approve the plan has been litigated. it resulted in requirement the agency reduce some of its analysis. today, 11 years later, 11 years later the federal government still can't get their work done. and this is in an area that at one time in our some of the most substantial gold in the united states, and silver, and other minerals that we need. when you pull out all your gadgets, all our electronic gadgets, if it wasn't for the mining interests in america, you wouldn't have those gadgets because that's what goes into what we use. we need to be able to use america's resources, the 42 mining operations in baker county, if they were allowed to work -- these are individual -- these are just average americans just trying to do what they are allowed to do under federal law but held up because of the federal agency's inability to get their work done, or unwillingness to in the north fork and burt river and

elsewhere. if they could just move forward, get an answer out of the federal government something short of 10 or 11 years, they could be producing jobs, mineral resource, and wealth for this country, america. the united states of america. we could create jobs here using our resources, our mineral resources. some of these people have died waiting. you shouldn't have to die waiting for your federal government to get its work done. that's why we need this bill. i yield back the balance of my time. . the chair: the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. markey: can i ask how much time remains? the chair: the gentleman from massachusetts has seven minutes remaining. the gentleman from washington has 10 1/2 minutes remaining. mr. markey: at this point i'd like to reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from washington. mr. hastings: thank you very much, madam chairman. i am very pleased to yield two minutes to the gentleman from oklahoma, mr. lankford. the chair: the gentleman from oklahoma is recognized for two minutes. mr. lankford: thank you. i am honored to rise in support of 4402 and my colleague,

markham day, and supporting this. this sets a definitive timeline for permits which creates certainty and encourages private investment. it's not about government investment, but taxpayers. this is about jobs and the american economy. we are seeing everything from your automobile to your i phone requires rare minerals. every solar panel, every wind touch ian, every electric battery -- turbine, every electric battery, auto speakers, fiber optists, magnets and a whole lot more require rare minerals. we need to understand that china controls the market in rarest minerals. not because they have beaten us in the market but we have beaten us. we have the resources but we made the permitting process so long, complicated, unpredictable that we killed our supply and allowed other countries to control our future.

in my district there is a manufacturing plant that creates high-tech magnets that depends on rare minerals. last year they were able to purchase rare minerals at $4 a pound. now as china as the only supplier it's now $55 per pound. that drives up the cost of everything that we use those high-tech magnets for and it's difficult in the manufacturing industry. we allowed china to have the monopoly. we should have the ability to produce our own materials here. you cannot turn on your car, your lights, your computer without china sending us the materials to do it. when we're fighting to get control of our energy future, we must not forget, it doesn't matter if we have our own energy future if we can't even turn on what we plug in because we don't have the rare minerals to produce it. we have a manufacturing future if we actually manufacture, and that means rare minerals now in this modern economy. jobs like mining, geologists, engineers, truck drivers, manufacturing, service industry. yes, even government regulators are all dependent on us getting

moving on producing our own stuff. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. lankford: it's time to bring the price down with more mining. with that i yield back. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. markey: yes, i'd like to continue to reserve. the chair: the gentleman continues to reserve his time. the gentleman from washington. mr. hastings: thank you, madam chairman. i am very pleased to yield two minutes to my colleague from the great state of washington, the gentlelady from washington, mrs. mcmorris rodgers. the chair: the gentlelady from washington is recognized for two minutes. mrs. mcmorris rodgers: i thank the chairman from the great state of washington for yielding. and i rise in strong support of mr. amodei's legislation, important legislation, the national strategic and critical minerals production act, because if we want to build it in america we need to be able to mine it in america. and this legislation is important in identifying and promoting strategic and critical minerals here in america. it will make us more competitive by addressing permitting delays, improving the nepa process and revitalizing our domestic

critical minerals supply chain. madam speaker, it takes longer to receive a mining development permit in the united states than any of the other 25 mining nations in the world. the average waiting period for a permit is seven to 10 years, and in many examples it's much longer. we can improve this process without changing our environmental standards. the cattle river, buck horn mine in eastern washington who employs over 400 people in ferry county knows this all too well. the e.i.s. schedule and now the important exploratory permits to keep them operating has been delayed for years and was recently delayed for an additional year without much explanation. this bill is important. it's important to bringing jobs to america, bringing job certainty to ferry county and eastern washington. right now many foreign countries are requiring companies that buy raw material from them to produce the products those minerals are

part of in that foreign country. if you are concerned about america -- american infrastructure, if you are concerned about american manufacturing, if you are concerned about american energy independence, american mining or american jobs, i urge you to support h.r. 4402. and i yield back. the chair: the gentlelady yields back the balance of her time. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. markey: yes, i yield three minutes to the gentleman from new york, mr. tonko. the chair: the gentleman from new york is recognized for three minutes. mr. tonko: madam chair, i have an amendment at the desk. i'm sorry. the chair: the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. markey: i thank the the gentlelady. i will yield myself as much time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is

recognized. mr. markey: madam speaker, this legislation is fundamentally a solution in search of a problem. according to the analysis of data provided by the b.l.m. for hardrock mines on public lands for which we have complete data, the average time to take -- it takes to approve a plan of operation for a mine has actually decreased under the obama administration. according to the b.l.m. data, plans of operation for hardrock mines are being approved roughly 17% more quickly under the obama administration than under the bush administration. thank you, president obama, for the great job you are doing in changing the way in which the bush administration held up those permits. and despite the majority's claims, 8 % of plans -- 82% of plans of hardrock mines are approved three years under the obama administration. according to the b.l.m., it takes four years to approve a

mining plan for a large mine. that's more than 1,000 acres on public land. now, my colleagues on the other side have asked repeatedly what the problem is with their legislation that would truncate and eviscerate proper review of all mines on public lands if the majority plans are approved within three years. well, it is because a little more than 15% of hardrock mines take more than four years to approve. for these mines where mining companies may not have submitted a complete application, may not have hosted a sufficient bond to ensure the mine is cleaned up, where additional environmental review is required because the mine is large or potentially damaging to our environment and public health, this bill would prevent proper review. we are already approving hardrock mines more quickly under the obama administration than under the bush administration. we should not be eviscerating proper review of virtually all mining operations on public lands as this republican bill

