National Strategic and Critical Minerals Production Act

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mrs. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself as much time as I may
consume.

There are several troubling positions in this legislation, many of
which my other colleagues have already addressed this afternoon. But I
am particularly concerned with how H.R. 1937 treats the National
Environmental Policy Act, or NEPA, as it has become known.

If this bill were to become law, public comment would be severely
limited and, in some instances, a proper environmental review may not
be conducted at all.

The underlying bill employs a functional equivalence standard, which
would permit the lead agency to circumvent a NEPA review if other
agencies have performed reviews that are determined to be equivalent.
There are several problems with this approach.

First, it is not clear that the six factors listed in the bill
compromise all that a NEPA document would explore. So if functional
equivalence was applied, the public may not have the complete story
about the environmental impacts of a specific project.

Second, case law demonstrates that functional equivalence has
historically not been extended to other agencies beyond the EPA because
they are simply not equipped to do that kind of work.

That is why the committee heard testimony earlier this year that this
provision ignores Congress' choices in NEPA, as well as the judiciary's
struggle with functional equivalence.

My amendment strikes the functional equivalence provisions and
replaces it with the language that makes it clear that all mine
explorations or mine permits are major Federal actions and would
require an environmental impact statement under NEPA.

It is well known that hardrock mining can have adverse health
impacts, and these projects deserve a formal environmental review.
NEPA has a simple premise: Look before you leap. This landmark law
gives the public an opportunity to review and comment on actions
proposed by the government, adding to the evaluation process unique perspectives
that highly specialized, mission-driven agencies might otherwise
ignore.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mrs. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I want to quickly respond to some of the
points made by my friends on the other side of the aisle.

I do recognize the importance of those metals in auto production. It
is important to me. But this bill isn't going to impact them.
To be frank, I think this bill is a solution in search of a problem.
NEPA is often a scapegoat for permitting delays, but this does not hold
up when you closely examine the facts.

In fact, since 2008, the approval time for hardrock mines has
decreased. Last year the average time it took to approve a plan of
operations for a hardrock mine was 17 months--17 months--not 10 years.
I want jobs as much as my colleagues do on the other side of the
aisle, but I want to protect people. Project complexity, local
opposition, and the lack of funding are almost always the culprits for
a project being delayed, but everybody wants to blame NEPA unfairly.
Hardrock mines could pose significant threats to public health,
water, and the environment. We must ensure that every mining
application is properly reviewed under NEPA, as my amendment proposes.

I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source