example, they challenged 
the Lithium America's Thacker Pass project arguing the Rosemont 
decision rationale applied to Bureau of Land Management (BLM) 
authorizations as well as Forest Service. The U.S. District Court for 
the District of Nevada agreed but remanded the Thacker Pass permit back 
to the agency instead of invalidating it.\18\ The Mount Hope molybdenum 
mine suffered a similar fate later in 2023. These same groups have 
submitted comments on numerous other projects arguing they are unlawful 
under the Rosemont decision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \18\ Bartell Ranch LLC v. McCullough, No. 321CV00080MMDCLB, 2023 WL 
1782343, (D. Nev. Feb. 6, 2023)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Mining Regulatory Clarity Act (H.R. 2925)

    The bipartisan legislation introduced in April 2023 by 
Representatives Mark Amodei (R-Nev.) and Mary Peltola (D-Alaska) 
reinstates much needed clarity in the face of the Rosemont decision. 
The legislation returns to the workable framework that existed prior to 
the fundamentally flawed Rosemont ruling, ensuring the fundamental 
ability to conduct responsible mining activities on federal lands.\19\ 
The legislation is a durable solution, vastly superior to what can be 
achieved through the May 2023 Solicitor's Opinion \20\ issued by the 
Department of the Interior, especially considering courts' increasing 
reluctance to provide the appropriate deference to such opinions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \19\ See, definition of operations at 36 CFR 228.3 which is 
mirrored in the legislation.
    \20\ Department of the Interior, Office of the Solicitor, Use of 
Mining Claims for Mine Waste Deposition, and Rescission of M-37012 and 
M-37057, May 16, 2023. The NMA believes the opinion undermines 
regulatory certainty by raising more questions than it answers, 
offering unworkable solutions and undercutting well-understood and 
lawful interpretations of the Mining Law.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
What H.R. 2925 Does Not Affect

    Contrary to allegations of the bill's detractors, the legislation 
simply codifies the prior framework that existed before the Rosemont 
ruling--nothing more, nothing less. It provides no additional rights or 
allowable actions for a claim holder than what has existed, and worked, 
for decades before. It ensures a claim holder shall have the right to 
use, occupy and conduct operations with or without discovery of a 
valuable mineral deposit, which is the long-standing method utilized by 
BLM to evaluate proposed operations.

     The legislation does not lock up federal lands: The 
            legislation does not change the requirements that a mining 
            claim actually be used for mining purposes. A claim holder 
            cannot simply ground a stake to mark a claim, pay a fee and 
            file paperwork to lock up lands for purposes unrelated to 
            mining as this would result in immediate suspension 
            pursuant to BLM regulations.\21\ All standards for 
            conducting mining operations under existing BLM regulations 
            remain in effect as does the Mining Law's ``good faith'' 
            doctrine. Pursuant to the doctrine, any claim located in 
            ``bad faith,'' or with no intention to extract minerals is 
            void.\22\ Activities must be reasonably incident, 
            constitute substantially regular work, be reasonably 
            calculated to lead to the extraction and beneficiation of 
            minerals, as verified by BLM official.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \21\ See, use and occupancy regulations under the Mining Law at 43 
CFR Sec. 3715.0-1, 43 CFR Sec. 3715.2, and 43 CFR Sec. 3715.7-1
    \22\ See, generally, U.S. v. Bagwell, 961 F.2d 1450 (9th Cir. 1992) 
(The department can move forward to eject a claimant acting in bad 
faith without first contesting the claims) and U.S. v. Nogueira, 403 
F.2d 816 (9th Cir. 1968) (A claim made in bad faith is void even if it 
is supported by a discovery).

      Further, BLM data listing the amount of mining claims opened, 
            closed or transferred demonstrates that since 1947 a steady 
            and proportionate number of new claims are opened and 
            closed each year.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \23\ Bureau of Land Management claim listings data. Available at 
https://thediggings.com/usa/trends#table-annual-actions. Note: a data 
outlier occurred in 1993 after the claims maintenance fee was 
implemented.

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


     The legislation is complemented by exhaustive local, 
            state, and federal environmental, cultural resource, 
            reclamation, and financial assurance laws and regulations 
            to ensure responsible operations: Activities on BLM and 
            Forest Service lands must meet all applicable laws and 
            regulations. Under the Federal Land Policy and Management 
            Act (FLPMA) section 302(b), activities must be conducted to 
            prevent ``unnecessary or undue degradation,'' which 
            requires compliance with applicable federal and state laws 
            related to environmental protection and protection of 
            cultural resources.\24\ Furthermore, the standard is self-
            updating: the inherent nature of the standard allows for 
            continual improvement. As federal and state laws are 
            strengthened, so is the standard. Importantly, state 
            environmental regulations of general applicability apply on 
            federal lands and are not preempted by the General Mining 
            Law or other federal laws.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \24\ Bureau of Land Management, ``The Federal Land Policy and 
Management Act of 1976, as amended.'' Available at https://www.blm.gov/
sites/default/files/AboutUs_LawsandRegs_ FLPMA.pdf
    \25\ California Coastal Comm'n v. Granite Rock Co., 480 U.S. 572 
(1987).

     The Mining Regulatory Clarity Act would not change access 
            to public lands for recreation or conservation. Under 
            existing law, the public has ``the conditional right to 
            cross mining claims or sites for recreational and other 
            purposes and to access federal lands beyond these 
            boundaries.'' Nor does the legislation reopen lands already 
            placed off-limits to mining through congressional or 
            administrative action, including wilderness, national 
            parks, wildlife refuges, recreation areas and wild and 
            scenic rivers. In summary, the legislation does not change 
            or expand rights to locate or use mining claims in areas 
            that have been withdrawn from mineral entry, 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
            administratively or by Congress.

     Renewable energy projects on public lands will not be 
            impacted. In April 2013, the BLM published a final rule, 
            ``Segregation of Lands--Renewable Energy,'' that allows the 
            BLM to segregate public lands within a solar or wind 
            application area from the operation of the public land 
            laws, including the Mining Law, by publication of a Federal 
            Register notice. The BLM uses this temporary segregation 
            authority to preserve its ability to approve, with 
            modifications, or deny proposed energy generation right-of-
            way (ROW), and to facilitate the orderly administration of 
            the public lands, subject to valid existing rights.\26\ 
            Licenses, permits, cooperative agreements, or discretionary 
            land use authorizations of a temporary nature which would 
            not impact lands identified in this notice of intent may be 
            allowed with the approval of an authorized officer of the 
            BLM during the segregation period. The BLM has exercised 
            this authority at least 10 times in the last year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \26\ Federal Register, ``Segregation of Lands--Renewable Energy,'' 
(78 Fed. Reg. 25204, Apr. 13, 2013). Available at https://
www.federalregister.gov/documents/2013/04/30/2013-10087/segregation-of-
lands-renewable-energy

     The legislation does not undermine the rights of tribes. 
            The legislation does not speak to the rights of tribes, 
            communities, or any stakeholders so it does not lessen any 
            obligations under existing local, state, and federal 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
            regulations.

     The legislation does not affect the existing BLM 
            regulations that mandate validity determinations. H.R. 2925 
            does not affect the existing BLM regulations that mandate 
            validity determinations prior to approval of a mine plan of 
            operations on lands that have been segregated or withdrawn 
            from appropriation under the Mining Law.\27\ To the extent 
            there are remaining concerns about the application of this 
            provision to withdrawn lands, the NMA believes a simple 
            savings clause could be added to further clarify that 
            nothing in H.R. 2925 affects the existing validity 
            determination requirement for claims on segregated or 
            withdrawn lands.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \27\ 43 C.F.R. 3809.100, What special provisions apply to 
operations on segregated or withdrawn lands?

To amend the FAST Act To Include Certain Mineral Production Activities 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        as a Covered Project (H.R. 6862)

    H.R. 6862 respond to a misguided September 2023 proposed rule \28\ 
from the Federal Permitting Improvement Steering Council (FPISC) to 
amend its existing regulations to limit application of the FAST-41 
permitting process to projects that involve primary or byproduct 
production of ``critical minerals'' as defined by the U.S. Geological 
Survey.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \28\ Revising Scope of the Mining Sector of Projects That Are 
Eligible for Coverage Under Title 41 of the Fixing America's Surface 
Transportation Act; https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2023-09-22/
pdf/2023-20270.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    This legislation, introduced by Representatives Doug Lamborn (R-
Colo.) and Blake Moore (R-Utah), ensures that all mining projects, 
without bias, are eligible to utilize the permitting efficiencies 
provided by the FPISC permitting dashboard. The legislation also 
corrects the Biden administration's shortsighted departure from FPISC's 
unanimous 2020 vote to add all mining as a covered sector to the list 
of covered sectors eligible for the FPISC permitting process and the 
subsequent rulemaking that codified that vote.
Background: 2020 FPISC Vote and Proposal to Add Mining as a FAST41 
        Covered Sector

    On January 15, 2020, the FPISC unanimously voted to include mining 
as a covered sector, a fact oddly omitted from the supplementary 
information section of the 2023 proposal. The press release 
accompanying the vote emphasized:

        Minerals and metals are integral to many infrastructure 
        projects and play a vital role in reducing our reliance on 
        foreign sources of minerals for national and economic security, 
        including expansion of U.S. production of renewable energy in 
        wind turbines, solar panels and energy storage batteries. The 
        development of non-energy mining operations routinely involves 
        construction of a variety of infrastructure from buildings, 
        roads and pipelines to electricity generation and wastewater 
        treatment facilities.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \29\ Permitting Dashboard, ``Press Release: Federal Permitting 
Improvement Steering Council adds New Mining Sector,'' Jan. 15, 2020. 
https://web.archive.org/web/20200715234325/https://
www.permits.performance.gov/about/news/new-sectors-fast-41

    The Council's 2020 vote clearly recognized that mining projects 
involve the complex permitting processes that the Act was designed to 
facilitate. The NMA applauded mining's inclusion as a means to ensure 
timely access to raw materials made available through domestic mining. 
The decision was important enough that later in 2020, FPISC proposed a 
rule to codify that vote.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \30\ 85 Fed. Reg. 75998 (Nov. 27, 2020)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The 2020 proposed rule specifically acknowledged that the 
complexity of permitting for major mining projects noting such projects 
can involve the construction of significant infrastructure, substantial 
investment, and, in certain circumstances, necessitate extensive 
Federal review and authorization. Accordingly, FPISC concluded that 
like other covered sectors, mining projects that satisfy the other 
requirements of 42 U.S.C. 4370m(6) could benefit from the enhanced 
interagency coordination and permitting timeline predictability 
provided by FAST-41 coverage.
    Importantly, by designating all mining as a FAST-41 sector in the 
2020 proposal, the Council chose not to pick winners and losers among 
potentially qualified mining projects. Broadly, the proposed 
designation included ``mining on and off federally managed lands, 
mining of federally managed and non-federally managed minerals, and 
mining of any mineral, ore, or raw material extracted from the ground, 
regardless of whether such mineral, ore, or raw material is used for 
energy production, manufacturing, or any other purpose.'' \31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \31\ 85 Fed. Reg. at 76000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
January 2021 FPISC Final Rule

    To finalize the 2020 proposed rule, the Council had to once again 
vote on the appropriateness of the including mining as a FAST-41 
covered sector. That vote took place on Jan. 4, 2021 and a majority of 
the Council voted in favor of the proposal, with no votes against the 
proposal.\32\ Consequently, on Jan. 8, the FPISC promulgated the final 
rule, codifying, without changes, the 2020 proposed addition of mining 
as a covered sector.\33\ The final rule appropriately recognized:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \32\ As articulated in the final rule, the Executive Director as 
well as Council members representing the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, Department of Commerce, 
Department of Energy, Environmental Protection Agency, Army Corps of 
Engineers, Department of the Interior, Department of Agriculture, 
Department of Transportation, Department of Defense, and Department of 
Homeland Security, and the Chairman of CEQ voted in favor of the 
proposal. The Permitting Council member representing the Department of 
Housing and Urban Development and the Director of OMB abstained from 
the vote. The Permitting Council member representing the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission did not vote. See, final rule 86 Fed. Reg. 1281, 
at 1282.
    \33\ FPISC Final Rule, Adding Mining as a Sector of Projects 
Eligible for Coverage Under Title 41 of the Fixing America's Surface 
Transportation Act, 86 Fed. Reg. 1281, Jan. 8, 2021.