would do, and we should certainly not be doing it under the pretense of developing critical and strategic minerals. i will reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from washington. mr. hastings: madam chairman, i am very pleased to yield two minutes to the gentleman from wisconsin, mr. duffy. the chair: the gentleman from wisconsin is recognized for two minutes. mr. duffy: i appreciate the gentleman for yielding. we're here talking about a bill, h.r. 4402, that's going to minimize the permitting process and the delays and streamlines bureaucracy around mining. i want to be clear, there's no conversation in this house that says we should do away with the permitting process or we should do away with the bureaucracy. we're here to say, let's streamline it. let's make it easier. let's make sure that we don't have the bureaucracy and the permitting process stand in the way of good projects and good-paying jobs. in my home district in the

northwest corner of wisconsin, we had a similar issue come up that we dealt with in our state. we have a great vain of iron ore up in national county. it's a vain if mined would create a 600 to 700 new good-paying jobs in the northern part of wisconsin. jobs that pay anywhere from $60,000 to $80,000 a year. many of those jobs would be union jobs, and what we tried to do in the state of wisconsin is, let's streamline the permitting process so those who want to invest in that mine can get an answer in a reasonable amount of time. and if we go through a permitting process and any of us who live in northern wisconsin would find information that would say this mine would damage lake superior, which all of us love. we live up there because we love the outdoors, we love the lake. if it would damage the lake we would stand opposed to the

mine. but if you can do it in a safe manner and can get a permit in a reasonable amount of time, why are we saying no to good-paying jobs? this is an area that has an unemployment rate over 10%. they need good-paying jobs, and we have the permitting process standing in the way of these people going back to work. we see more and more rules and regulations that stand in the way to job growth. that's wrong. let's stand together. let's streamline this process, make sure we're environmentally safe and we're also creating jobs. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. markey: i would like to continue to reserve. the chair: the gentleman continues to reserve his time. the gentleman from washington. mr. hastings: how much time on both sides? the chair: the gentleman from washington, 4 1/2 minutes. the gentleman from massachusetts has five minutes remaining. mr. hastings: i am very pleased to yield one minute, again, to the author of this legislation, mr. amodei. the chair: the gentleman from nevada is recognized for one minute. mr. amodei: thank you, madam

chairman. i -- chairwoman. i would just briefly indicate -- and i want to thank you for finally looking at section 102. it's a great day in my young career that that has happened. let's look at what section 102. the wheel of giveaways, we want to paste over it. takeaways from national defense, takeaways from communications, takeaways from national infrastructure, takeaways from balance of trade. oh, and let's talk about takeaways from jobs, some of which are union jobs. so the wheel of takeaways we won't bore you with. but that can go both ways. section 102, this is a bad thing. it requires best practices, madam chair, for things like considering state agency reports who have jurisdiction over the issue. that's a pretty frivolous takeaway. it already exists. or how about considering best practices for conducting reviews concurrently?

oh, my god, the republicans are giving something away. conducting reviews concurrently. oh, my goodness. how about expediting rather than delaying the process? thank you, madam chair. i want to thank the chairman of the committee for offering me this time, and i yield back. mr. markey: i yield myself at this time one minute. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. markey: again, this bill is not aimed at ensuring that we can guarantee that we increase the production of the kinds of rare earths that we need in order to compete against china. and by the way, if we're going to really be using china as the guise for the reduction in the environmental laws in the united states because they have rare earths and we're ramping up our production of rare earths, what we should be really be talking about is why

in the world are the republicans supporting the sale of our oil and our natural gas to china? if they're using as an economic against the united states, then why don't we use natural gas and oil which we have against them because that's the most precious of all minerals? that's the most -- i yield myself an additional one minute. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. markey: oil and gas really drives the economy of the world, and every time i bring an amendment out here on the floor that says, well, let's drill for oil and natural gas on the public lands of the united states but we can't export it after we discover it, drill for it here to china. and the republicans every time vote not to put a ban on that.

and at the same time they are over there with crocodile tears very concerned about china having all of these precious metals that they won't sell to us. well, you want to know the best way to sell that stuff to us, for us not to sell the stuff we have to them that they need to manufacture those materials. ok. that's the game. and so you can't have it both ways. you just can't have it both ways. either this is a great threat to our country or we are going to use the precious metals we have, the precious minerals that we have, oil and gas, as our weapon against china or we're doomed. we don't have a real strategy. so, again, this is not a coherent strategy to deal with the country of china and their economic strategy to undermine our competitiveness. and i reserve the balance of my time. . the chair: the gentleman from washington. mr. hastings: i just advise my

friend i'm prepared to close if the gentleman from massachusetts is prepared to close. mr. markey: i am prepared to close, yes. the chair: the gentleman from massachusetts has three minutes remaining. mr. markey: i thank the gentlelady. china's rare earth policies do burn america's high-tech manufacturing competitiveness, and the republicans just want to throw gas on the fire. american natural gas. our greatest competitive advantage in manufacturing right now is low-priced domestic natural gas, but the republicans want to export that competitive edge to china and to develop a global natural gas market so that the united states' natural gas prices triple here domestically or quadruple to match the prices the rest of the world pays.

