National Strategic and Critical Minerals Production Act

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday, just yesterday, the Rules
Committee met and reported a rule for House Resolution 481, providing
for the consideration of an important piece of legislation--H.R. 1937,
the National Strategic and Critical Minerals Production Act of 2015.

This rule provides for the consideration of H.R. 1937 under a
structured rule, with five amendments made in order, four of which, I
might point out, were offered by Democratic Members of this body.
Therefore, this rule provides for a balanced, deliberative, and open
debate if we focus our remarks on the merits of the National Strategic
and Critical Minerals Production Act and don't go off on unnecessary
tangents.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to support both House Resolution 481 and
the underlying bill, H.R. 1937. I would like to congratulate the
gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Amodei) for sponsoring this legislation, and
I would also like to thank the gentleman from Utah, Chairman Rob
Bishop, for his leadership on this important issue.

Mr. Speaker, this rule will allow us to consider the National
Strategic and Critical Minerals Production Act, an important bill that
will streamline our country's mine permitting processes to remove
unnecessary and burdensome bureaucratic hurdles, which can delay some
mining activities and projects by up to a decade--10 years--which is an
outrageous amount of time that is indicative of the problem we seek to
address here today.

The permitting system the Federal Government currently uses to
provide for the extraction of rare earth minerals in the U.S. is
outdated, unproductive, and, more often than not, hinders our ability
to extract these critical resources. This red tape has a devastating
impact on communities across the country and in the West, particularly,
that rely on the ability to obtain and develop these minerals for
economic growth and our Nation's security.

Our country is blessed with a myriad of rare earth minerals that are
increasingly used to manufacture high-tech equipment as well as many
other everyday applications and products. Many countries around the
world are already working to improve their infrastructure, providing
the United States with an exceptional opportunity to play a major role
in the growing minerals marketplace by supplying foreign countries and
businesses, as well as domestic companies, with the resources necessary
to remain competitive in the international economy. However, a lack of
communication between local, State, and Federal permitting agencies
exists, and it creates a bureaucratic backlog of applications that
delays mining activity by approximately, like I said, 7 to 10 years,
which, if not addressed, will impede the ability of U.S. mineral
companies to increase their share of the global marketplace.

Mr. Speaker, due to onerous government red tape, the frivolous
lawsuits that result, and a burdensome permitting process, good-paying
jobs in the United States mining industry have moved overseas and have
put domestic manufacturing jobs at the mercy of our foreign
competitors. H.R. 1937 would fix our outdated and uncertain bureaucratic permitting system, which
negatively impacts investment in our economy by discouraging domestic
companies from extracting and developing these critical minerals.

This is especially unfortunate given that we have only begun to
scratch the surface of what we can potentially develop from our
abundant natural resources, which have played such a critical role in
making the U.S. a leading world economy and industrial power. Our
Nation has vast energy potential from sources such as coal, oil shale,
and natural gas, as well as numerous critical minerals that we should
be developing. Yet the development of our domestic minerals resources
has been obstructed time and time again under this administration,
which, unfortunately, places the political goals of special interests
over the welfare and well-being of hardworking Americans.

Mr. Speaker, simply put, the Federal Government should promote
investments in the U.S. and in American companies by creating a
regulatory framework that encourages the safe development of domestic
resources. If we are going to address the growing mineral trade
imbalance--with more U.S. mining jobs moving overseas and higher energy
and commodity prices here at home--we must first put a stop to the
bureaucratic delays that are at the root of the problem.

This legislation does just that by telling Federal agencies to make a
decision about whether a project should move forward or not--a simple
``yes'' or ``no''--and do it in a timely manner. Give people certainty.
We have streamlined and improved this process for other domestic
industries, and it is now time to do it for our rare earth minerals
sector, which is responsible for some of the highest paying middle
class jobs across the country. It is illogical and irrational that red
tape and delayed permit approvals can lead to 10 years of deliberation
over whether or not to approve a mining permit or project. Actually, it
borders on insanity.

Mr. Speaker, this is a good, straightforward rule, allowing for the
consideration of an important piece of legislation that will provide
the U.S. with a unique opportunity to tap into the growing global
marketplace for rare earth minerals by supplying both foreign and
domestic companies with the resources they need to remain competitive.
Mr. Speaker, I support the rule's adoption, and I urge my colleagues
to support both the rule and the underlying bill.
I reserve the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to
close.

Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 481 is a fair rule allowing for
balanced, deliberative, and open debate, just as my colleague is
asking, as well as numerous amendment opportunities from both parties.

It provides for the consideration of a bill that is critical to the
economic well-being of mining communities across the country, which are reeling
from the continual impacts of Federal regulation and the bureaucratic
permitting process we have in place.

This regulatory environment has led to lost jobs and wages in the
mining industry, ultimately hurting the middle class families that many
of these rules and regulations claim they are intended to protect.