        Mining is an appropriate FAST-41 sector precisely because 
        mining projects can be complex and diverse, and can necessitate 
        extensive and coordinated Federal and state environmental 
        review and decision making. The more complex the permitting 
        path, the more likely it is that a project will be able to 
        benefit from the enhanced interagency coordination, 
        transparency, and predictability that FAST-41 coverage 
        provides.\34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \34\ Id. at 1283.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2023 FPISC Proposed Rule Inexplicably Reverses Course

    The September 2023 proposed rule is a sudden and arbitrary 
departure from FPISC's 2020 vote and 2021 final rule to add all mining 
as a covered sector eligible for the FPISC permitting process. This 
recent narrowing of eligible projects is contrary to both the 
administration's infrastructure objectives and the will of Congress and 
hamstrings the already limited activity by the Council, which to date 
has accepted only one mining project to the program.\35\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \35\ South32, ''Hermosa confirmed as the first FAST-41 mining 
project,'' https://www.south32.net/news-media/latest-news/hermosa-
confirmed-as-the-first-fast-41-mining-project. May 2023.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    By limiting the type of mining projects eligible for the FPISC 
permitting process, the Biden administration is wrongfully denying 
timeliness, efficiency, predictability and transparency to mining 
projects while continuing to call for more responsible and ethical 
mineral supply chains. This is little more than a shallow attempt to 
placate critics of any type of mining in the United States, which has 
globally leading environmental, health, and safety standards, while 
continuing to increase our nation's mineral import reliance from 
geopolitical incumbents with little oversight of their mineral 
extraction.
Conclusion

    What we are seeing is an explosion in mineral demand colliding with 
a geopolitical arms-race for development and control of integrated 
mineral supply chains. Matching the speed and scale of this rising 
demand requires the U.S. to recognize that mineral policy is now 
energy, climate and national security policy. To compete, we need 
access to our vast mineral resources and a permitting regime that 
enables the mining sector to respond to market signals and meet demand. 
Additional improvements to the permitting process should remain a high 
priority given the data provided by Dr. Daniel Yergin of S&P Global in 
testimony delivered in September 2023.\36\ He shared global data on 127 
mines across the world that began production between 2002 and 2023, 
which demonstrated that a major new resource discovery today would not 
become a productive mine until 2040 at the earliest. He cautioned 
against overzealous attempts to source minerals primarily from allied 
countries while blocking domestic projects, noting that our allies are 
experiencing similar supply constraints, so availability is not 
guaranteed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \36\ Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee: Hearing to 
Examine Opportunities to Counter the People's Republic of China's 
Control of Critical Mineral Supply Chains. Sept. 28, 2023
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The right policies to support domestic mineral production and our 
supply chains must be forward-looking rather than regressive or the 
U.S. mineral supply chain--from mining through smelting and 
processing--will remain a shell of our true domestic potential. 
Promoting regulatory certainty doesn't mean that laws and regulations 
never change or that we aren't always seeking improvements. The NMA's 
members are committed to continuous environmental improvements, and 
routinely review developments across the globe for potential 
incorporation into their own operations.
    The NMA applauds the work of this committee and strongly supports 
the Mining Regulatory Clarity Act of 2023 (HR. 2925) and H.R. 6862. 
These pieces of legislation seek thoughtful and durable solutions to 
address our nation's disjointed minerals policy and prioritize domestic 
mineral security. Further, the regulatory certainty provided in these 
bills will enable responsible access to federal lands for mineral 
development and ease our nation's bureaucratic paralysis to provide for 
greater economic competitiveness and growth.
    The NMA appreciates the opportunity to provide this testimony to 
the subcommittee and looks forward to working with Congress and the 
administration to support meaningful actions to increase the 
responsible domestic mineral supply chains for generations to come.

                                 ______
                                 

            American Exploration & Mining Association (AEMA)

                           Spokane Valley, WA

                                               January 30, 2024    

Hon. Bruce Westerman, Chairman
Hon. Raul Grijalva, Ranking Member
House Natural Resources Committee
1324 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515

Hon. Pete Stauber, Chairman
Hon. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Ranking Member
Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources
1324 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515

Re: January 31, 2024 Energy and Mineral Resources Subcommittee of the 
        House Natural Resources Committee Legislative Hearing on H.R. 
        2925 and H.R. 6862

    Dear Chairman Westerman, Ranking Member Grijalva, Chairman Stauber 
and Ranking Member Ocasio-Cortez:

    The American Exploration & Mining Association (AEMA) wishes to 
express our support for
    H.R. 2925, the bipartisan Mining Regulatory Clarity Act, and H.R. 
6862, to amend the Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act (FAST-
41) to include certain mineral production activities as a covered 
project. Both pieces of legislation would help secure our mineral 
supply chains in the United States.
Who We Are and the Importance of the U.S. Minerals Mining Industry
    AEMA is a 129-year-old, 1,800-member national trade association 
representing the mineral development and mining industry, with members 
residing across 46 states, 7 Canadian provinces or territories and 10 
other countries. AEMA is the recognized national representative for the 
exploration sector, the junior mining sector, as well as mineral 
developers interested in maintaining access to public lands. Thus, AEMA 
represents the entire mining life cycle, from exploration to mineral 
extraction and then to reclamation and closure. More than 80 percent of 
our members are small businesses or work directly for small businesses.
    American miners continue to play an indispensable role in building 
and defending our Nation. From foundations to roofs, power plants to 
wind farms, roads and bridges to communication grids and data storage 
centers, America's infrastructure begins and ends with minerals and 
mining.
    There is no question that the minerals we produce are indispensable 
to modern society. They are also essential to fighting climate change, 
and for zero-emission technologies such as wind turbines, solar panels, 
storage batteries and EVs. As these technologies are deployed in ever-
greater numbers, the demand for minerals is skyrocketing, and our 
Nation must do more to keep up.
    Congress has taken note of this surge in demand, and through the 
Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act of 2021 and the Inflation 
Reduction Act of 2022, has decided--and we agree--that it is 
inappropriate, unwise and dangerous to rely on hostile, untrustworthy 
or unstable countries to supply our country's minerals. Congress has 
sent a clear message--Now is the time to get serious about building a 
reliable mineral supply chain. AEMA and its members stand ready to help 
build that supply chain right here in America.
    Our members take great pride in producing the metals and other 
important minerals America needs for national and economic security, as 
well as the materials people use in their everyday lives. We are proud 
of our members' contributions across the communities and regions where 
they operate, many of which are rural areas facing significant economic 
and social development challenges. Notably, the U.S. mining industry is 
the safest, most environmentally responsible mining industry in the 
world. Our members have repeatedly demonstrated that mining and 
protecting the environment are compatible, as mineral producers make 
possible the development of society's basic needs and consistently 
minimize modern society's impacts on the environment.
We Need a Reliable Domestic Mineral Supply Chain
    Recent global events have exposed the United States' supply chain 
vulnerabilities, highlighting the importance of an abundant and 
affordable supply of domestic minerals for America's future.
    The fact is, global mineral demand is skyrocketing. As noted in a 
report from the International Energy Agency, keeping global temperature 
rise to below 2 degrees Celsius above preindustrial levels will 
quadruple the demand by 2040 for the minerals needed to build wind 
turbines, solar panels, and electric vehicles. A faster energy 
transition--reaching net zero globally by 2050 as the Biden 
administration has called for--would require critical mineral inputs to 
increase sixfold by 2040.
    Solar panels require silver, tin, copper, and lead; wind turbines 
use rare earths, copper, aluminum, and zinc; electric vehicles are 
built with copper, aluminum, iron, molybdenum; and rechargeable storage 
batteries use lithium, vanadium, nickel, cobalt, and manganese.
    President Biden has promised to convert the entire U.S. Government 
fleet--about 640,000 vehicles by 2030--to EVs. That plan alone could 
require a 12-fold increase in U.S. lithium production to manufacture 
the lithium-ion batteries that power EVs, according to Benchmark 
Minerals Intelligence, as well as increases in output of domestic 
copper, nickel, and cobalt--and that's just for the U.S. government 
vehicle fleet. The magnitude of the minerals needed for a 100 percent 
EV market is even more staggering, and simply cannot be ignored.
    Unfortunately, a lack of access to economically viable mineral 
deposits and a lengthy, inefficient federal permitting system has 
resulted in the United States being increasingly dependent on foreign 
sources of strategic and critical minerals. It's time that we, as a 
Nation, recognize this vulnerability and the vital importance of 
minerals to our national security, our economy, and our everyday lives. 
We have heard a lot over the years about the importance of energy 
independence, but it is equally as important, if not more so, that we 
are minerals independent.
    Made in America must include ``mined in America'' and sourcing 
minerals from U.S. mines that use state-of-the-art environmental 
protection measures, put a premium on worker health and safety, and 
have financial assurances that guarantee reclamation when mining is 
complete.
    Recycling will play an important role in meeting increasing metal 
demand, but it will not be enough. The IEA's report estimates that by 
2040, recycling metals from spent batteries could only supply about ten 
percent of the minerals that will be needed.
    The United States and our economy simply need more mines. According 
to the USGS' Mineral Commodity Summaries 2023, our country's import 
dependence for key mineral commodities has doubled over the past two 
decades, with the United States now 100 percent import-reliant for 15 
of its key minerals and more than 50 percent import-reliant for an 
additional 36 key mineral commodities. This foreign reliance continues 
despite the existence of significant mineral deposits of many of these 
commodities within our borders. Moreover, U.S. mineral import reliance 
continues to increase as mineral demand from essential industries, such 
as energy and transportation, soars. Notably, the World Bank sees 
mineral demand for advanced energy technologies jumping by nearly 500 
percent by the year 2050.\1\ Copper demand alone may rise as much as 
350 percent by 2050, according to one estimate.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ https://pubdocs.worldbank.org/en/961711588875536384/Minerals-
for-Climate-Action-The-Mineral-Intensity-of-the-Clean-Energy-
Transition.pdf
    \2\ https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/
S0959378016300802
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Support for H.R. 2925, the Mining Regulatory Clarity Act
    A major threat to the future of mining on U.S. public lands is the 
U.S. District Court's July 2019 decision in litigation challenging the 
Forest Service's approval of the Rosemont Mine, Rosemont Copper 
Company's proposed Arizona copper mine. The court's decision 
incorrectly restricts the rights to use public lands for mineral 
purposes to claims that contain a discovery of a valuable mineral 
deposit and interprets the Mining Law in a manner that interferes with 
claim owners' Mining Law rights to use public lands to explore for and 
develop minerals.
    The Rosemont ruling incorrectly limited the jurisdiction of the 
Forest Service's surface management regulations to claims with a 
discovery of a valuable mineral deposit. The Bureau of Land 
Management's (BLM) and the Forest Service's regulations govern all 
aspects of locatable mineral activities to ensure all mineral 
activities comply with environmental protection mandates and to confirm 
that all mining facilities are reasonably incident to the mining 
project. Claim status is irrelevant in determining the applicability of 
these regulations.
    It has always been Congress' intent that the law must support and 
encourage mining on public lands. Although Congress has amended the 
Mining Law and developed other laws pertaining to public lands 
management since 1872, the purpose of the Mining Law has not changed. 
Congress has repeatedly preserved the foundational rights under Section 
22 of the Mining Law that authorize citizens to enter, use, and occupy 
public lands to explore for minerals and to develop mines.
    We therefore strongly support the bipartisan Mining Regulatory 
Clarity Act (H.R. 2925). The legislation is a durable solution that 
simply codifies the decades-long framework prior to the Rosemont 
decision. This bill clearly recognizes that maintaining security of 
land tenure is essential for mining to occur on public lands and is 
especially important in light of the skyrocketing demand for minerals.
Support for H.R. 6862
    The Federal Permitting Improvement Steering Council (FPISC) 
proposed a rule in September 2023 that would amend its regulations to 
limit the scope of mining projects eligible for coverage under Title 41 
of the FAST Act solely to critical minerals mining projects, as defined 
by section 7002 of the Energy Act of 2020 and listed by the Director of 
the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). AEMA's members have extensive first-
hand experience with the Federal permitting process, and they are 
significantly impacted by permitting decisions from an array of Federal 
agencies. Thus, our members are key stakeholders when it comes to 
developing a more efficient, timely and effective Federal permitting 
process as envisioned under FAST-41.
    AEMA vigorously opposes limiting eligibility solely to USGS-listed 
``critical'' minerals projects, and in our formal comments we urged the 
FPISC to withdraw the proposal immediately. AEMA appreciates that the 
FPISC proposal expands the definition of the sector beyond ``the 
process of extracting ore, minerals, or raw materials from the ground'' 
to include ``critical mineral beneficiation, processing, and 
recycling.'' This is consistent with the need to actually produce the 
final product minerals essential to the U.S. economy and recognizes 
that much of existing mineral processing currently occurs overseas, 
often in insecure jurisdictions. Given AEMA's support of the provision 
to expand the definition of the mining sector, we urge Congress to 
amend H.R. 6862 to include the expanded definition. However, we 
emphasize that this provision should not be limited to USGS-listed 
``critical'' minerals.
    It should not be forgotten that multiple federal agencies maintain 
their own lists of ``critical minerals'' or ``critical materials,'' 
including the departments of Energy and Defense, among others. These 
lists are compiled for various reasons, not least of which is a 
mineral's importance to the economy or weapons platforms, thus 
underscoring its national security implications. FPISC gives no 
explanation why they selected the USGS list, but in doing so, they have 
elevated one agency's list in importance above the others.
    FAST-41 was enacted to improve the timeliness, predictability, 
transparency, and accountability of the Federal environmental review 
and authorization processes for covered infrastructure projects. FAST-
41 coverage does not predetermine or affect the outcome of any Federal 
decision-making process with respect to a covered project, nor modify 
any required environmental review or public or tribal consultation 
process.
    Beyond mining, current FAST-41 sectors include renewable and 
conventional energy production, electricity transmission, surface 
transportation, aviation, ports and waterways, water resource projects, 
broadband, pipelines, and manufacturing. It is important to remember 
that mining stands at the front of the supply chain for these and 
nearly every sector of our economy.
    S&P Global published a report titled ``Inflation Reduction Act: 
Impact on North America metals and mineral markets,'' which identified 
protracted permitting as a key factor in the shortage of minerals, 
stating: ``extended and uncertain timelines for permitting in the U.S. 
and around the world are a major obstacle to bringing new [copper] 
supply online to narrow that shortfall.'' This report cites the 
complexity of lengthy, multi-agency permitting processes and post-
permit litigation risks as the primary reasons that permitting is so 
difficult and fraught with uncertainties.
    While AEMA's members stand ready to help, the need to address our 
permitting vulnerabilities is more urgent than ever; now is not the 
time to narrow mining sector eligibility. FPISC's 2021 vote to include 
mining as a covered sector clearly recognized that mining projects 
almost always involve the complex permitting processes that FAST-41 was 
designed to facilitate. FAST-41 provides a pathway to reduce permitting 
inefficiencies while retaining our world-class environmental 
protections, but it must be available to the entire mineral mining 
sector.
    The surging global demand for minerals means other countries will 
be competing for the same limited supplies, which will challenge the 
United States' ability to obtain minerals from abroad. Although we may 
need to obtain some minerals from our allies, we must responsibly 
utilize our own resources whenever possible. Consequently, our 
objective must be to get more mines permitted in the United States. 
Unfortunately, the FPISC proposal to restrict FAST-41 eligibility to 
only ``critical'' minerals projects will result in fewer mines being 
permitted in a timely manner, not more.
Conclusion
    Congress has consistently and repeatedly recognized that minerals 
and mining are essential to all facets of our economy, society, and 
national defense. For example, the Mineral and Mining Policy Act 
(1970), FLPMA (1976), the National Minerals, Materials Policy Research 
and Development Act (1980), the Energy Act (2020), the IIJA (2021), and 
most recently the IRA (2022) all direct the executive branch agencies 
to respond to the Nation's need for domestic minerals.
    Unfortunately, these Congressional directives have gone largely 
unheeded as more lands continue to be withdrawn from mineral entry and 
permitting timelines, costs, and risks have become intolerable. Our 
risky reliance on imported minerals is a direct result of five decades 
of ignoring Congress' clear directives that minerals should be mined 
from public lands to help satisfy the Nation's need for minerals. 
Despite the urgent need to increase domestic mining and reduce our 
dependency on foreign minerals, today it often takes 10 years or more 
to permit a mine.
    The findings in the IIJA that ``critical minerals are fundamental 
to the economy, competitiveness, and security of the United States'' 
and that ``the Federal permitting process has been identified as an 
impediment to mineral production and the mineral security of the United 
States'' must result in constructive action to streamline permitting 
and eliminate permitting impediments.
    For the aforementioned reasons, we wholeheartedly support H.R. 2925 
and H.R. 6862. We look forward to continuing to work with you to ensure 
America has a secure and affordable supply of the minerals and metals 
needed for our modern society.