china will not send their rare earth minerals to the united states, but republicans have continually voted to allow exports of our low-cost natural gas, our manufacturing advantage, to china. this is a one-way ticket to manufacturing oblivion. natural gas in our country is six to seven times less expensive than natural gas in china. it is four times less expensive than natural gas in europe. that is our competitive advantage. what the republicans have consistently done since they have taken over the majority is to put in place policies to export our natural gas that is six times less expensive to china that will then be used in the manufacture of every product

that they will then sell back to us undermining every manufacturing industry in the united states as we supply the very valuable, precious natural gas they need in order to harm dramatically the american economy. and where do they show up? they show up here with crocodile tears about the restrictions which the national environmental protection act plays upon -- places upon mining for sand, mining for gold, mining for silver. you really think that's the way we are going to get back into a better competitive stands against the chinese -- stance against the chinese as you are saying no, let's sell our natural gas that's six times less expensive than the natural gas they have in america fueling

their industries? that's just an upside-down policy. it's just dealing with the periphery of the challenge that china presents to us. and not even in an effective way. rather than going right to the core of how they are exploiting this mindless commitment to not just american petroleum institute, we might as well call it the world petroleum institute because they don't represent american interests, but that's what we have to do here on the floor of the house of representatives. that's what our amendment today will help to ensure we do for our country. i thank the gentlelady. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from washington. mr. hastings: how much time do i have? the chair: the gentleman has 3 1/2 minutes remaining. mr. hastings: i yield myself the balance of the time. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. hastings: for the record, madam chairman, natural gas is not affected at all by this bill. madam chairman, i note for the record excerpts from the march, 2012 report to congress by the department of defense on the

rare earth materials and defense applications on national security dependence on a secure supply of high-tech crital minerals. ask that be part of the record. madam chair, my colleagues, we have talked and they claim the mining timelines of this administration have been reduced. yet this president has been in offering now for 40 months. and all complaints against china and rare earth, they have yet to permit one rare earth mine here in america and it doesn't look like any is on the horizon that will get approval. i want to also talk about one other thing, madam chairman. president obama has been giving a lot of speeches claiming support for insourcing jobs to the united states from foreign nations. currently our nation is dependent on foreign nations such as china and india for critical materials that american manufacturers and our economy

depend on. this bill will help reverse this dependency and insource these good-paying jobs right here to the united states. yet the official position of the obama administration is that they strongly oppose this jobs bill. not only will this bill help create mining jobs in nevada, colorado, new mexico, and many other states, it will also help produce the critical materials and minerals that american manufacturers need and millions of jobs depend on in ohio, in michigan, and in pennsylvania. president obama can give speech after speech claiming support for insourcing jobs, but when he should take action and to make that ham, the obama administration essentially goes the other way as he has done with this bill. and once again, madam chairman, this bill simply says that in a given time period there should be a decision made.

it isn't to say it should be a positive or negative, but that a decision should be made. that's all. and when we are dealing with materials that are so important to our economy and to american jobs, we should be very much in favor of this legislation. for that reason, madam chairman, i urge my colleagues to vote for h.r. 4402, and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: all time for general debate has expired. pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. in lieu of the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the committee on natural resources printed in the bill, it shall be in order to consider as an original bill for the purpose of amendment under the five-minute rule an amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the text of rules committee print, 112-26. that amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be considered as read. no amendment to that amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be in order except those printed in house report 112-590.

each such amendment may be offered only in the order printed in the report by a member designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to demand for division of the question. it is now in order to consider amendment number 1 printed in house report 112-590. for what purpose does the gentleman from new york seek recognition? >> i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 1 printed in house report number 112-590, offered by mr. tonko of new york. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 726, the gentleman from new york, mr. tonko, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from new york. mr. tonko: thank you, madam chair. my amendment is very simple. it replaces the overly broad

definition in h.r. 4402 with a definition that truly says the materials identified in the bill, critical and strategic materials. since the realityization that china was restricting exports of rare earth metals in 2010, the issue of critical and strategic materials has re-emerged as a concern. this isn't the first time congress has considered our potential vulnerability to resource shortages. just before world war ii, congress passed the strategic and critical material stockpiling act of 1939 to address our nation's requirement for materials needed for national defense. we have expanded our notion of strategic and critical materials since that time to include civilian and economic needs for materials. but there is no precedent for the broad definition included in h.r. 4402. the military's current definition of strategic and critical materials in the u.s. code is far narrower than the

definition in this bill. nine of the 10 bills introduced in this congress dealing with strategic and critical minerals rely on definitions or specific lists of minerals that would conform to the definition in my amendment. not to the one in h.r. 4402. the definition in h.r. 4402 would include virtually all minerals and materials no matter how available they are. no other legislation proposes a definition that would consider sand and gravel critical material. the national academy of science panel looked at this issue in 2008. the panel specified two factors that defined a mineral as critical. it is essential in use and subject to the risk of supply restriction. h.r. 4402's definition captures only the first factor that the academy considered. the panel recognized that the list of critical materials was likely to change over time due to technological developments,

usage patterns, changes in mineral reserves, and many other factors. they developed a matrix that could be used to evaluate substances and use this matrix to examine a group of minerals that are in current high demand. two dozen minerals were identified as critical in the n.a.s. report. the rare earth metals, the platinum metals, and several other minerals were included in their list. oddly enough, sand, gravel, iron, copper, all useful materials to be sure, did not make it to the list. the current definition in h.r. 4402 is unnecessary if the purpose is to secure additional critical minerals. h.r. 4402 undermines the protection of our public lands and elevates mining above all other public land uses. if h.r. 4402 is truly a bill to address potential shortages of critical minerals, then my amendment should be adopted. let's concentrate on the problem at hand, securing additional

rare earth minerals and other truly critical minerals. i urge my colleagues to support my amendment. i would yield. mr. markey: i thank the gentleman for yielding. so what is the majority doing in this bill? this thing with sand is a critical material. gravel, clay. there is no crisis in the sand industry. we don't need to waterdown the environmental protections for drilling for sand or gravel or clay. there is no crisis. that's what this whole bill is. it's a trojan horse. it's moving in to undermine environmental protections where they are working and where there is no need to reduce them. if they want to talk about ue rope yum -- uropium or some other critical strategic material that we -- we should be discussing out here that we need for cell phones, solar panels, that we need for our defense systems, that's one thing. but that's not what this is about. this is about watering down