H.R. 1937 streamlines our country's mine permitting process by
removing unnecessary and onerous hurdles, which can lead to decades-
long delays for mining activities and projects. The current Federal
permitting system for the extraction of rare earth minerals is
outdated, unproductive, and often impedes our ability to extract these
critical minerals.

You know, our country is blessed with a myriad of rare earth
minerals, but this Federal red tape has had a devastating impact on the
mining communities in our country whose livelihoods depend on the
ability to obtain and develop these resources.

We must stop punishing middle class Americans with these heavyhanded
and poorly considered regulations that more often than not have
unintended consequences and serious negative economic impacts.

Mr. Speaker, already many countries around the world are looking to
improve their infrastructure, which provides the U.S. with the unique
opportunity to tap into this growing global market. Due to strong
international demand for rare earth minerals, allowing for greater
development of domestic resources also creates a unique opportunity to
further American trade relationships and decrease our trade deficit.

Additionally, by increasing the available supply of these rare earth
minerals, manufacturing companies will be able to more efficiently
produce their products, which could reduce consumer costs and open the
door to greater innovation. Further, our outdated permitting system
negatively impacts investment in our economy that hinders our ability
to take on this expanded role in the global marketplace for these
mineral resources.

The Federal Government should be promoting investment in the U.S. by
creating a regulatory framework that encourages the safe development of
domestic resources. If we want to address the growing minerals trade
imbalance, as we see more and more U.S. mining jobs moving overseas and
higher energy and commodity prices here at home, then we must fix these
delays which are at the root of the problem.

Mr. Speaker, this rule allows for consideration of an important piece
of legislation that will address the burdensome permitting and
regulatory hurdles that are harmful to this vital industry. Yet, while
this legislation allows for greater utilization of domestic resources,
it also maintains important environmental safeguards designed to ensure
the health of our constituents and ecosystems, striking an important
balance that has been absent far too long.

While my colleague from Colorado and I may have a few differences of
opinion, I firmly believe this rule and the underlying bill are strong
measures that are critically important to our country's future, both
for my State as well as his and many, many others in this country.
Mr. Speaker, I support the rule's adoption, and I urge my colleague
to support House Resolution 481, and the underlying bill.
The material previously referred to by Mr. Polis is as follows:

An Amendment to H. Res. 481 Offered by Mr. Polis of Colorado

At the end of the resolution, add the following new
sections:
Sec. 2. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution the
Speaker shall, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare
the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on
the state of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R.
1814) to permanently reauthorize the Land and Water
Conservation Fund. The first reading of the bill shall be
dispensed with. All points of order against consideration of
the bill are waived. General debate shall be confined to the
bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and
controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the
Committee on Natural Resources. After general debate the bill
shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule.
All points of order against provisions in the bill are
waived. At the conclusion of consideration of the bill for
amendment the Committee shall rise and report the bill to the
House with such amendments as may have been adopted. The
previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill
and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening
motion except one motion to recommit with or without
instructions. If the Committee of the Whole rises and reports
that it has come to no resolution on the bill, then on the
next legislative day the House shall, immediately after the
third daily order of business under clause 1 of rule XIV,
resolve into the Committee of the Whole for further
consideration of the bill.
Sec. 3. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the
consideration of H.R. 1814.
____

The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means

This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous
question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote.
A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote
against the Republican majority agenda and a vote to allow
the Democratic minority to offer an alternative plan. It is a
vote about what the House should be debating.
Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of
Representatives (VI, 308-311), describes the vote on the
previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or
control the consideration of the subject before the House
being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous
question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the
subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling
of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the
House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes
the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to
offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the
majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated
the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to
a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to
recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said:
``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman
from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to
yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first
recognition.''
The Republican majority may say ``the vote on the previous
question is simply a vote on whether to proceed to an
immediate vote on adopting the resolution . . . [and] has no
substantive legislative or policy implications whatsoever.''
But that is not what they have always said. Listen to the
Republican Leadership Manual on the Legislative Process in
the United States House of Representatives, (6th edition,
page 135). Here's how the Republicans describe the previous
question vote in their own manual: ``Although it is generally
not possible to amend the rule because the majority Member
controlling the time will not yield for the purpose of
offering an amendment, the same result may be achieved by
voting down the previous question on the rule. . . . When the
motion for the previous question is defeated, control of the
time passes to the Member who led the opposition to ordering
the previous question. That Member, because he then controls
the time, may offer an amendment to the rule, or yield for
the purpose of amendment.''
In Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of
Representatives, the subchapter titled ``Amending Special
Rules'' states: ``a refusal to order the previous question on
such a rule [a special rule reported from the Committee on
Rules] opens the resolution to amendment and further
debate.'' (Chapter 21, section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues:
``Upon rejection of the motion for the previous question on a
resolution reported from the Committee on Rules, control
shifts to the Member leading the opposition to the previous
question, who may offer a proper amendment or motion and who
controls the time for debate thereon.''
Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does
have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only
available tools for those who oppose the Republican
majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the
opportunity to offer an alternative plan.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source