            Sincerely,

                                              Mark Compton,
                                                 Executive Director

                                 ______
                                 

                      National Mining Association

                                  and

                Zero Emission Transportation Association

                                                  July 25, 2023    

Hon. Kevin McCarthy, Speaker
Hon. Hakeem Jeffries, Democratic Leader
U.S. House of Representatives
Washington, DC 20515

Hon. Chuck Schumer, Senate Majority Leader
Hon. Mitch McConnell, Senate Minority Leader
U.S. Senate
Washington, DC 20510

    Dear Speaker McCarthy, Leader Jeffries, Majority Leader Schumer, 
and Minority Leader McConnell:

    We write today in support of Section 444 within H.R. 4821, 
legislation which would provide the certainty needed for critical 
mineral production to continue in the United necessary for a cleaner 
and more secure energy future, we hope you will give every possible 
consideration to enacting this measure before the end of the year.

    The legislative language contained in Section 444 within H.R. 4821 
is reflective of the strong bipartisan support this provision enjoys in 
the U.S. Senate and the U.S. House of Representatives. In the Senate, 
corresponding bipartisan legislation (S. 1281; Mining Regulatory 
Clarity Act) has been introduced by Senators Cortez Masto, Rosen, 
Sinema, Risch, Crapo, and Murkowski and in the House of 
Representatives, Congressman Amodei and Peltola have introduced H.R. 
2925. Their combined advocacy for this measure not only highlights the 
importance critical minerals play in our clean energy future, but also 
a substantial number of jobs across the United States attributable to 
responsible mining companies.

    The necessity for this measure is highlighted by the fact that 
decisions stemming from Center for Biological Diversity et al. v. U.S. 
Fish and Wildlife Service et al have effectively paralyzed the ability 
for the United States to operate mines efficiently and responsibly. In 
the absence of the enactment of the Mining Regulatory Clarity Act, 
decades of precedent and investment in the clean energy economy and 
corresponding good-paying American jobs have been thrown into turmoil. 
The enactment of this legislation is the single best way to provide the 
appropriate amount of certainty needed to underpin the ability of the 
United States to meet the extraordinary mineral demand necessary to 
meet the challenge of clean energy future.

    Thank you for your attention to this matter, your work to help 
improve the federal permitting process, and your public service.

            Sincerely,

        Rich Nolan,                   Albert Gore
        President and CEO             Executive Director
        National Mining Association   Zero Emission Transportation 
                                      Association

                                 ______
                                 
                        Statement for the Record
                         Advanced Energy United
          on H.R. 2925, Mining Regulatory Clarity Act of 2023

    Dear Chair Westerman, Ranking Member Grijalva, Chair Stauber, 
Ranking Member Ocasio-Cortez, and members of the Committee:
    Advanced Energy United (``United'') appreciates the opportunity to 
submit this statement for the record on H.R. 2925, the Mining 
Regulatory Clarity Act of 2023.
    United is an association of businesses that educates, engages, and 
advocates for policies that allow our member companies to compete to 
power our economy with 100 percent clean energy. We work with decision 
makers at every level of government, as well as regulators of energy 
markets, to achieve this goal. The businesses we represent are lowering 
consumer costs, creating thousands of new jobs every year, and 
providing the full range of clean, efficient, and reliable energy and 
transportation solutions.
    This goal of reaching a 100 percent clean energy future is what 
drove United's endorsement of the Mining Regulatory Clarity Act when it 
was first introduced in the Senate; we were pleased to see the House 
companion bill introduced with similar, bipartisan support. Making the 
transition to a 100 percent clean, fully electrified economy 
necessitates the production of more critical resources, from lithium to 
nickel and copper to graphite. This understanding that our clean energy 
future is intrinsically tied to our national minerals policy is what 
led to the development of United's policy principles on the mining, 
reuse, and recycling of critical minerals in early 2023. These 
principles--which pair the need for permitting reform that protects 
workers, surrounding communities, and the environment with 
comprehensive reuse and recycling policy--have served as our guide for 
evaluating bills in this space. In our view, the Mining Regulatory 
Clarity Act readily fits with these principles.
    In order to build a robust supply chain for U.S. manufacturers of 
advanced energy technologies, we need to expand U.S. mineral production 
in a responsible and sustainable manner. By expanding mineral 
production here in the U.S., we are not only addressing the issue of 
foreign dependance for these commodities, but we are also ensuring that 
the mining will be subject to stringent U.S. regulations that protect 
workers, communities, and our natural resources. Unfortunately, the 
Rosemont decision, which prompted the need for this legislative 
clarification in the first place, injects in our view unnecessary 
uncertainty into the future of all domestic mining operations; if left 
unchecked, we fear it will ultimately prove detrimental for our supply 
chains and a wholly clean energy economy.
    We see this bill as a necessary step to reestablish business 
certainty around our mining rules and regulations. It seeks only to 
maintain the status quo by reaffirming prior legal interpretations and 
historical applications of the law. We're at a critical juncture for 
the clean energy future. While we will continue having larger 
conversations and working towards passage of a comprehensive permitting 
reform package, this bill represents a bipartisan proposal that can 
reasonably be agreed to right now in order to address a pressing need. 
Our industry is already facing growing demands amid our national clean 
energy transition and, as such, needs timely certainty on rules and 
regulations. This clarifying law is a step towards what the nation 
needs to secure domestic supply chains for the clean energy future.
    As evidenced by this statement for the record, our statement for 
the record submitted to the Senate Energy and Natural Resources 
Committee last year, as well as our endorsement when the bill was first 
introduced, United supports this bipartisan legislation brought forward 
by Representatives Amodei and Peltola wishes to see it move 
expeditiously.

            Sincerely,

                                             Harry Godfrey,
                                                  Managing Director

                                 ______
                                 

                    NATIONAL INFRASTRUCTURE ALLIANCE

                             Washington, DC

                                              November 28, 2023    

Mr. Eric Beightel, Executive Director
Federal Permitting Improvement Steering Council
1800 M Street, NW Suite 6006
Washington, DC 20036

Re: Comments on Revising the Scope of the Mining Sector of Projects 
        That Are Eligible for Coverage under Title 41 of the Fixing 
        America's Surface Transportation Act

    Dear Mr. Beightel:

    The National Infrastructure Alliance opposes the Federal Permitting 
Improvement Steering Council's proposal limiting the coverage of Title 
41 of the Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act to apply solely 
to critical mineral mining projects. The Council should support all 
mining infrastructure projects.
    The National Infrastructure Alliance (NIA) is a coalition of North 
America's leading construction unions--the International Association of 
Bridge, Structural, Ornamental and Reinforcing Iron Workers Union, the 
International Union of Operating Engineers, the Laborers' International 
Union of North America, and the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and 
Joiners of America--representing over 1.7 million hardworking men and 
women in the United States and Canada. NIA unions build North America's 
transportation, energy, and water infrastructure, and the continent's 
abundant natural resources play a vital role in virtually all aspects 
of our work.
    The Council unanimously voted to include mining as a covered sector 
under Title 41 of the Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act 
(FAST-41) back in January 2020. The vote clearly recognized that mining 
projects involve the complex permitting processes that the Act was 
designated to facilitate. By designating all mining as FAST-41 sector 
in the 2020 vote, the Council chose not to pick winners and losers 
among potentially qualified mining projects. The addition of mining as 
a covered sector provides a pathway to reduce permitting inefficiencies 
while retaining environmental protections.
    The proposed rulemaking to limit the scope of the mining sector to 
only apply to critical mineral projects is short sighted. There are 
many minerals that are of vital importance to our economic and national 
security that are absent from the United States Geological Survey's 
(USGS) Critical Minerals List, which was recently updated in 2022. The 
most glaring omissions to the list are copper, silver, gold, lead, 
zinc, phosphate, and other minerals, which are indispensable to our 
infrastructure and are essential components of consumer products, 
military and defense equipment, numerous manufacturing sectors, medical 
applications, and other uses. Copper, for example, is the most widely 
used mineral for clean energy technologies, and it has a broad range of 
electronic and industrial applications, from batteries and motors to 
wind turbines. One modern offshore wind turbine requires over five tons 
of copper. In contrast to the USGS, the Department of Energy recently 
added copper to its list of critical materials.
    Today, many minerals come from countries with the most egregious 
environmental and labor standards in the world--countries like 
Argentina, Chile, China, and the Democratic Republic of the Congo. 
Nearly 40% of the world's copper is mined in Chile and Peru, and most 
of the global supply is refined in China. The South American countries' 
environmental and labor records, where workplace hazards and 
occupational deaths frequently occur, raise significant concern. 
China's prominence in the sector presents a raft of policy 
considerations related to labor and human rights abuses, environmental 
degradation, national security threats, and more. The federal 
government's goal should be reducing our dependence on these countries 
and creating a stable, domestic supply chain and an efficient 
permitting process for mining minerals.
    The National Infrastructure Alliance urges the Council to abandon 
this proposal limiting the coverage of Title 41 of the Fixing America's 
Surface Transportation Act to apply solely to critical mineral mining 
projects and maintain coverage for all mining projects.

            Sincerely,

                                           Terry T. George,
                                           Executive Vice President
                                 ______
                                 

                          UNITED STATES SENATE

                                               November 1, 2023    

Mr. Eric Beightel, Executive Director
Federal Permitting Improvement Steering Council
1800 M Street, NW, Suite 6006
Washington, DC 20036

    Mr. Beightel:

    We write to express our concerns regarding the proposed rule, 
``Revising Scope of the Mining Sector of Projects That Are Eligible for 
Coverage Under Title 41 of the Fixing America's Surface Transportation 
Act.'' \1\ The mining of all minerals is essential to the development 
of domestic infrastructure, and accordingly, it is imperative the 
Federal Permitting Improvement Steering Council (FPISC) ensure that all 
mining projects--for all minerals--are equally considered ``covered 
projects'' for the purposes of Title 41 of the Fixing America's Surface 
Transportation Act (FAST-41). Indeed, even the U.S. Department of the 
Interior's own ``Interagency Working Group on Mining Laws, Regulations, 
and Permitting'' did not suggest this change is needed in a report it 
recently released regarding recommendations to reform domestic mining 
policies.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ ``Revising Scope of the Mining Sector of Projects That Are 
Eligible for Coverage Under Title 41 of the Fixing America's Surface 
Transportation Act,'' 88 Fed. Reg. 63,350 (Sept. 22, 2023).
    \2\ See Interagency Working Grp. on Mining Laws, Regulations, and 
Permitting, Recommendations to Improve Mining Laws on Pub. Lands (Sept. 
2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The federal permitting process must be coordinated and transparent 
in order for the United States to efficiently permit new energy and 
infrastructure projects without undermining the value of critical 
taxpayer and private sector investments. Consequently, Congress first 
established FPISC in 2015 for the purpose of coordinating agency 
actions between federal environmental reviews and large-scale, 
critical, and ``covered'' infrastructure projects in the United States. 
FAST-41 defines ``covered project'' to include ``any activity in the 
United States that requires authorization or environmental review by a 
Federal agency involving construction of infrastructure,'' regardless 
of the mineral used in the construction of that infrastructure.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\ 42 U.S.C. Sec. 4370m(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    To that end, it still takes ``anywhere from seven to ten years or 
more for a mining company to navigate through the federal application 
process and appeals process through litigative measures'' before a 
domestic mining operation can come online.\4\ This is particularly 
problematic, given the pressing need for greater domestic sources of 
minerals to meet manufacturing, energy, infrastructure, and national 
security needs. Our nation's duplicative and inefficient permitting 
process also puts the United States at a strategic disadvantage 
compared to other mining countries like Australia and Canada, which 
have permitting processes that consist of two to three years.\5\ FPISC, 
in an effort to address this issue, subsequently voted in January 2021 
to add all mining as a ``covered sector,'' without bias to the type of 
mineral.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\ Minerals Make Life, ``Delays in the U.S. Mine Permitting 
Process Impair and Discourage Mining at Home,'' National Mining 
Association (July 9, 2015).
    \5\ Id.
    \6\ ``Adding Mining as a Sector of Projects Eligible for Coverage 
Under Title 41 of the Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act,'' 86 
Fed. Reg. 1,281 (Jan. 8, 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Permitting delays have been, and continue to be, one of the most 
significant risks to meeting domestic mineral production goals--a fact 
clearly recognized by FPISC in 2021. FPISC should be doing all it can 
to facilitate the addition of mining projects to the FPISC dashboard of 
covered projects, as significant investments are being made daily in 
such projects, regardless of the type of minerals being mined. 
Unfortunately, this misguided and shortsighted proposal disincentivizes 
such investment.
    The nation needs these investments to match the increasing mineral 
demand necessary to support budding technologies, bolster domestic 
supply chains, and strengthen our nation's national defense to reduce 
our reliance on minerals from our geopolitical adversaries. While the 
global demand for critical minerals ``would require six times more 
mineral inputs in 2040 than today,'' it should not be lost on FPISC the 
amount of other mined materials, such as crushed stone and gravel that 
are needed for domestic infrastructure.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \7\ ``Data by State,'' National Sand Stone and Gravel Association 
(last accessed Oct. 2, 2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    FPISC's proposal sends the wrong message to investors, industry 
stakeholders, and our nation's allies by that the United States should 
drastically limit the type of mining projects eligible under the 
improved permitting process to projects with primary or byproduct 
production of ``critical minerals,'' defined by the U.S. Geological 
Survey (USGS). Not only does this subjective action contradict the 
FPISC's mission of delivering transparency and timeliness to the 
federal permitting process, but it also fails to consider the fact that 
different agencies have different definitions of ``critical'' or 
``strategic'' minerals or materials. The lack of consideration of these 
varying differences in the proposal will undoubtedly limit the 
effectiveness of FPISC's actions and increase our nation's strategic 
vulnerabilities by making the United States more dependent on foreign 
sources of minerals. Ultimately, this proposal will hinder mining 
permitting predictability and efficiency while further empowering China 
with its near-monopoly on the global supply of critical minerals.
    Thank you for your attention to this matter. We urge FPISC to 
abandon this proposal and use its existing authority to actively 
support all mining infrastructure projects to unleash America's 
national supply chains and processing capabilities. We look forward to 
a response from you no later than November 30.