environmental protections for sand and clay and endangering the health and well-being of the nation for no reason whatsoever because there's no strategic relationship. between those very prosaic minerals and our national security. i thank the gentleman for yielding to me. i yield back to him. mr. tonko: madam chair, i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from washington. mr. hastings: madam chairman, i claim time in opposition. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. hastings: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. hastings: madam chairman, this amendment attempts to pick which minerals are winners and losers in the federal permitting sweepstakes. the underlying bill that we are talking about focuses on the permitting of mines that meet four clear categories of domestic needs. this is important. national security, energy infrastructure, domestic manufacturing, and our national

economic balance of trade. the amendment would restrict these down to just what a 2008 study done by the national research council, that took a limited and narrow look at only the aerospace, the electronic and auto motive -- automotive industry when considering its mineral critical. however, this is important madam chairman, the report also states, and i quote directly, all minerals and mineral products could or -- could be or could become critical to some degree depending on their importance and availability. the criticality of a specific mineral can and likely will change as production technologies evolve and new products are developed, end quote. the definition of the strategic and critical minerals in h.r. 4402 is written broadly. we acknowledge that, to allow for the most flexibility when carrying out the provisions of this act. less than 10 years ago people were concerned about platinum group metals used for computer and electronics and the pending

shortfall of copper availability. today the focus is on the availability of rare earth elements and metals that are in china. tomorrow the shortage could be lithium for batteries, cilicia for solar panels, and any of a host of other minerals. interestingly in this talk of sand and gravel, during the u.s. geological survey of a great shakeout in california, which simulated a massive earthquake and the problems that could be faced, they discovered that there would be a shortfall of building materials. sand and gravel, madam chairman. if there was a major earthquake causing significant damage in the l.a. basin and surrounding areas. . twice in california and once in minnesota. mineral production is a key economic activity. supplying strategic for health

care, manufacturing, transportation and the arts. more specifically, minerals and metal alis are critical components to aerospace. minerals, madam chairman, are also necessary to satisfy the basic requirements of the individual's well-being and that includes food, clothing, shelter and a clean and healthy environment. so we should not limit ourselves today by narrowly defining what a strategic and critical and that's precisely what this amendment does and i think that's the wrong approach. with that i'd urge a no vote, and i understand that the gentleman yields back his time, is that correct? the chair: the gentleman is correct. mr. tonko: madam chair. the chair: the gentleman from new york. mr. tonko: i ask unanimous consent to reclaim. mr. hastings: i urge a no vote on the amendment, and i'll reserve my time and i will not

object if the gentleman wants to reclaim. the chair: the gentleman from new york asks to reclaim the one minute he has remaining. without objection, the request is granted. the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. mr. tonko: madam chair, i thank you. i want to state clearly that the amendment embraces flexibility. it understands if there are changes in time that requires the list of the adjusts -- to be adjusted, we'd have the academy adjust it so the flexibility is there, recognizing in the course of time the change needs to be made if we need to further extend the list, so be it, but the flexibility is contained in the amendment. and with that i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from washington. mr. hastings: i'll yield myself the balance of the time. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. hastings: i simply say this underlying bill lays out four strategic areas in which we should have minerals to support those areas. and then we say there should be

a time frame, defined time frame which, unless there is agreement, should be longer, activities should be done. it's pretty straightforward, this amendment would -- this amendment, as offered, would very narrowly say what is critical. i think that's the wrong approach. so with that i urge a no vote on the amendment and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. all time has been yielded back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from new york. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the amendment is not agreed to. mr. tonko: madam chairman, i ask for a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from new york will be postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 2 printed in house report 112-590. for what purpose does the gentleman from florida seek recognition? mr. hastings: madam chair, i ask recognition to proceed with the amendment as calendarred.

the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 2 printed in house report 112-590 offered by mr. hastings of florida. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 726, the gentleman from florida, mr. hastings, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from florida. mr. hastings: despite the name of this bill, the underlying legislation has in my judgment little to do with securing a sufficient supply of rare earth minerals for our country. remember, it is another republican giveaway to large profitable companies that do not need congressional action to pad their bottom line. in fact, today's bill is so broadly drafted that it is not just rare earth mines that will no longer have to adhere to our federal environmental laws but virtually any mine on public

land anywhere including silver, uranium and coal mines. mining operations have permanent and severe consequences for the land and residents living nearby. in fact, 75% of existing mines end up polluting the groundwater despite the designed mitigation plans. the need for complete and thorough review of the environmental impact before approval is therefore absolutely necessary. what's more, madam chair, is that this bill's underlying intent of loosening up the permitting process is not even necessary. mining is already the priority use for most public lands which makes it virtually impossible to regulate and control. mining on public lands is also already incredibly cheap.

these companies pay little rent to the american taxpayer for the use of public land. moreover, under the obama administration, 82% of plans are approved within three years with an average of four years for the largest mines located on public lands. any delays in permit approval usually stem from an incomplete application or problem that arises during review which were not anticipated and requires supplemental information. by giving the lead agency the option to extend the time period for review in the event of new information, my amendment makes sure agencies can get the job done right while still adhering to a predictable schedule. prioritizing speed over accuracy, i learned early as did all of us that haste makes

race as this bill does, guarantees that mining companies are able to drill additional mines at a faster rate with less consideration for the broader impact of those mines. my amendment is necessary to give agencys the time they need to -- agencies the time they need to make sure that this bill will not compromise environmental protections that keep our drinking water safe, our soil nourishing and nontoxic and our air clean enough to breathe. madam chair, i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from washington seek recognition? mr. hastings: madam chair, i rise to claim time in opposition. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. hastings: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. hastings: this amendment would reverse the course on the goal of this legislation to streamline red tape. this amendment would add an entire year to the time allowed for the government to make a

decision on a permit. this would then drag out the process 40% longer than what is provided for in the underlying bill. the 30-month time period set by this legislation is accomplished by making government work more efficiently. and i quite frankly think that's what all americans would like. by aligning reviews and taking some actions concurrently, establishing a simple deadline for the government to do their job in a timely fashion is reasonable and i think it's responsible. this is especially true since it doesn't change the standards and requirements that must be met to get approval. it simply provides that an agency work efficiently while still complying with all -- and let me emphasize -- all environmental laws and regulations, studies, consultations, drafts and final documents, all of them are required in order for a final decision be made for a plan.