            Sincerely,

        Dan Sullivan                  John Barrasso, M.D.
        United States Senator         United States Senator

        Shelley Moore Capito          Joe Manchin III
        United States Senator         United States Senator

        Catherine Cortez Masto        Ted Cruz
        United States Senator         United States Senator

        Bill Cassidy, M.D.            James Lankford
        United States Senator         United States Senator

        Michael S. Lee                Kevin Cramer
        United States Senator         United States Senator

        James E. Risch                Roger Marshall, M.D.
        United States Senator         United States Senator

        John Hoeven                   Cynthia M. Lummis
        United States Senator         United States Senator

        Mike Rounds                   Katie Boyd Britt
        United States Senator         United States Senator

        Mike Crapo                    Pete Ricketts
        United States Senator         United States Senator

        Lisa Murkowski                Thom Tillis
        United States Senator         United States Senator

        Markwayne Mullin              Mitt Romney
        United States Senator         United States Senator

                                 ______
                                 

                          UNITED STATES SENATE

                                              November 15, 2023    

Mr. Eric Beightel, Executive Director
Federal Permitting Improvement Steering Council
1800 M Street, NW, Suite 6006
Washington, DC 20036

    Dear Mr. Beightel:

    I am writing to express my concern regarding the effects of the 
Federal Permitting Improvement Steering Council's (FPSIC) proposed rule 
titled ``Revising Scope of the Mining Sector of Projects That Are 
Eligible for Coverage Under Title 41 of the Fixing America's Surface 
Transportation Act'' (proposed rule),\1\ and to urge FPSIC to continue 
utilizing as broad a definition of `covered project' as permissible.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ ``Revising Scope of the Mining Sector of Projects That Are 
Eligible for Coverage Under Title 41 of the Fixing America's Surface 
Transportation Act,'' 88 Fed. Reg. 63,350 (Sept. 22, 2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    FPSIC's federal permitting coordination process is a proven 
mechanism to hasten the permitting process for various essential 
infrastructure and energy projects. FAST-41 improves agency 
coordination and establishes two-year completion goals--creating a more 
efficient, predictable, and timely federal environmental review process 
for covered projects. This system provides certainty for investors, 
allowing projects to receive financing, while not sacrificing our 
commitments to environmental protection and community input. Arizona is 
home to the only mining project currently on the FAST-41 dashboard, and 
I was proud to lead key updates to the FAST-41 program in the 
Bipartisan Infrastructure Law that will continue to help grow our 
domestic supply chains--from extraction to processing and refining.
    Large-scale mining operations often require significant investment, 
construction of infrastructure, and extensive federal reviews and 
authorizations. For this reason, mining was added as a FAST-41 sector 
in January 2021. FPISC's proposed rule, which limits mining projects 
covered under FAST-41 to critical mineral projects, as defined by the 
Department of the Interior (DOI) through the U.S. Geological Survey 
(USGS) runs counter to America's goals of responsible domestic critical 
mineral production. On-shoring this production strengthens our national 
security, reduces our reliance on foreign markets controlled by 
adversarial governments, fuels economic opportunities, and advances 
energy security. Unfortunately, the materials necessary to achieve this 
goal of independence go beyond those named in the proposed rule.
    According to USGS, copper is not a designated critical mineral. 
This ignores the crucial nature of copper as a wiring component in 
renewable energy technologies, its importance to various defense 
systems, and the significant projected increases in global demand in 
the coming years.\2\ Further, the lack of USGS designation runs counter 
to the Department of Energy's 2023 Critical Materials Assessment, which 
identifies copper as a key material with a ``high risk of supply 
disruption'' that is ``integral to clean energy technologies.'' \3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ S&P Global, ``Inflation Reduction Act: Impact on North America 
metals and minerals market''. August 2023.
    \3\ U.S. Department of Energy, Critical Materials Assessment. July 
2023.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Under FPISC's proposed rule, copper mining projects will lose the 
opportunity to become FAST-41 covered projects. Exclusion from the 
FAST-41 program will allow these critical mining projects to experience 
unreasonable permitting delays at a time when copper production is more 
essential than ever.
    If we are serious about reaching our nation's goals of reducing 
climate emissions, and securing domestic mineral supply chains, the 
proposed rule must take a more holistic look at all critical 
components--like copper--to be covered under the proposed rule.

            Sincerely,

                                             Kyrsten Sinema
                                              United States Senator

                                 ______
                                 

                        U.S. Chamber of Commerce

                             Washington, DC

                                               February 6, 2024    

Hon. Bruce Westerman, Chairman
Hon. Raul Grijalva, Ranking Member
House Natural Resources Committee
1324 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515

    Dear Chairman Westerman and Ranking Member Grijalva:

    The U.S. Chamber of Commerce supports H.R. 2925, the ``Mining 
Regulatory Clarity Act of 2023,'' and we thank you for considering this 
important legislation.

    Rapidly increasing demand for critical minerals coupled with 
advancing geopolitical instability makes developing a secure and 
reliable domestic supply chain for critical minerals vital. H.R. 2925 
would help remove permitting obstacles for domestic critical mineral 
development and enable common sense construction and safety practices 
at potential mine sites by establishing a process to enable operators 
to use, occupy, and conduct operations on public land before mineral 
deposit have been positively identified.

    The Chamber urges you to favorably report H.R. 2925.

            Sincerely,

                                           Neil L. Bradley,
                                      Executive Vice President,    
                                            Chief Policy Officer,  
                                     and Head of Strategic Advocacy

                                 ______
                                 

    Mr. Stauber. I want to thank the witnesses for your 
valuable testimony and your time before our Committee today.
    The members of the Subcommittee may have some additional 
questions for the witnesses, and we will ask you to respond to 
these in writing. Under Committee Rule 3, members of the 
Committee must submit questions to the Committee Clerk by 5 
p.m. on Monday, February 5. The hearing record will be held 
open for 10 business days for these responses.
    If there is no further business, without objection, the 
Committee stands adjourned.

    [Whereupon, at 3:52 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]

            [ADDITIONAL MATERIALS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD]

Submissions for the Record by Rep. Grijalva

                    WESTERN SHOSHONE DEFENSE PROJECT

                              Elko, Nevada

                                              November 21, 2023    

House Committee on Natural Resources
1324 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515

Re: Western Shoshone Defense Project Opposition to the Mining 
        Regulatory Clarity Act

    Dear President Biden, Senators and Representatives:

    The Western Shoshone Defense Project (WSDP) firmly opposes the 
Mining Regulatory Clarity Act, which represents an unprecedented 
giveaway of public lands to mining corporations. Under the bill, mining 
corporations would gain a near unlimited right to occupy as much public 
land as they want for their mining operations. The companies would gain 
the right to dump waste, dispose of toxic tailings, bulldoze roads, and 
construct pipelines across public lands, even on lands of deep cultural 
and ecological significance to Western Shoshone people. We urge you to 
oppose the legislation, which would exacerbate the harms caused by the 
mining industry.

    Western Shoshone to this day use, occupy, live, hunt, gather and 
pray on the land now called Nevada. In 1863, the Western Shoshone by 
way of treaty allowed safe passage through Western Shoshone territory. 
The 1863 Treaty of Ruby Valley also allowed mining, as mining was known 
in 1863 by people who did not understand or comprehend the English 
language. In 1864 Nevada became a state and eight short years later the 
1872 Mining Law was established. This plan was orchestrated by a 
governmental body that foresaw a future of mining resources at the 
expense of everything the land has to offer including plant life, 
animal life, and the most important resource, water. This same 
governmental body would deceive the Western Shoshone people and would 
break their own laws in order to achieve the end goal. Since the coming 
of Europeans to our territory, the Western Shoshone have been forced to 
sacrifice everything for the ``greater good'' to ``enhance the 
economy'' while we watch that same entity destroy our land.

    The Western Shoshone and the United States government have a long-
drawn-out legal history, where the legal system is stacked against all 
Indigenous Nations in its jurisdiction. In 1999 and in the early 2000s 
the United Nations and other international legal fora have recognized 
that many of the legal problems and political obstacles facing the 
Western Shoshone people stem from the foundations of United States 
Federal Indian Law and Policy which falls far short of internationally 
recognized standards of Indigenous rights. These laws and policies 
which have been used against the Western Shoshone and other Indigenous 
peoples in the U.S. stem from antiquated, racist concept known as the 
``doctrine of discovery.'' See Johson v M'Intosh, 21 U.S. (8 Wheat) 543 
(1823). This ``doctrine'' claims that Indigenous Peoples are 
``heathen'', ``savage'' and ``childlike in nature''.

    The U.S. has been directed previously through international 
communication to review all existing laws and policies and to ensure 
they are in compliance with contemporary human rights standards. Our 
position continues to be that the antiquated laws such as the 1872 
Mining Law, and aspects of federal Indian law such as the plenary power 
doctrine must be addressed and reformed as they continue to impact 
Indigenous peoples such as the Western Shoshone in an unequal and 
racist manner based on colonial concepts such as the doctrine of 
discovery.

    Declaration of the violation of Western Shoshone rights to due 
process, equality under the law, and right to property by the Inter-
American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) is found in the (Final 
Report 75/02). On March 6, 2002 the United Nations Committee on the 
Elimination of Racial Discrimination (UNCERD) confirmed the Inter 
American Commission's decision and rendered a full Urgent Action 
decision (68(1)) against the United States. The decision specifically 
instructs the United States to stop any further actions on Western 
Shoshone lands and calls for the opening of an immediate dialogue.

    As you know, we are currently in a time of change fundamentally, 
environmentally, culturally and spiritually. As leaders of this 
``free'' world it is time for you to examine your hearts and consider 
righting the historical wrongs this government has done not only to the 
Western Shoshone but to all Indigenous peoples of this nation.

    We now are especially concerned with this legislation because four 
key minerals that will be used for the energy transition--97% of 
nickel, 89% of copper, 79% of lithium, and 68% of cobalt--are located 
within 35 miles of Native American Reservations. In addition, many 
existing and proposed mines are located on ``federal lands'' that is 
actually treaty lands of the Western Shoshone as written in the 1863 
Treaty of Ruby Valley.

    The proposed legislation contains a series of provisions designed 
to undermine the Federal Government's authority to safeguard public 
lands. Under Section 2(e)(l)(B) of the Mining Regulatory Clarity Act, 
mining companies would receive a statutory right to permanently occupy 
and bury public lands under tons of toxic waste. Further Section 
2(e)(l)(A) grants mining companies automatic rights-of-way for new 
pipelines, transmission lines, and roads across public lands--
eliminating a central provision of the Federal Land Policy Management 
Act that requires mining companies to receive a permit for such uses 
just like every other industry operating on federal lands. The mining 
law of 1872 is already overly permissive--having caused disastrous 
consequences for our Indigenous communities, our health and our sacred 
sites, and this legislation would only increase those harms in the 
future.

    As individuals with backgrounds in environmental health, forestry 
and as outdoorsmen who once cared about the environment and who want to 
protect resources for future generations; ask yourselves if this 
legislation is one of ``enhancing conservation through innovation'' as 
is the mission of this body. Your yes vote on this legislation will 
negatively affect the future of the environment and people you are 
sworn to protect.

    The Mining Regulatory Clarity Act is poised to have devastating 
consequences on our ancestral lands and resources. The creation of 
tribal sacrifice zones in the name of the clean energy transition must 
stop. Indigenous communities use what are now federal public lands for 
resource collection, ceremonies, and other traditional cultural uses. 
This Administration has vowed to safeguard our cultural resources and 
to listen to tribes. The Mining Regulatory Clarity Act will impair our 
ability to use our ancestral lands forever and we ask that you reject 
it.

            Sincerely,

                                           Fermina Stevens,
                                                           Director

                                 ______
                                 
                        Statement for the Record
                             Charlie Olsen
                 Energy and Public Lands Policy Manager
             National Parks Conservation Association (NPCA)
 NPCA Position on H.R. 2925, the Mining Regulatory Clarity Act of 2023

    Dear Chairman Stauber, Ranking Member Ocasio-Cortez, and members of 
the Energy and Mineral Resources Subcommittee:

    Since 1919, the National Parks Conservation Association (NPCA) has 
been the leading voice of the American people in protecting and 
enhancing our National Park System. On behalf of our 1.6 million 
members and supporters nationwide, and the undersigned organizations, I 
write to share our position on H.R. 2925, the Mining Regulatory Clarity 
Act of 2023.

    We appreciate the subcommittee looking at the General Mining Act of 
1872 and the need to bring our nation's mining system to the same 
standards as other types of extractive development on public lands. 
This is especially relevant due to the growing demand for minerals 
essential for the renewable energy transition and the subsequent growth 
of domestic mining on our public lands. Extreme flooding, drought, 
storms and fires pose a significant threat to the national park system, 
often destroying the unique landscapes, wildlife, ecosystems and 
cultural and historical objects that make these so special. We must 
take immediate action to reduce greenhouse gases from fossil fuels to 
prevent climate change from getting worse while preparing these 
treasured landscapes for the impacts they cannot avoid. This includes a 
rapid transition to renewable energy technologies.

    Investments in the clean energy economy have grown significantly in 
recent years and need to grow exponentially in the years and decades 
ahead. The issue our nation faces is how do we get the materials 
necessary to build out these renewable energy technologies. Demand 
reduction through energy efficiency improvements, recycling and 
developing a robust circular economy are all helpful, but the reality 
is that some amount of mining is necessary. To fully transition to a 
renewable energy economy under current conditions requires more 
minerals and metals than we currently have in circulation today. The 
mining for these renewable energy minerals must be done with the 
highest environmental safeguards and with the greatest consideration 
for national parks, special places, sacred sites and local communities. 
We believe this means meaningful changes to the mining law.

    H.R. 2925--The Mining Regulatory Clarity Act: NPCA opposes this 
bill, which disrupts the effective management of our public lands, 
including vital conservation efforts. While the proposed intent of the 
bill is pitched as a ``fix'' to the ancillary uses issue raised by the 
Rosemont Decision, H.R. 2925 goes further than fixing that decision by 
abolishing the discovery requirement altogether, one of the longest 
standing pieces of the claim system under the 1872 law. Under current 
law, the discovery of a valuable mineral must be proven on a claim for 
said claim to be considered valid. Without the discovery of a valuable 
mineral, a claim can be challenged, and the mineral rights revoked.

    The proof of discovery is essential for conservation tools such as 
mineral withdrawals, monument designations and even the creation of new 
national parks. Importantly, when any of these conservation tools are 
used, all existing and valid rights are still preserved. Valid claims 
pose a threat to park resources due to the potential for new mining to 
happen as allowed under the Mining in the Parks Act. Under the proposed 
changes in H.R. 2925, there would no longer be a requirement for 
claimants to prove the discovery of a valuable mineral to hold or 
validate their claim to the land. This essentially removes the ability 
of the federal government to contest superfluous claims on lands 
reserved for conservation. Despite what proponents contend, this 
legislation does NOT return the mining law to the status quo.

    Moreover, across the National Park System there are currently 1100 
active mine claims held by private entities in 15 parks, covering 
thousands of acres. Many of these claims are already patented prior to 
the creation of the surrounding park, but many remain unpatented and 
therefore subject to the validity examination that H.R. 2925 would 
dramatically deteriorate. Under the legislation as written, the 
unpatented claims across the National Park Service (NPS) would 
effectively become private property and NPS would have insufficient 
power to challenge potentially damaging activities on these lands.

    The Rosemont decision has apparently created new issues for mining 
companies, many of which have found other ways of addressing it 
already. By potentially undermining other conservation goals and 
important public lands, H.R. 2925 as written, is not the appropriate 
solution to this problem. Other options exist, such as those in the May 
2023 DOI solicitor's opinion, for mining companies to pursue for their 
ancillary activities, such as Mill-site claims and tools available 
under the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA). Nevertheless, 
H.R. 2925 is the wrong approach for addressing this issue and would 
only exacerbate the threat of mining in our precious National Parks.

    NPCA supports a renewable energy transition and acknowledges some 
domestic mining may be necessary for the transition. We look forward to 
working with the subcommittee to meaningfully modernize our mining laws 
to both advance the development of less-damaging mining projects and to 
ensure that national parks and other special places, communities and 
the environment are not irreparably harmed. Ultimately, we believe that 
most mining operations are incompatible with the mandate of the 
National Park system to protect natural and cultural resources in 
perpetuity. Any reform must include the removal of the 1,100 active 
mine claims from the National Park System.

    Thank you for considering our views. If you have any questions or 
need additional information, please contact me.

                                 ______
                                 

                      ORUTSARARMIUT NATIVE COUNCIL

                               Bethel, AK

                                                  July 25, 2023    

Re: Orutsararmiut Native Council's Opposition to the Mining Regulatory 
        Clarity Act

    Dear President Biden, Senators and Representatives:

    The Orutsara1miut Native Council firmly opposes the Mining 
Regulatory Clarity Act, which represents an unprecedented giveaway of 
public lands to mining corporations. Under the bill, mining 
corporations would gain a near unlimited right to occupy as much public 
land as they wanted for their mining operations. The companies would 
gain the right to dump waste, dispose of toxic tailings, bulldoze 
roads, and construct pipelines across public lands, even on lands of 
deep cultural and ecological significance to Orutsararmiut Native 
Council. We urge you to oppose the legislation, which would exacerbate 
the harms caused by the mining industry.

    We are especially concerned with this legislation because four key 
minerals that will be used for the energy transition--97% of nickel, 
89% of copper, 79% of lithium, and 68% of cobalt--are located within 35 
miles of Native American Reservations. In addition, many existing and 
proposed mines are located on federal lands adjacent to tribal lands. 
Our lives, unique culture, and safety are at stake on our Ancestral 
Lands. The threat to our ecosystem in which we truly depend upon is 
under immediate danger. Our Indigenous population will be decimated 
because our food security from our natural environment will disappear 
with any ecosystem imbalance.

    The proposed legislation contains a series of provisions designed 
to undermine the Federal Government's authority to safeguard public 
lands. Under Section 2(e)(l)(B) of the Mining Regulatory Clarity Act, 
mining companies would receive a statutory right to permanently occupy 
and bury public lands under tons of toxic waste. Further Section 
2(e)(l)(A) grants mining companies automatic rights-of-way for new 
pipelines, transmission lines, and roads across public lands--
eliminating a central provision of the Federal Land Policy Management 
Act that requires mining companies to receive a permit for such uses 
just like every other industry operating on federal lands. The mining 
law of 1872 is already overly permissive-having caused disastrous 
consequences for our Indigenous communities, our health and our sacred 
sites, and this legislation would only increase those harms in the 
future.

    The Mining Regulatory Clarity Act is poised to have devastating 
consequences on our ancestral lands and resources. The creation of 
tribal sacrifice zones in the name of the clean energy transition must 
stop. Indigenous communities use what are now federal public lands for 
resource collection, ceremonies, and other traditional cultural uses. 
This Administration has vowed to safeguard our cultural resources and 
to listen to tribes. The Mining Regulatory Clarity Act will impair our 
ability to use our ancestral lands forever and we ask that you reject 
it.

            Sincerely,

                                            Brian M. Henry,
                                                 Executive Director

                                 ______
                                 

                    PIMA COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS

                         RESOLUTION NO. 2023-12

              OPPOSING THE PERMITTING FOR MINING NEEDS ACT
         AND THE MINING REGULATORY CLARITY ACT, AND SUPPORTING 
                        MEANINGFUL MINING REFORM

WHEREAS, Pima County and the Pima County Board of Supervisors have long 
advocated for meaningful reform of the 1872 Mining Law, acknowledging 
that mining is necessary and should occur in places and with methods 
that protect the health, safety, and welfare of our County's residents; 
and

WHEREAS, on January 2, 2023, the ``Permitting for Mining Needs Act of 
2023'' was introduced as H.R. 209 in the U.S. House of Representatives; 
and

WHEREAS, on April 25, 2023, the ``Mining Regulatory Clarity Act'' was 
introduced as S. 1281 in the U.S. Senate; and

WHEREAS, both Acts do not provide meaningful mining reform and instead 
would make it easier for mining companies to gain access to federal 
lands at the expense of all other uses such as recreation, tourism, 
conservation, watershed protection, climate mitigation, traditional 
uses by Tribal Nations, cultural and historic preservation, healthy 
forest management, and other uses that contribute significantly to the 
local, state, and national economies; and

WHEREAS, both Acts would allow mining companies to ``. . . use, occupy, 
and conduct operations on public land, with or without the discovery of 
a valuable mineral deposit.'' This includes dumping waste and tailings 
on federal land without the need to prove valid mining claims, as well 
as on federal land absent of claims; and

WHEREAS, both Acts would authorize actions where mining companies 
secure rights on our federal public lands through unpatented mining 
claims without proving that the claims are valid, actions that have 
occurred for too many years; and

WHEREAS, both Acts are intended to legislatively reverse recent 
decisions by the United States District Court for the District of 
Arizona (``District Court'') in 2019 and the Ninth Circuit Court of 
Appeals (``Ninth Circuit'') in 2022 halting the construction of the 
proposed Rosemont Mine on the eastern slopes of the Santa Rita 
Mountains, located in Pima County, and the dumping of waste rock and 
tailings on 2,500 acres of unpatented mining claims in the National 
Forest; and

WHEREAS, the District Court's ruling, which the Ninth Circuit later 
affirmed, confirmed a long-standing concern, raised by Pima County 
since the beginning of the Rosemont Mine federal review process in 
2006, that Federal agencies such as the U.S. Forest Service failed to 
consider whether Rosemont held valid unpatented mining claims; and

WHEREAS, the District Court's ruling confirmed that the Forest Service 
needs to consider reasonable alternatives when reviewing mining 
proposals, providing the opportunity for a more balanced approach to 
public lands management.

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT:

  1.  The Pima County Board of Supervisors opposes the Permitting for 
            Mining Needs Act and the Mining Regulatory Clarity Act, as 
            well as any similar legislation that attempts to allow 
            mining projects on public lands in areas without mining 
            claims and in areas with unproven mining claims, and 
            supports meaningful mining reform;

  2.  The Pima County Board of Supervisors calls on Arizona's 
            Congressional delegation to oppose the Permitting for 
            Mining Needs Act and the Mining Regulatory Clarity Act;

  3.  The Pima County Board of Supervisors directs the County 
            Administrator and the County's Federal lobbyists to take 
            the necessary measures to communicate Pima County's 
            opposition to the Permitting for Mining Needs Act and the 
            Mining Regulatory Clarity Act;

  4.  The Pima County Board of Supervisors directs that communications 
            to our Congressional delegation emphasize Pima County's 
            support for meaningful mining reform and our record of 
            supporting mining projects in Pima County that adhere to 
            local health, safety, and conservation guidelines;

  5.  The Pima County Board of Supervisors opposes piece-meal 
            legislation that does not address the issue of mining 
            reform comprehensively; and

  6.  The Pima County Board of Supervisors affirms support for the 
            rulings by the District Court and the Ninth Circuit Court 
            of Appeals, which is consistent with past resolutions and 
            actions of the Pima County Board of Supervisors.

Passed by the Board of Supervisors of Pima County, this 16th day of 
May, 2023.

Adelita S. Grijalva

Chair, Pima County Board of Supervisors

ATTEST:

Clerk of the Board

APPROVED AS TO FORM:

Daniel Jurkowitz, Deputy County Attorney

                                 ______
                                 

                       Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe

                             Nixon, Nevada

                                                January 3, 2024    

Re: Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe Opposition to the Mining Regulatory 
        Clarity Act

    Dear President Biden, Senators and Representatives:

    The Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe firmly opposes the Mining Regulatory 
Clarity Act, which represents an unprecedented giveaway of public lands 
to mining corporations. Under the bill, mining corporations would gain 
a near unlimited right to occupy as much public land as they wanted for 
their mining operations. The companies would gain the right to dump 
waste, dispose of toxic tailings, bulldoze roads, and construct 
pipelines across public lands, even on lands of deep cultural and 
ecological significance to the Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe. We urge you 
to oppose the legislation, which would exacerbate the harms caused by 
the mining industry.

    We are especially concerned with this legislation because four key 
minerals that will be used for the energy transition--97% of nickel, 
89% of copper, 79% of lithium, and 68% of cobalt--are located within 35 
miles of Native American Reservations. In addition, many existing and 
proposed mines are located on federal lands adjacent to tribal lands.

    The proposed legislation contains a series of provisions designed 
to undermine the Federal Government's authority to safeguard public 
lands. Under Section 2(e)(l)(B) of the Mining Regulatory Clarity Act, 
mining companies would receive a statutory right to pe1manently occupy 
and bury public lands under tons of toxic waste. Further Section 
2(e)(l)(A) grants mining companies automatic rights-of-way for new 
pipelines, transmission lines, and roads across public lands--
eliminating a central provision of the Federal Land Policy Management 
Act that requires mining companies to receive a permit for such uses 
just like every other industry operating on federal lands. The mining 
law of 1872 is already overly permissive--having caused disastrous 
consequences for our Indigenous communities, our health and our sacred 
sites, and this legislation would only increase those harms in the 
future.

    The Mining Regulatory Clarity Act is poised to have devastating 
consequences on our ancestral lands and resources. The creation of 
tribal sacrifice zones in the name of the clean energy transition must 
stop. Indigenous communities use what are now federal public lands for 
resource collection, ceremonies, and other traditional cultural uses. 
This Administration has vowed to safeguard our cultural resources and 
to listen to tribes. The Mining Regulatory Clarity Act will impair our 
ability to use our ancestral lands forever and we ask that you reject 
it.

            Sincerely,

                                          Steven Wadsworth,
                                                      Vice Chairman

                                 ______
                                 

            SAN XAVIER DISTRICT OF THE TOHONO O'ODHAM NATION

                            Tucson, Arizona

                                               January 26, 2024    

    President Joseph Biden
    The White House
    Washington, D.C.

        Mark Kelly                    Krysten Sinema
        United States Senate          United States Senate

        Congressman Raul Grijalva     Congressman Paul Gosar
        House of Representatives      House of Representatives

Re: San Xavier District of the Tohono O'odham Nation's Opposition to 
        the Mining Regulatory Clarity Act

    Dear President Biden, and Honorable Senators, and Representatives:

    The San Xavier District government of the Tohono O'odham Nation 
firmly opposes the Mining Regulatory Clarity Act, which represents an 
unprecedented giveaway of public lands to mining corporations. Under 
the bill, mining corporations would gain a near unlimited right to 
occupy as much public land as they wanted for their mining operations. 
Mining companies would gain the right to dump waste, dispose of toxic 
tailings, bulldoze roads, and construct pipelines across public lands, 
even on lands of deep cultural and ecological significance to the San 
Xavier District of the Tohono O'odham Nation. We urge you to oppose the 
legislation, which would exacerbate the harm caused by the mining 
industry.

    We are especially concerned with this legislation because four key 
minerals that will be used for the energy transition--97% of nickel, 
89% of copper, 79% of lithium, and 68% of cobalt--are located within 35 
miles of Native American Reservations. In addition, many existing and 
proposed mines are located on federal lands adjacent to tribal lands.