all the same review but just in 30 months instead what has been taking in many cases over a decade. the underlying bill provides flexibility on the 30-month period timeline should a justifiable need -- time is needed. this amendment would give the federal agency an automatic excuse to prolong the process for a year and there's no explanation that is needed. so this amendment presents the bureaucracy with a drag your feet for free card. it will hand over another roll of red tape for the government and invite them to string up more obstacles and delay job creators from getting a straight answer. keep in mind, the 30-month time period we are talking about simply says an answer shall be given. it could be negative. it could be positive. this bill provides certainty for permitting applicants by allowing the united states to be more competitive so we can create more jobs here at home

and grow our economy and produce more of the critical materials and minerals that are needed for our economy and therefore lessen our reliance on foreign sources. so i oppose the amendment offered by my good friend from florida. and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from florida. mr. hastings: madam chair, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. hastings: i understand very clearly what my good friend from washington is saying. my quarrel is in asking that the lead agency be given the option to extend the time is i believe historically mining companies who under the underlying bill would have the right to sign off on the extension are not likely to do that. there's no history showing that they do. they want to hurry up and get on with their mining business and when there are unpredictable kinds of

circumstances then it would seem to me that the lead agency would be the place that would determine the time for review. with that, madam chair, i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from washington. mr. hastings: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. hastings: in response to my friend, the legislation says that both sides have to agree. i think that's a good way, and the gentleman says there's no evidence of that. well, there's no evidence that the contrary would work either. so to give more time -- i, again, what we have heard over and over and over, and especially those members and the author of this legislation who comes from a state that is heavily in the mining industry, the uncertainty is what the problem is, and what this legislation does is provide certainty but flexibility. now, i think that makes sense. if you probably walk to main street, anywhere in america and say these are what the options

of a 30-month time period rather than up to 10 or more years, they would say, yeah, i think certainty makes a great deal of sense. so this amendment offered by my great friend of florida extend it, doesn't need to be there and i urge a no vote and yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from florida. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the amendment is not agreed to. the gentleman from florida. mr. hastings: i ask for a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from florida will be postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 3 printed in house report 112-590. for what purpose does the gentleman from massachusetts seek recognition? mr. markey: madam speaker, i have an amendment in order under the rule. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment.

the clerk: amendment number 3 printed in house report 112-590 offered by mr. markey of massachusetts. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 726, the gentleman from massachusetts, mr. markey, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. markey: i thank the gentlelady. i yield myself such time as i may consume. madam speaker, i have an amendment in order today, and the reason i have it in order is that it's a very simple amendment. it would update an antiquated mining law to end the free ride that mining companies extracting minerals like gold and silver and uranium on public lands currently enjoy. it would then send that money to benefit western states by dedicating the funding to cleaning up the more than

160,000 abandoned mines we have in the west. the underlying bill would extend a host of new giveaways to the mining industry while doing nothing to ensure taxpayers are getting a proper return on these valuable minerals like gold and silver and uranium on public lands. it is well past time to fix this law that was passed during the presidency of ulysses s. grant in 1872. my amendment would require mining companies to pay taxpayers 12.5% of the value of these hardrock minerals taken off of the public lands. that is the same royalty rate that coal and oil and natural gas companies pay to federal government to mine and drill on public lands. and while mining companies pay no royalty on federal lands to mine for gold and silver, they do pay a royalty on state lands

that would abut those federal lands. 1 western states already require mining companies to pay royalties up to 12% on mining on their state lands. colorado charges up to 12% on minerals taken from their state lands. utah, wyoming and california all charge up to 10%. nevada charges up to 5%. but when it comes to mining on federal lands, which could be right next door to the state lands, these multinational mining companies, they still get to play uncle sam for uncle sucker. . they pay federal taxpayers. all the rest of us country, no royalties, while reaping this massive windfall. so what my amendment would do is it would ensure that the states where this mining is occurring reaps the benefits. according to the g.a.o., there are more than 160,000 abandoned

gold and silver and copper and uranium and other mines in the west. some estimates put that number as high as 500,000 abandoned mines. these mines stopped production decades or in some cases more than a century ago and have no responsible parties to carry out the proper environmental remediation. the result is that the streams and rivers, the aquifers, soils continue to be contaminated by mercury and arsenic and other toxic pollutants. in fact the g.a.o. says that more than 33,000 mines are already in danger of -- a danger to the public health and environment. arizona has some 50,000 abandoned hard rock mines. california has more than 47,000. utah and nevada have 17,000 and 16,000 respectively. according to the congressional

research service, cleaning up abandoned mine sites can cost tens of millions of dollars per mine. my amendment would generate nearly $400 million over the next 10 years that would be dedicated to cleaning up these sites. this would ensure that mining companies are paying their fair share to aid our western states in cleaning up these dangerous and toxic sites. so at this point i would like to reserve the balance of my time, madam speaker. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from washington seek recognition? mr. hastings: i rise to claim time in opposition to the amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. hastings: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. hastings: thank you, madam chair. madam chairman, this amendment is directly contrary to the intent of this bill that would create new jobs in the united states and ensure a stable domestic supply of critical minerals that are so important to our economy. this amendment would impose an entirely new retroactive fee on

mining operations on federal lands. it would impose a royalty that would be one of the highest of any country in the world. and thus would probably drive more mining jobs overseas and put american manufacturing once again at risk. in the past when we have had this issue in front of the natural resources committee, we have had democrat witnesses that have testified that an 8% gross royalty was unprecedented in the world and would not make economic sense, and yet this amendment is talking about a 12.5% gross royalty. in 2006, the world bank report cautioned against gross royalty approaches as compared to ability to pay or profit-based approaches. madam chair, let me quote directly from that report. i quote directly.