    Our people and our lands have been affected by Asarco Copper Mine 
adjacent and south of the San Xavier Indian Reservation since 1955. 
There is potential leakage of sulfates from the mine tailings to our 
aquifer. We are supporting local environmental groups opposing two 
proposed , mines on our ancestral lands affecting our cultural 
properties and prohibiting us from gathering natural resources on the 
lands. Hudbay, a Canadian based company, has proposed mining on the 
east and west slopes of the Santa Rita Mountain range ``Cewe Duag'' 
(long mountain in our language). They are Rosemont, and Copper World 
mines respectively.

    The proposed legislation contains a series of provisions designed 
to undermine the Federal Government's authority to safeguard public 
lands. Under Section 2(e)(l)(B) of the Mining Regulatory' Clarity Act, 
mining companies would receive a statutory right to permanently occupy 
and bury public lands under tons of toxic waste. Further Section 
2(e)(l)(A) grants mining companies automatic rights-of-way for new 
pipelines, transmission lines, and roads across public lands--
eliminating a central provision of the Federal Land Policy Management 
Act that requires mining companies to receive a permit for such uses 
just like every other industry operating on federal lands. The mining 
law of 1872 is already overly permissive--having caused disastrous 
consequences for our Indigenous communities, our health and our sacred 
sites, and this legislation would only increase those harms in the 
future.

    The Mining Regulatory Clarity Act is poised to have devastating 
consequences on our ancestral lands and resources. The creation of 
tribal sacrifice zones in the name of the clean energy transition must 
stop. Indigenous communities use what are now federal public lands for 
resource collection, ceremonies, and other traditional cultural uses. 
This Administration has vowed to safeguard our cultural resources and 
to listen to tribes. The Mining Regulatory Clarity Act will impair our 
ability to use our ancestral lands forever and we ask that you reject 
it.

            Sincerely,

                                              Austin Nunez,
                                                           Chairman

                                 ______
                                 
                                               January 29, 2024    

    Representatives:

    On behalf of our millions of members and supporters, the following 
conservation, climate, Indigenous and tribal-affiliated organizations 
call on you to oppose H.R. 2925, the so-called ``Mining Regulatory 
Clarity Act.'' We write to share the below concerns and reasons for 
opposition for the House Natural Resources Subcommittee on Energy & 
Mineral Resources hearing on H.R. 2925 on January 31, 2024.

    The Mining Regulatory Clarity Act represents an unprecedented, de 
facto giveaway of America's cherished public lands to mining 
corporations, upending and reversing over one hundred years of public 
land law precedent. Under the bill, anyone--for a nominal fee--gains 
permanent rights to occupy land, construct massive waste dumps, and 
build roads and pipelines across public lands to the detriment of all 
other values. This would preclude all other types of development and 
use, including renewable energy projects, recreation, and traditional 
cultural uses.

    The Mining Regulatory Clarity Act is not a return to ``status quo'' 
as some proponents have argued. Instead, this legislation undermines 
the federal government's long standing authority to safeguard public 
lands, threatening the protection of irreplaceable cultural, 
environmental, water, and economic resources. That's because the bill 
conveys mining claimants (including international mining conglomerates) 
with a right to permanently occupy federal public lands. If an 
alternative use--like an electric transmission line or a renewable 
energy project--needed to cross ``claimed'' public lands, mining 
companies could extract large sums of money from the federal government 
in exchange for giving up their claim. As an example, if this bill were 
law in the 1900s, Grand Canyon National Park wouldn't exist as it does 
today. Future Senator Ralph Cameron filed mining claims covering the 
famous Bright Angel Trail, but they were invalidated due to a lack of a 
valuable mineral deposit. Had S. 1281/H.R. 2925 been law, Cameron would 
have had a vested right to undertake a wide variety of exclusionary or 
destructive activities on these claims and those claims would have 
superseded the Grand Canyon National Monument's (later National Park's) 
protections. Under S. 1281, all future prospective protected lands 
could suffer this fate.

    This legislation would lead to vast unintended consequences by 
allowing mining companies, and any individual, to easily weaponize it 
for their own gain. A person or company wishing to block a solar, wind, 
or transmission project could simply file a claim in the path of the 
project by pounding four stakes into the ground and paying a nominal 
fee and then exercise their new right to occupy the land to block it 
from moving forward.

    Under Section 2(e)(1)(B) of S. 1281/H.R. 2925, mining companies 
would receive a statutory right to permanently occupy and bury our 
federal public lands under tons of toxic waste. Modern large scale 
mines often produce far more toxic waste than the minerals they 
extract, risking water contamination and other harms. Further, Section 
2(e)1(A) grants mining companies automatic rights-of-way for far-flung 
infrastructure such as new pipelines, transmission lines, and roads 
across public lands. The change eliminates a central provision of the 
Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) that requires mining 
companies to receive a permit for such uses, just like everyone else 
operating on public lands. Section 2(e)(2) would also eliminate FLPMA's 
requirement that the mining company pay ``fair market value'' for using 
public lands for these facilities.

    The Mining Regulatory Clarity Act was authored in reaction to 
recent court decisions that affirmed and enforced long-standing law. 
According to proponents of this egregious corporate handout, the need 
for this bill arises from a court case known as Rosemont, as well as 
two subsequent federal court rulings, where companies proposed using 
invalid mining claims to dump enormous quantities of waste generated at 
the mine site. The problem with that was obvious and courts blocked 
them: holding an invalid mining claim confers no right to use or occupy 
the lands covered by the claim unless a valuable mineral is discovered.

    The proponents also argue that this legislation is essential to 
secure our clean energy supply chain. Contrary to industry's sky-is-
falling rhetoric about critical mineral supply shortages, there are a 
variety of ways to meet the demand for these minerals during our 
transition to a clean energy economy. This includes--in conjunction 
with carefully sited mines governed by high environmental standards--
deep investment in a circular minerals economy that recycles and reuses 
the maximum amount of these minerals possible. In addition, mining 
companies have options to acquire the lands needed for new mines, waste 
sites, and processing facilities without violating the law or seeking 
handouts from Congress. In fact, one large copper operation in Arizona, 
ASARCO's Ray Mine, recently obtained over 9,000 acres in an exchange to 
allow for continued mining. There cannot be a just and equitable 
transition to a carbon-free future, with legislation like this that 
sacrifices our lands, waters, public health, sacred sites and 
communities.

    The mining law of 1872 is already overly permissive--mining has 
polluted the headwaters of 40 percent of western watersheds, fiscal 
assurances for clean up are routinely inadequate, and companies pay no 
royalties for the minerals they extract from public lands. Reform is 
needed to safeguard waters, communities, and the environment.

    This bill would do the opposite, further tipping the scales away 
from communities, the environment, and our clean energy future--giving 
the mining industry the power to dictate how we use our public lands. 
Instead, Congress should work to balance our nation's clean energy 
mineral needs with all other public land uses, such as for renewable 
energy projects, cultural and historical resources, ranching, 
recreation, water resources, and wildlife. Our organizations ask you to 
oppose this legislation in all its forms and reject it as a part of any 
conversation around energy permitting.

            Sincerely,

        Alaska Clean Water Advocacy   Malach Consulting

        Alaska Community Action on 
        Toxics                        Mother Kuskokwim Tribal Coalition

        Alaska Wilderness League      Multicultural Alliance for a Safe 
                                      Environment

        Anthropocene Alliance         Native Movement

        Arizona Faith Network         Natural Resources Defense Council

        Arizona Mining Reform 
        Coalition                     Nevada Conservation League

        Arizona Trail Association     New Mexico Environmental Law 
                                      Center

        Black Hills Clean Water 
        Alliance                      Northern Alaska Environmental 
                                      Center

        Californians for Western 
        Wilderness                    Northern Front Range Broadband of 
                                      Great Old Broads for Wilderness

        Cascade Forest Conservancy    Norton Bay Watershed Council

        Center for Biological 
        Diversity                     Okanogan Highlands Alliance

        Citizens Awareness Network    Oregon Natural Desert Association

        Citizens to Protect Smith 
        Valley, NV                    Patagonia Area Resource Alliance

        Clark County Adventure 
        Riders (NV)                   People of Red Mountain

        Coalition for Wetlands and 
        Forests                       Physicians for Social 
                                      Responsibility Pennsylvania

        Conservation Northwest        Progressive Leadership Alliance 
                                      of Nevada

        Cook Inletkeeper              Public Citizen

        Defenders of Wildlife         Quiet Use Coalition

        Dot Lake Village              Save the Scenic Santa Ritas 
                                      Association

        Earthjustice                  Save the South Fork Salmon, Inc.
        Earthworks                    Sierra Club

        Endangered Species 
        Coalition                     Silver Valley Community Resource 
                                      Center

        Friends of Buckingham         Sky Island Alliance

        Friends of the Kalmiopsis     Soda Mountain Wilderness Council

        Friends of the Sonoran 
        Desert                        Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance

        Gila Resources Information 
        Project                       Standing Trees

        Great Basin Resource Watch    The Alaska Center

        Great Bear Foundation         The Clinch Coalition

        Healthy Environment 
        Alliance of Utah              The Wilderness Society

        Hispanic Access Foundation    Trustees for Alaska

        Idaho Conservation League     Tucson Audubon Society

        Idaho Rivers United           Uranium Watch

        Information Network for 
        Responsible Mining            WaterLegacy

        Kahtoola, Inc                 Western Mining Action Network-
                                      Indigenous Caucus

        Kalmiopsis Audubon Society    Western Shoshone Defense Project

        LEAD Agency, Inc.             Western Watersheds Project

        League of Conservation 
        Voters                        Wild Arizona

        Living Rivers                 Wisconsin Mining

        Los Padres ForestWatch

                                 ______
                                 

                             CITY OF TUCSON

                          RESOLUTION NO. 23626

RELATING TO FEDERAL LEGISLATION; OPPOSING THE PERMITTING FOR MINING 
NEEDS ACT OF 2023 AND THE MINING REGULATORY CLARITY ACT, INTRODUCED IN 
THE CONGRESS AS H.R. 209, S. 1281 and H.R. 2925; CALLING ON ARIZONA'S 
CONGRESSIONAL DELEGATION TO OPPOSE THIS AND SIMILAR LEGISLATION; 
SUPPORTING THE CLEAN ENERGY AND MINERALS REFORM ACT; AND DECLARING AN 
EMERGENCY

WHEREAS, on January 2, 2023, the ``Permitting for Mining Needs Act of 
2023'' was introduced as H.R. 209 in the U.S. House of Representatives; 
and

WHEREAS, on April 25, 2023, the ``Mining Regulatory Clarity Act'' was 
introduced as S. 1281 in the U.S. Senate (with an equivalent act 
introduced in the House as H.R. 2925); and

WHEREAS, both Acts do not provide meaningful mining reform and instead 
would make it easier for mining companies to gain access to federal 
lands at the expense of all other uses such as recreation, tourism, 
conservation, watershed protection, climate mitigation, traditional 
uses by Tribal Nations, cultural and historic preservation, healthy 
forest management, and other uses that contribute significantly to the 
local, state, and national economies; and

WHEREAS, both Acts would allow mining companies to ``. . . use, occupy, 
and conduct operations on public land, with or without the discovery of 
a valuable mineral deposit.'' This includes dumping waste and tailings 
on federal land without the need to prove valid mining claims, as well 
as on federal land absent of claims; and

WHEREAS, both Acts would authorize actions where mining companies 
secure rights on our federal public lands through unpatented mining 
claims without proving that the claims are valid, actions that have 
occurred for too many years; and

WHEREAS, both Acts are intended to legislatively reverse recent 
decisions by the United States District Court for the District of 
Arizona (``District Court'') in 2019 and the Ninth Circuit Court of 
Appeals (``Ninth Circuit'') in 2022 halting the construction of the 
proposed Rosemont Mine on the eastern slopes of the Santa Rita 
Mountains, located in Pima County, and the dumping of waste rock and 
tailings on 2,500 acres of unpatented mining claims in the National 
Forest; and

WHEREAS, the District Court's ruling, which the Ninth Circuit later 
affirmed, confirmed a long-standing concern, raised by Pima County 
since the beginning of the Rosemont Mine federal review process in 
2006, that Federal agencies such as the U.S. Forest Service failed to 
consider whether Rosemont held valid unpatented mining claims; and

WHEREAS, the District Court's ruling confirmed that the Forest Service 
needs to consider reasonable alternatives when reviewing mining 
proposals, providing the opportunity for a more balanced approach to 
public lands management; and

WHEREAS, the proposed mining operations at Rosemont threaten an area of 
public lands that provide a disproportionately high amount of water for 
runoff and groundwater recharge for the Tucson basin, and are proposed 
for an area that is recognized worldwide for its extraordinary 
biodiversity; and

WHEREAS, the Clean Energy Minerals Reform Act, as sponsored by Sen. 
Heinrich and Rep. Grijalva, would enact meaningful mining reform, 
including the establishment of royalties on mining operations and a 
leasing system similar to what applies to oil and gas industries, while 
protecting national parks and monuments and other public lands and key 
environmental resources:

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF 
TUCSON, ARIZONA, AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. The Mayor and Council opposes the Permitting for Mining 
Needs Act and the Mining Regulatory Clarity Act, as well as any similar 
legislation, including but not limited to H.R. 209, S. 1281 and H.R. 
2925, that attempts to allow mining projects on public lands in areas 
without mining claims and in areas with unproven mining claims; and 
that makes it easier for mining companies to gain access to federal 
lands at the expense of all other uses such as recreation, tourism, 
conservation, watershed protection, climate mitigation, traditional 
uses by Tribal Nations, cultural and historic preservation, healthy 
forest management, and other uses that contribute significantly to the 
local, state, and national economies.

SECTION 2. The Mayor and Council calls on Arizona's Congressional 
delegation to oppose the Permitting for Mining Needs Act and the Mining 
Regulatory Clarity Act, as well as any similar legislation.

SECTION 3. The Mayor and Council supports the Clean Energy Minerals 
Reform Act, as sponsored by Sen. Heinrich and Rep. Grijalva, which 
would enact meaningful mining reform while protecting national parks 
and monuments and other public lands and key environmental resources; 
and call on Arizona's Congressional delegation to support this 
legislation.

SECTION 4. The various City officers and employees are authorized and 
directed to perform all acts necessary or desirable to give effect to 
this Resolution, including but not limited to taking measures necessary 
and appropriate to communicate the City of Tucson's opposition to the 
Permitting for Mining Needs Act and the Mining Regulatory Clarity Act 
and its support for the Clean Energy Minerals Reform Act.

SECTION 5. WHEREAS, it is necessary for the preservation of the peace, 
health, and safety of the City of Tucson that this Resolution become 
effective immediately, an emergency hereby is declared to exist, and 
this Resolution shall be effective immediately upon its passage and 
adoption.

PASSED, ADOPTED AND APPROVED by the Mayor and Council of the City of 
Tucson, Arizona, June 6, 2023.

ATTEST:

CITY CLERK

APPROVED AS TO FORM:

CITY ATTORNEY

                                 ______
                                 
                                               January 29, 2024    

Hon. Bruce Westerman, Chairman
Hon. Raul Grijalva, Ranking Member
House Natural Resources Committee
1324 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515

    Dear Chair Westerman, Ranking Member Grijalva, and Members of the 
House Committee on Natural Resources:

    The undersigned organizations are writing on behalf of our millions 
of members across the country to express our support for reforming 
hardrock mineral extraction standards in the United States to better 
protect communities and the environment. Simultaneously, we write to 
express serious concerns about the Mining Clarity Regulatory Act, which 
represents an unprecedented, de facto giveaway of America's cherished 
public lands to mining corporations, upending and reversing over one 
hundred years of public land law precedent.
    As organizations advocating for a zero-emission transportation 
future, we know that electrifying the vehicle fleet is an essential 
strategy to reducing fossil fuel emissions and addressing the climate 
crisis. Electric vehicles (EVs) also eliminate tailpipe emissions of 
harmful air pollutants that cause asthma and respiratory diseases, 
especially among Black, Indigenous, and other communities of color.\1\ 
However, without adequate protections for workers, communities, and 
environments near mining and processing sites, we risk replicating the 
harms of fossil fuel extraction. The United States must commit to 
protecting people, communities, and special places as it pursues the 
clean energy transition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ US EPA, O. (2021, September 20). Study Finds Exposure to Air 
Pollution Higher for People of Color Regardless of Region or Income 
[Overviews and Factsheets]. https://www.epa.gov/sciencematters/study-
finds-exposure-air-pollution-higher-people-color-regardless-region-or-
income
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Mining for hardrock minerals--the group of subterranean resources 
that include those necessary for EV batteries, including lithium, 
nickel, copper, and cobalt--is an extremely disruptive and harmful 
industry. In fact, metals mining is the U.S.' most toxic industry, 
according to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), responsible for 
45% of toxics releases to air, water, and soil in 2020.\2\ Modern 
mining uses highly specialized equipment to move billions of tons of 
soil, redirect rivers, and permanently alter landscapes. Mining 
generates an incredible amount of toxic waste, including tailings and 
perpetual acid drainage, which cause hazards to human and environmental 
health and must be sequestered and monitored, often for centuries.\3\ 
Tailings spills are increasing in frequency and severity around the 
world.\4\ Despite the potential for harm, mining is governed by a 151 
year old statute from the U.S.'s initial settlement and colonization of 
the West. Given the projected increase in mining activity to source the 
rapid buildout of electric vehicles and renewable energy, we need to 
update our mining laws and rules to protect workers, communities, and 
the environment with the highest possible standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ Toxics Release Inventory--What is it? (n.d.). Earthworks. 
Retrieved May 19, 2023, from https://earthworks.org/issues/toxics-
release-inventory-what-is-it/
    \3\ Safety First: Guidelines for Responsible Mine Tailings 
Management. (2022, May 31). Earthworks. https://earthworks.org/
resources/safety-first/
    \4\ Protecting Communities from Tailings Disasters. (n.d.). 
Earthworks. Retrieved May 19, 2023, from https://earthworks.org/issues/
protecting-communities-from-tailings-disasters/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Indigenous communities are particularly vulnerable, since 97% of 
nickel, 89% of copper, 79% of lithium and 68% of cobalt reserves and 
resources in the U.S. are located within 35 miles of Native American 
reservations.\5\ Expanding mining under our current mining law--passed 
in 1872-- puts Indigenous communities at risk and perpetuates current 
and historic injustices.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \5\ Mining Energy-Transition Metals: National Aims, Local 
Conflicts. (2021, June 3). https://www.msci.com/www/blog-posts/mining-
energy-transition-metals/02531033947

    There are many acts the United States government can take to ensure 
this transition is actually just and does not harm Indigenous and other 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
mining-affected communities, including:

     Congress and the Administration can move to reform the 
            1872 Mining Law and the implementing rules to ensure mining 
            companies are held to the highest environmental, human 
            rights, and labor standards. Mining reform should allow for 
            better oversight of mines to ensure compliance with 
            standards, protection of sensitive ecosystems, and cleanup 
            of old mine sites.

     Congress and the Administration can take action to build a 
            robust circular economy to reduce the need for virgin 
            material extraction and increase the supply of more 
            responsibly sourced materials.

     The Administration can uphold Indigenous peoples' right to 
            Free, Prior, and Informed Consent, as guaranteed by the 
            United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous 
            Peoples.

     The Administration can promote the use of robust community 
            benefits agreements and other due diligence mechanisms that 
            protect communities from environmental harm and ensure that 
            workers have safe, high road jobs and a free and fair 
            chance to join a union and collectively bargain.

    As advocates committed to a healthier future, we support a truly 
just transition to clean transportation that does not come at the 
expense of Indigenous communities or the environment. We believe that 
it is possible to address climate change and reduce transportation 
emissions through vehicle electrification while protecting communities 
and the environment. However, the Mining Clarity Reform Act, which 
would give the mining industry the power to dictate how we use our 
public lands, does none of these things. We urge Congress and the 
Administration to take swift action to reform our mining laws and build 
a circular economy.

            Sincerely,

        Center for Biological 
        Diversity                     League of Conservation Voters 
                                      (LCV)

        Climate Reality Chicago 
        Metro                         MI Air MI Health

        Earthjustice                  Natural Resources Defense Council

        Earthworks                    Plug In America

        Ecology Center                Public Citizen

        Environmental Working Group 
        (EWG)                         Sierra Club

        EVHybridNoire                 Southwest Detroit Environmental 
                                      Vision

        GreenLatinos                  United Women in Faith

        Hip Hop Caucus                Warehouse Workers for Justice

        IL Environmental Council      WE ACT for Environmental Justice

        Interfaith Power & Light

                                 ______
                                 

                             HUALAPAI TRIBE

                       OFFICE OF THE CHAIRPERSON

                                                   June 6, 2023    

The President
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Ave.
Washington, DC 20500

Re: Hualapai Tribe's Opposition to the Mining Regulatory Clarity Act

    Dear President Biden, Senators and Representatives:

    The Hualapai Tribe firmly opposes the Mining Regulatory Clarity 
Act, which represents an unprecedented giveaway of public lands to 
mining corporations. Under the bill, mining corporations would gain a 
near unlimited right to occupy as much public land as they wanted for 
their mining operations. The companies would gain the right to dump 
waste, dispose of toxic tailings, bulldoze roads, and construct 
pipelines across public lands, even on lands of deep cultural and 
ecological significance to the Hualapai Tribe. We urge you to oppose 
the legislation, which would exacerbate the harms caused by the mining 
industry.

    We are especially concerned with this legislation because four key 
minerals that will be used for the energy transition--97% of nickel, 
89% of copper, 79% of lithium, and 68% of cobalt--are located within 35 
miles of Native American Reservations. In addition, many existing and 
proposed mines are located on federal lands adjacent to tribal lands. 
The Tribe is very concerned with a lithium exploration project located 
on Bureau of Land Management lands directly adjacent to tribal lands in 
the Big Sandy Valley that threatens Ha'Kamwe, a sacred medicinal 
spring. In addition, numerous notice-level activities are occurring 
throughout the Sandy Valley for a variety of minerals.

    The proposed legislation contains a series of provisions designed 
to undermine the Federal Government's authority to safeguard public 
lands. Under Section 2(e)(l)(B) of the Mining Regulatory Clarity Act, 
mining companies would receive a statutory right to permanently occupy 
and bury public lands under tons of toxic waste. Further Section 
2(e)(1)(A) grants mining companies automatic rights-of-way for new 
pipelines, transmission lines, and roads across public lands--
eliminating a central provision of the Federal Land Policy Management 
Act that requires mining companies to receive a permit for such uses 
just like every other industry operating on federal lands. The mining 
law of 1872 is already overly permissive--having caused disastrous 
consequences for our Indigenous communities, our health and our sacred 
sites, and this legislation would only increase those harms in the 
future.

    The Mining Regulatory Clarity Act is poised to have devastating 
consequences on our ancestral lands and resources. The creation of 
tribal sacrifice zones in the name of the clean energy transition must 
stop. Indigenous communities use what are now federal public lands for 
resource collection, ceremonies, and other traditional cultural uses. 
This Administration has vowed to safeguard our cultural resources and 
to listen to tribes. The Mining Regulatory Clarity Act will impair our 
ability to use our ancestral lands forever and we ask that you reject 
it.

            Sincerely,

                                          Sherry J. Parker,
                                                         Chairwoman

                                 ______
                                 
                                               January 30, 2024    


Hon. Pete Stauber, Chairman
Hon. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Ranking Member
Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources
1324 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515

Re: Advancing comprehensive mining legislation

    Dear Chairman Stauber and Ranking Member Ocasio-Cortez:

    The undersigned hunting, fishing, outdoor recreation, and 
conservation organizations are writing to share our perspective 
regarding the Mining Regulatory Clarity Act (H.R. 2925), which is being 
considered in the Energy and Mineral Resources Subcommittee's 
legislative hearing on January 31, 2024.

    The Mining Regulatory Clarity Act seeks to address a narrow set of 
legal uncertainties stemming from the Rosemont judicial decision. 
However, H.R. 2925 goes far beyond the historic application of the 1872 
Mining Law and in doing so jeopardizes fish and wildlife habitat and 
public lands. In short, the approach of this legislation is to simply 
make all mining claims valid--with or without the discovery of a 
valuable mineral deposit--so long as required fees are paid. While this 
approach would resolve uncertainty associated with the Rosemont 
decision, it would also create unintended consequences because it does 
not distinguish between lands that are open for mining and those that 
have been withdrawn from mining laws, such as wilderness areas and 
national monuments. This is problematic because numerous mining claims 
preexist designations for many of these areas, including approximately 
1,100 mining claims in National Park units.

    In the Rosemont case, the proponent had a valid mining claim. Its 
plan of operations, however, proposed to dispose of nearly two billion 
tons of waste rock on adjacent National Forest land. The District Court 
and the Ninth Circuit court of appeals found that Rosemont needed to 
establish they had a valid and existing right prior to allowing the 
dumping of the waste.

    Under existing regulations, mining can only be allowed in protected 
areas if preexisting claims are valid, meaning that there has been the 
discovery of a valuable mineral deposit.\1\ This requirement 
establishes a high bar to meet before a valid right is established on 
mining claims within protected areas where mining is otherwise 
prohibited. However, if provisions of the Mining Regulatory Clarity Act 
were to become law, it would eliminate the valuable discovery standard, 
even in ``protected'' areas, and it would be unlawful to deny mining 
and exploration activities on all mining claims.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ See 43 CFR Sec. 3809.100, ``after the date on which the lands 
are withdrawn from appropriation under the mining laws, BLM will not 
approve a plan of operations or allow notice-level operations to 
proceed until BLM has prepared a mineral examination report to 
determine whether the mining claim was valid before the withdrawal, and 
whether it remains valid.''

    Moreover, under the proposed legislation these claimant rights also 
apply to incidental activities that are not located on mining claims, 
such as road construction across public land to access a mining claim. 
Importantly, these claimant rights do not just apply to plans of 
operations for commercial mining operations that were the focus of the 
Rosemont case--these provisions would extend to all phases of mining, 
including prospecting and exploration, which the Rosemont decision does 
not affect. The effect is that a claim holder in good standing would 
now have a right explicitly codified in law to not only mine on any 
claim upon which required fees have been paid, but to also construct 
reasonably incidental roads and other infrastructure, even just for the 
purposes of prospecting on a mining claim.
    A more targeted, holistic solution is needed that not only provides 
certainty for the mining industry, but that also establishes a 21st 
century mining law that conserves and restores fish and wildlife 
habitat, sacred sites and drinking water supplies. We urge Congress to 
enact a comprehensive solution that provides a path forward balancing 
conservation with a sustainable domestic mining industry, including the 
following elements:

  1.  Security of tenure. Legislation to resolve uncertainties 
            surrounding the Rosemont decision must be narrowly focused 
            to address ancillary uses reasonably necessary and incident 
            to a plan of operations to actually mine a valuable mineral 
            deposit. These rights should not extend to prospecting and 
            exploration activities. Additionally, exploration, mining 
            or related activities should not be allowed in protected 
            areas withdrawn from mining laws unless a valid right 
            (i.e., valuable mineral discovery) was established prior to 
            the protective designation.

  2.  Modernize mining law. Congress should establish a royalty and/or 
            fee on the extraction of hardrock minerals from public 
            lands that is both fair for the mining industry and that 
            generates revenue to help clean up the legacy of abandoned 
            hard rock mines. Additionally, a modern mining law should 
            provide some level of discretion for public land management 
            agencies to determine--upfront--lands available for mining 
            activities. This is the same way public land management 
            agencies determine lands suitable for oil and gas leasing 
            and other industrial land uses. An analogue for Congress to 
            consider is the Surface Coal Mine Reclamation Act and its 
            Abandoned Mineland Fund which has generated more than $11 
            billion to help clean up abandoned coal mines.

  3.  Empower Good Samaritan cleanups: Volunteer, third parties want to 
            help clean up some of the tens of thousands of abandoned 
            mines polluting the environment. Unfortunately, enormous 
            liability risks preclude cleanup efforts. The Good 
            Samaritan Remediation of Abandoned Hardrock Mines Act would 
            create a pilot program that provides non-liable Good 
            Samaritan parties with a targeted, narrow liability shield 
            would allow projects to move forward that improve water 
            quality for the environment and downstream communities 
            impacted by abandoned mines.