nations should carefully weigh the immediate fiscal rewards to be granted from high levels of royalty against the long-term benefits to be gained from a sustainable mining industry that will contribute to long-term development, infrastructure, and economic diversification, end quote. so they argue directly against this type of approach. let us keep our focus on what is important here today. we are dependent on foreign sources for minerals that sustain our economy. we all know that the more you tax something the less you get. that's what this approach is. i could take gentleman, good friend from massachusetts', map that he had out there and change a little bit and say this is where there will be a lot of job losses if this amendment were adopted and this were to become law. because that's the effect of the western part of the united states. madam chairman, i urge a no vote

on this amendment eni reserve my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. mr. markey has one minute remaining. mr. markey: how much the majority has remaining? the chair: the gentleman from washington has 2 1/2 minutes remaining. you have one minute remaining in your time. mr. markey: i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman is going to -- reserve the balance of his time. the gentleman from washington. mr. hastings: i yield one minute to the gentleman from nevada once again the sponsor of this legislation. the chair: the gentleman from nevada is recognized for one minute. mr. amodei: thank you, madam chair. i would like to point out for the record since we are talking about western abavendonned mines. what's your definition of abandoned mines? if it's where somebody pushed up a little dirt and that's considered abandoned? we are proud in nevada that the

job our division of environmental protection has done on abandoned mine projects. we collaborate with the feds. i believe the phrase was used earlier today, the solution is in search of a problem. we are getting on it. we are doing very well. and quite frankly i hope the chair is not on this committee, when you see a 12.5 gross proceeds tax subject to the appropriations process of colleagues here, no thank you very much. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. markey: i continue to reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from washington. mr. hastings: who has the right to close? the chair: the gentleman from washington has the right to close. mr. hastings: i just advise the gentleman that i have no more requests for time. mr. markey: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized. mr. markey: this is a simple amendment bhafment it says is this. that these big mining companies and the ones i'm talking about

have a market capitalization of $90 billion. they just have to pay to drill on public lands. federal public lands. right now they are paying to drill on state public lands and when they come over to the federal public lands it's like free parking, free rent. you don't have to pay anything. where are you going? you are going to where it's free. who is letting them have it for free? uncle sam. uncle sucker. so what the markey amendment says is we are going to raise $400 million charging them to drill for these precious minerals on federal lands and we are going to give the $400 million over to the states so they can clean up their old mines where their environmental problems. if you care about the environmental problems in these western states, here's your ability to send $400 million in collected where the big companies are now paying nothing to mine on federal land in order

to help deal with environmental problems there. not in massachusetts. not in the east. but right here. right where this mining goes on. right where the environmental disasters occur. vote aye on the markey amendment. the chair: the gentleman from washington. mr. hastings: thank you, madam chairman. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. hastings: once again that map is moving away that's where the jobs would go if you add a gross tax to this activity. let me point out just an economic issue here. like oil and gas, probably not quite the same, you really don't know if there is any minerals in the ground until you dig. and if you put a royalty of 12.5%, you are going to discourage that activity. what does that mean? when you discourage that activity, it means the potential for job creation and mineral production in this country goes away. now, if that's the intent of some in this country, and maybe

some on the other side, ok. be honest about it. i don't think that's the right approach. i would urge my colleagues to reject this gross tax amendment and with that i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from massachusetts. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the amendment is not agreed to. mr. markey: that i request a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from massachusetts will be postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 4 printed in house report 112-590. for what purpose does the gentleman from alaska seek recognition? mr. young: madam chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 4, printed in house report number 112-590, offered by mr. young of alaska. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 726, the gentleman from alaska, mr. young, and a member opposed, each shall

control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from alaska. mr. young: madam chairman, i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the chair: without objection. mr. young: madam chairman, this is a simplemammed. it addresses the roadless areas on national forest but specifically in alaska. it does not overturn their wilderness areas. this is an attempt as previously stated in this congress that highly mineralized areas would not be affected by the roadless area. it correctly affects the balkan find of rare minerals, rare earth. and i have to acresse my colleagues -- address my colleagues for a sense, right now china controls rare earths of this world, yet we have tremendous deposits in alaska lands, in the inner lands of this nation. the rare earth is the future of all this high technology that people do support. the so-called things that we try to develop is from rare earth. and it's wrong to have china control the price, control the

quantity and availability for modern technology. we have our own. all we are asking is to make sure that an area that has highly potential areas of rare earth be accessible to the water. and the rules of roadless area do not apply. they were exempted before, they should be exempted now. but a ruling in 2011 made this area unaccessible from the development of rare earths for this nation. and if you believe in the independence of this nation, if you believe the importance of the technology for the future, then you'll support this amendment. this is the right amendment for the right time to make sure we have this development. i yield to the gentleman from washington. mr. hastings: i thank the gentleman for yielding and i think his amendment makes imminently good sense. it's exactly these sort of rulings that tie up our natural resources and we should be utilizing -- i think the gentleman has a good amendment and i support it.

mr. young: i thank the gentleman. again this is specific for an area of rare earth that's for the future of this nation. this amendment should be adopted. i urge a yes on my amendment. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from new jersey. mr. holt: madam chair, i rise to claim time in opposition. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. holt: almost 15 years ago the forest service began a process of reviewing the management of the last remaining undeveloped forests, the so-called roadless areas. in 2001 the bush administration, yes the george w. bush administration, issued regulations to protect these areas. in an effort recognized as one of the most far-reaching conservation initiatives taken by the federal government in decades. now a decade later after litigation, 60 million acres of our forests and the clean water derived from those forests are

now protected from harmful development. . 354 municipal water supplies flow through roadless areas on their way to homes and businesses. these areas are -- they include sacred sites for native americans. they include biological strongholds for fish and wildlife. the continued protection of these areas is something that people all over america care about. i know the gentleman thinks that this is somehow infringing on alaska. the point that must be made is this is in the national interest and continued protection of these areas is common sense. it is what i know my constituents tell me they want. for the record there are already 380,000 miles of roads in the rest of our national forests with only 20% maintained to

adequate standards of safety. the gentleman from alaska offers an amendment that purports to waive the roadless rule for the purposes of mineral development. however both the forest service and the bureau of land management say that the current policy does not prevent mineral developers from accessing development sites in our forests. all the current policy requires is careful consideration before access for mining operations is permitted. i recognize that southeast asia -- we all recognize that southeast alaska is a unique place that requires access by boat and helicopter. however mine operators have been able to get the approval necessary for that access. this is a waiver that is overly broad which federal agencies tell us is unnecessary for the purposes purported here.

rein it just invites -- and it just invites conflict wherefore a decade now there has been resolution. congress has debated the roadless policy for a decade, actually for many decades, but for a decade. an opponent of the policy has had their day in court. congress and the public and the courts agree. they have supported the protections, including protections for those holding valid existing mineral rights. . this amendment is not necessary and i urge its defeat. >> with all due respect, i enjoy people from massachusetts. mr. young: and emergency talking about my state -- and new jersey talking about my state. it really always excites me.

they really know a lot. they know nothing. this was open for mining development and last year they said, no, this couldn't be done. in fact, the access to this rare earth for the nation, for the nation, a small area, all we want to do is get to the water. what good is rare earth for this nation if you can't get to it? we might as well stake a claim on the moon. and to have someone say that all the pristine area, this is 17 million acres of land that have already been set aside, all but one million acres. all i'm asking is access for the american people for this mineral deposit for the american people, for the future, for the technology that's needed to not be dependent on china. he may be representing china instead of new jersey and i respect that. but i respect for this nation, for this amendment should be adopted for the good of the people of this nation, if you think about the future. the con cement, and ironically this side offered an amendment to this bill to only rare earths. that amendment was offered and i

can't understand that. all i'm saying, if you want to access the rare earth then pass this amendment. make it good for the nation. let's not be listening to somebody that very frankly doesn't understand the need -- and this is a person who's a doctor, bless his heart. who understands his needs, understands the physical needs for the future. yet he says we're going to protect this little narrow spot just to access water for the people of america. this is what this amendment does. i'm trying to get something done for america. i'm not playing politics in this. it really doesn't effect alaska to that extent. it is in the state of alaska. pardon? it does effect other states but i want it for lgs. that's my job. i'm not affecting new jersey. i never incuse an amendment or oppose something in new jersey. if he wanted to drill in new jersey, i'd support it. if he didn't want to drill in new jersey, i wouldn't support it.

this is important for the people of america and i urge the passage of this amendment. the chair: does the gentleman reserve his time? does the gentleman reserve his time? the gentleman from new jersey. mr. holt: i thank the chair. the gentleman is right. this affects more than alaska. this affects the country at large. the roadless rule has been debated, it has been litigated. it should be considered settled. the young amendment, as the chairman has -- as the gentleman has explained, derivings from his interest in -- derives from his interest in having our road access for mineral development in alaska. both the forest service and the bureau of land management, i repeat, say that the current policy does not prevent the mineral developers from

accessing development sites. we don't need to overturn a well-debated, well-litigated, settled matter of the roadless rule. just to be leer, the -- just to be clear, the amendment that the gentleman from alaska offers would, quote, exempt all areas of identified mineral resources in land use designation, land use designations, etc., from the procedures detailed and the rules promulgated under title 36, code of federal regulations. this is sweeping and it is not necessary. again, i urge the defeat of this amendment and i reserve any time that i might have. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from alaska. the gentleman from alaska has one minute remaining. the gentleman from new jersey has 30 seconds remaining. mr. young: i just want to make a comment to the chairman.

i yield him 30 seconds. mr. hastings: i thank the gentleman for yielding. these areas that this amendment affects have already been set aside for mineral development. i want to repeat that, mr. speaker. these are have already been set aside for mineral development. that policy has not changed at all. all it ensures is that we're going to have access to it. and i want to point out the irony that the gentleman pointed out. this is for rare earth. this particular area in his state is where we have rare earth and now they say they want it. i really find some -- there's some irony here and i can't quite get my arms around it. i thank the gentleman for yielding. i yield back to him. the chair: the gentleman from alaska has 30 seconds remaining. mr. young: i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from new jersey has 30 seconds remaining and the right to close. new jersey new jersey -- mr. holt: mr. chair, of course we want this country to have the minerals its dependent on. but need i repeat again, the bureau of land management says that current policy does not prevent mineral developers from

accessing the development sites. this amendment is not necessary -- developing sites. this amendment is not necessary and it would overturn very important resolutions that protect the public lands in the public interest. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from alaska has 30 seconds. mr. young: one last comment. it says no restriction, we can go ahead and find this earth. we can't develop it, it's that simple. all the exploration had to be done by helicopter. there's no access by road. do develop it we must have this road -- to develop it we must have this road to a water access. this is a good amendment. it provides the states with the right minute raps -- minerals that are necessary for future technology. we should adopt this overwhelmingly if you're thinking of the nation instead of an interest group and yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from alaska. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. . in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. mr. holt: i request a recorded vote. the chair: further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from alaska will be postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 5 printed in

house report 112-590. for what purpose does the gentleman from minnesota seek recognition? craskcrave i have an amendment at the desk. the clerk: amendment 5 printed in house 112-590 offered by mr. cravaack of minnesota. the chair: the gentleman from minnesota, mr. cravaack, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. charity recognizes the gentleman from molte. mr. cravaack: thank you, mr. chairman. today i rise to support my amendment as well as the underlying bill. h.r. 4402 is a commonsense, pro-growth piece of legislation that would simply facilitate a timely permitting process for very important mining projects throughout the united states. the united states cannot continue to depend on foreign countries to supply critical precious and rare earth metals. this is a vital strategic disadvantage to the security of