    We recognize that the Rosemont decision has created a great deal of 
uncertainty for mining on public lands that are open to mining, but a 
solution should not create uncertainty for the future of protected 
public lands. We stand ready to work collaboratively with lawmakers, 
the mining industry, and other public land stakeholders to chart a path 
forward for comprehensive legislation that helps clean up the mistakes 
of the past and prevents future impacts to clean water and healthy fish 
and wildlife habitat.

            Sincerely,

            Backcountry Hunters and Anglers

            Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership

            Trout Unlimited

                                 ______
                                 
                                               January 30, 2024    


Hon. Pete Stauber, Chairman
Hon. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Ranking Member
Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources
1324 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515

Re: Comments on H.R. 2925, scheduled to be heard by the subcommittee on 
        January 31, 2024

    Dear Congressmembers Stauber and Ocasio-Cortez:

    We write to express our strong opposition to H.R. 2925. We have 
helped administer the Mining Law (while working in the Department of 
the Interior in both career and non-career positions) and have taught 
and written about Mining Law issues for many years.

    Simply put, H.R. 2925 is the worst so-called ``reform'' of the 
Mining Law we have ever seen. It is shocking, and we use that word 
advisedly, in the way it opens to extortion the hundreds of millions of 
acres of national forests and other public lands to which the Mining 
Law applies.

    The problem is apparent on the face of the act.

        ``A [mining] claimant shall have the right to use, occupy, and 
        conduct operations on public land . . . without discovery of a 
        valuable mineral deposit, if . . . the claimant makes a timely 
        payment of the location fee . . . and the claim maintenance fee 
        . . .'' (emphasis added)

    This text does not explicitly require a claimant to conduct 
``operations'' in order to ``use'' or ``occupy'' public lands. 
Moreover, it defines ``operations'' very broadly, as ``any activity 
reasonably incident to'' things like ``prospecting,'' ``exploration,'' 
``development,'' or ``processing.''

    In short, H.R. 2925 gives any locator or holder of a mining claim 
the ``right to use [and] occupy . . . public land'' for payment to the 
U.S. government of a mere $205 per year per 20-acre claim. (Currently, 
the current claim location fee is $40; the claim maintenance fee, 
$165.) And it explicitly authorizes loosely defined ``operations'' on 
public land ``regardless of whether that incidental activity is carried 
out on a mining claim . . ..'' This ``Clarity Act'' is such a 
mischievous giveaway of a ``right to occupy public land'' that it ought 
to be called the ``Mining Charity Act.''

    Consider what is likely to happen if the Clarity Act became law. 
Suppose X wants to occupy a lovely tract of public lands as a base for 
hunting, angling, a yoga retreat, or any of a myriad of other things. 
Or suppose X learns that a large tract of public land is being 
considered for, say, legitimate mineral activity, or for a site for a 
renewable energy project, a transmission line, a ski area, or for any 
number of other possible uses. Lacking all scruples, X seizes the 
opportunity the Clarity Act presents for making an easy buck (some 
might call it blackmail).

    After checking to make sure the lands are open to new claim 
location (as tens of millions of acres are), it locates one or more 
mining claims, pays the $205-per-claim fee, and begins to occupy the 
public lands claimed and other public lands in the vicinity.

        Variation One: X brings along tools and devices that could be 
        used for prospecting, and perhaps scratch a little dirt, to 
        make a facial case for ``prospecting'' to meet the Clarity 
        Act's loose definition of an ``operation.'' Variation Two: X 
        builds a power generation or other kind of industrial facility 
        on public lands (as noted above, whether or not it is actually 
        on a mining claim is irrelevant under the Clarity Act's 
        definition of ``operations'') and, if questioned, asserts that 
        it is ``reasonably incident'' to mineral activity.
    The U.S. government, Native American entities with ancestral 
connections to the lands, and other members of the public (which could 
include legitimate mineral developers \1\) protest X's occupancy as 
interfering with legitimate uses and objectives served by public land.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ It is stunning to us that, despite much contemporary discussion 
about reforming the Mining Law in order to facilitate the development 
of so-called ``strategic minerals'' on federal land, the industry and 
its allies are promoting legislation that would almost certainly 
thwart, rather than facilitate, their extraction!

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    What if anything can they do about it under the Clarity Act?

    Nothing, so far as we can see.

    Under current law, the government could challenge X's claim on the 
ground it has not made a discovery of a valuable mineral deposit. But 
the Clarity Act removes that vital tool from the government's 
toolbox.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ While the BLM and the Forest Service have rules regulating 
occupancy and other uses of mining claims (36 CFR Part 228; 43 CFR Part 
3715), they would become unenforceable to the extent they are 
contradicted by the Clarity Act's new grant of a broad statutory right 
to ``occupy'' public land simply upon payment of the requisite fees.

    By eliminating the bedrock requirement that mining claims are not 
legally valid unless they are supported by a discovery of a valuable 
mineral deposit--a requirement that has been a fundamental part of the 
Mining Law for nearly 152 years--the proposed legislation leaves a 
buyout as the only practical way to eliminate such claims. And in the 
negotiation of the buyout amount, practically all the leverage would be 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
with the claimant.

    We are not just imagining this. The Mining Law has historically 
been subject to widespread abuse of exactly this kind. One notorious 
example arose more than a century ago, when for years Ralph Cameron 
used spurious mining claims he located on the most popular hiking trail 
in the Grand Canyon to extort money from park visitors. In the 1960s, 
Merle Zweifel located many thousands of mining claims over hundreds of 
thousands of acres of public lands with a similar objective, including 
along the proposed route of the Central Arizona Project aqueduct and on 
public land thought to be valuable for oil shale development in western 
Colorado.\3\ (His motivation, as he later admitted to a Wall Street 
Journal reporter, was ``a lust for money.'' \4\) It took years of 
litigation to eliminate Cameron's, Zweifel's and other similar abusive 
claims, and it was only possible because the abusers could not show a 
discovery of a valuable mineral deposit on their claims.\5\ H.R. 2925's 
grant of an open-ended ``right to occupy'' public lands would mean that 
would no longer work.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\ These and similar abuses are recounted in detail, with sources, 
in Leshy, The Mining Law: A Study in Perpetual Motion (1987), at 77-83.
    \4\ B. Newman, ``Never Mined: Merle Zweifel Claims Acres of Public 
Land, But What Is He Up To?'' Wall Street Journal, January 20, 1972, p. 
1, col. 1.
    \5\ See, e.g., Cameron v. United States, 252 U.S. 450 (1920); see 
also United States v. Zweifel, 508 F.2d 1150 (10th Cir.), cert. denied 
sub nom Roberts v. United States, 423 U.S. 829 (1975).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                 *****

    What makes this even more troublesome is that the so-called 
``problem'' H.R. 2959 purports to address--the Rosemont court decision 
\6\--in fact does not shackle the legitimate mining industry.\7\ Hudbay 
Minerals, the foreign company seeking to develop Rosemont, made a 
deliberate decision to try to use regular mining claims (which it 
located on 2700 acres of national forest land) as the site for the huge 
waste dumps and tailings piles its mine would produce. Its decision 
left it vulnerable to the challenge that these claims did not support a 
valuable mineral deposit. In fact, both the geological evidence and 
Hudbay's intent to bury the claimed land under hundreds of millions of 
tons of waste rock and tailings convincingly demonstrated that the 
claims contained no valuable mineral deposits. Upon reaching that 
conclusion, the federal courts set aside the Forest Service's decision 
to allow Hudbay to use the public lands it claimed that way.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \6\ Center for Biological Diversity v. U.S. Fish & Wildlife 
Service, 33 F.4th 1202 (9th Cir. 2022).
    \7\ The industry and supporters of the Clarity Act have argued that 
the Ninth Circuit`s ruling in the Rosemont case ``clashes with numerous 
Supreme Court decisions over a century'' (NMA witness, Dec. 12 Senate 
hearing). We have taught and written about the Mining Law for many 
decades and are aware of no such Supreme Court decisions. Had they 
existed, surely the Ninth Circuit would have had to grapple with them.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In fact, Hudbay had several other options to secure land for its 
waste/tailings dumps. It could have located ``millsite'' claims on the 
public land, something the Mining Law has permitted since 1872. 
(Millsite claims have long been routinely used by hardrock miners for 
such purposes.) Hudbay initially chose not to do that because millsites 
are smaller (maximum five acres, compared to 20 acres for a regular 
mining claim) and involve more red tape.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \8\ Around the time the federal district court issued its initial 
ruling, the company located mill sites as a kind of hedge against an 
adverse ruling.

    Or, it could have sought to exchange lands it owned or acquired for 
more conveniently-located public lands, as several large mines found on 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
public lands have done.

    Or, it could have acquired non-federal lands in the vicinity to use 
for waste/tailings dumps. The availability of this option was made 
abundantly clear by Hudbay's revelation when the Ninth Circuit Court of 
Appeals turned down its appeal. On the very same day the court decision 
was released, it announced that it had acquired approximately 4,500 
acres of private land in the vicinity precisely for such use.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \9\ See May 12, 2022 Press Release of Hudbay Minerals, The U.S. 
Department of Justice and Hudbay Receive Rosemont 9th Circuit Court 
Ruling; Hudbay Continues to Advance Copper World (May 12, 2022), found 
at https://hudbayminerals.com/investors/press-releases/press-release-
details/2022/The-U.S.-Department-of-Justice-and-Hudbay-Receive-
Rosemont-9th-Circuit-Court-Ruling-Hudbay-Continues-to-Advance-Copper-
World/default.aspx.

    Or, it could have applied for special use permits to use public 
lands under various laws. A recent Opinion by the Interior Department's 
Solicitor addressed these and still other ways the hardrock mining 
industry could pursue large mining operations on federal land without 
the need for legislative ``reform.'' \10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \10\ Solicitor's Opinion M-37077, Use of Mining Claims for Mine 
Waste Deposition, and Rescission of M-37012 and M-37057 (May 16, 2023), 
https://www.doi.gov/media/document/m-37077-use-mining-claims-mine-
waste-deposition-and-rescission-m-37012-and-m-37057-5.

    Although all those alternatives were and still are available to the 
hardrock mining industry, it and its allies have chosen instead to seek 
to have Congress intervene. But characterizing H.R. 2925 as simply a 
clarification in the law grossly understates the mischief it would 
cause. It would, we believe, likely prove to be nothing short of a 
public land policy disaster. Once that became clear, Congress would 
have to revisit the matter. In the meantime, the executive branch would 
likely be forced to limit the opportunity for abuse and extortion we 
have described by withdrawing all federal lands from the location of 
new mining claims.

                                 *****

    Finally, it is remarkable that, in addition to wreaking havoc, H.R. 
2925 makes no effort to correct obvious problems with the antiquated 
Mining Law. Most glaring is the fact that it gives mining companies a 
free ride, as they pay no royalty for the privilege of extracting 
valuable minerals from the public lands. Every other mineral owner in 
the nation--whether on state, tribal or private land--receives some 
value-based payment when it allows minerals to be extracted. (Congress 
itself, in legislation it adopted nearly a century ago, insisted that 
states must receive fair market value for minerals extracted from lands 
the U.S. gave them at statehood! \11\)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \11\ See 44 Stat. 1026 (1927), codified at 43 U.S.C. Sec. 870; see 
also The Mining Law, supra n. 3, at 328-39.

    Congress has required the U.S. to receive fair market value when 
fossil fuels or fertilizer minerals are extracted from public lands. 
But not when so-called hardrock minerals are extracted from public 
lands, including national forests, under the Mining Law of 1872.\12\ 
Indeed, those lands may be the only ones on the entire planet where the 
landowner receives no such payment for such mining.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \12\ It is also worth noting that the Mining Law covers not only 
metals like gold, silver, and copper, but also so-called ``uncommon 
varieties'' of common substances like sand, gravel, and building stone. 
69 Stat. 368 (1955), codified at 30 U.S.C. Sec. 611. If not an 
``uncommon variety,'' such substances must be purchased from the 
government for fair market value. According to a recent GAO study, well 
over a hundred currently approved operations, covering tens of 
thousands of acres of public lands, produce ``uncommon varieties'' of 
common substances. https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-20-461r. The 
``uncommon variety'' issue has given rise to a number of controversies, 
such as a recent one involving the vast expansion of a limestone quarry 
on public lands on the outskirts of Glenwood Springs, Colorado, 
triggering opposition from local governments and their allies. https://
loveglenwood.org/legal-action/glenwood-springs-citizens-alliance-v-u-s-
bureau-of-land-management/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Even the National Mining Association recognizes that the free ride 
the industry enjoys is a defect requiring correction.\13\ Yet H.R. 2925 
does nothing to redress it. Instead, it would exacerbate the Mining 
Law's serious defects by giving claimants effective control of vast 
tracts of public lands for the price of modest claim filing and 
maintenance fees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \13\ See http://www.nma.org/pdf/041508_mining_law.pdf. To be sure, 
the NMA favors a net royalty that would apply only prospectively, to 
new mining claims; that is, they would continue to exempt from any 
royalty payment the hundreds of thousands of existing mining claims 
currently found on millions of acres of public land.

    For these reasons, we strongly urge the committee not to advance 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
H.R. 2925. We appreciate your consideration of our views.

            Sincerely,

            John Leshy \14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \14\ Emeritus Professor, University of California College of the 
Law San Francisco, and former Associate Solicitor (1977-1980) and 
Solicitor (1993-2001), U.S. Department of the Interior.

            Sam Kalen \15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \15\ Visiting McKinney Family Chair in Environmental Law (2023-
2024), IU Robert H. McKinney School of Law; William T. Schwartz 
Distinguished Professor of Law, University of Wyoming College of Law 
(for identification only).

            Mark Squillace \16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \16\ Raphael J. Moses Professor of Natural Resources Law, 
University of Colorado Law School (for identification only).

            Bret Birdsong \17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \17\ Professor of Law, William S. Boyd School of Law, University of 
Nevada, Las Vegas (for identification only).

                                 [all]