the united states. what happens if one day a supplying country decides they don't want to export or restricts precious metals? or our sea lanes become controlled by those that are not friendly to the united states? these mines are not something that we can just flip a switch and turn on. these mines are multimillion, if not billion dollar projects that take years of capital investment just to get going. this bill is as much a strategic defense bill as it is a jobs bill. according to the university of minnesota-duluth study, 2.5 jobs are produced for every mining job. these are good-paying jobs that we cannot afford to lose. my amendment will also allow mining projects that have already applied for a permit and are currently in the probating process access to do expedited procedures. my amendment falls along the same commonsense thinking that the underlying bill comes from. that 30 months is plenty of time to complete the total review

process for permitting a mine. currently there are numerous projects in the permitting pipeline that have taken way too long and still have no definitive end in sight. one such probably is in my district. the parliament mining initiated environmental review of its proposed copper and nickel mine back in 2005. since then the company has invested over $40 million for e.i. simple inquiries. that is seven years and counting for just environmental reviews. another project that is just getting under way in the eighth district is the twin metals project which has also produced thousands of minnesota jobs for both construction and long-term operations. a 2009 study, the university of minnesota-duluth found that more than 12,000 minnesota construction jobs will be created in minnesota if all strategic metal mining projects currently under study moved forward. in 2009 the study also estimated

that more than 5,000 direct long-term minnesota mining jobs would be created when all strategic metal mining projects currently under study become operational. minnesota needs these jobs and country needs the minerals that these mines produce. and everyone needs a definitive permitting timeline that is reliable. unfortunately this is not a unique project. seven years and $40 million is not even the worst example of inefficient permitting. many other mining projects have been stalled for even longer due to inefficient and at times ajend -- agenda-driven permitting process. another example is a mine in montana. it has been in the permitting process since 2003. the project previously was permitted by the state of montana, u.s. forest service and other cooperating federal agencies in 1993 following a full e.i.s. process. the company chose not to proceed with the project until 2003 and

has been working to obtain the same federal permits since that time. mr. chairman, i could give example after example of how inefficient and onerous our federal permitting process is but there's just not enough time to do so. these multi-year delays and processing federal permits for many good probablies are impeding thousands of jobs, massive -- projects are impeding thousands of jobs and are blocking domestic production of much-needed rare earth, strategic and critical precious metals. this amendment would ensure that these projects, like all future projects, are given a firm timeline that communities can count on, while at the same time more than addressing concerns. i urge support of passage of this amendment and the underlying bill. i'd be happy to yield to the chairman. mr. hastings: i thank the gentleman for his amendment and this is, as he said in his opening remarks, simply a commonsense approach that those who are in the process now should avail themselves of the potential changes in law. this is an excellent amendment and i support it and i yield back to the gentleman. mr. cravaack: i take that --

return my time, and i thank the chairman and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from massachusetts. >> i rise to claim the time in opposition. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. markey: i thank the chair. this bill is a bill that is supposed to be discussing rare earths, ok? it's supposed to be discussing strategic minerals that we can use in our competition to produce high-tech products, that we are competing with the chinese and others in order to produce in our country. and the kinds of strategic materials that we're talking about are scandium, uropium, turbium, these are not, you know, minerals that people ordinarily hear about. and from the high-tech manufacturing sector we hear that they're central to their ability to be able to compete. what the underlying bill would

do is to reduce or eliminate the proper review of mining operations on public lands for virtually all types of minerals. not just for those rare earths that i just mentioned, but also for gold and for silver and for uranium and things like sand and gravel that are clearly, and i think we should all be able to agree on this, grand and sand are not strategic minerals for our country. they're plentiful, they're available. and we don't need to be watering down the environmental laws in our attempt to be able to have enough sand and gravel and clay in the united states of america. this amendment would not only allow for insufficient review for future mining operations, it would allow mining operations that are currently being reviewed to also escape proper

scrutiny. even worse, this amendment is drafted in such a way that it could potentially even apply to mining operations that already have been approved. following environmental review, mines sometimes have to put in place mitigation measures to protect the public health and the environment. well, under this amendment there is the potential that those companies could seek to have those mitigation measures thrown out. in an effort to save potentially millions of dollars, i understand what the companies are trying to do. that might be good for that company. but it's not good for the environment or for the american people who already have mitigation agreements in place to protect against the mining company, endangering the health, the well-being, the water table of the area where the mining is going on. and it wouldn't just cover

uropium, it would cover potentially gravel and sand and other elements that clearly don't need that kind of protection. this amendment would likely invite a hail storm of litigation which i would think that my colleagues on the other side would like to avoid. i would also think that my colleagues on the other side would rather have the department of interior, the forest service and other federal agencies continue to move forward to approve new mines, not be bogged down remitigating mines that have already been approved. this amendment makes a bad bill even worse and would have a number of unintended consequences that could invite litigation and actually delay the approval of future mines and i urge defeat of the amendment and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from minnesota has 30 seconds remaining. the gentleman has 30 seconds remaining. mr. cravaack: thank you, mr. chairman. and i'd just like to remind our colleagues that mines aren't just permitted and then forgotten. they're constantly monitored. the precious metals we are

talking about goes into our cell phones ourks computers, our weaponry -- phones, our computers, our weaponry. we need these materials now and we cannot be held at ransom by china and may i remind, 600 pounds of copper goes into every wind mill. thank you, mr. chairman, and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from massachusetts. . the chair: the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. markey: i yield myself the balance of the time. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. markey: i thank the chair. i understand the business plan here of these mining interests that don't even pay royalties to drill on the federal lands of our country. let's just continue this business plan. that's what they are saying to themselves. maybe we can get it out of this republican congress so in addition to not paying let's also have rules that say i'm going to water down the environmental laws as well. and not only for uropium and

serium and other rare earths just for sand, gravel, and clay, i understand. that's a great business plan, not for the american people. they get watered-down environmental laws and they also don't get paid the royalties on the federal lands of our country. it's just one big bad deal for the united states taxpayers. i urge a no vote on this amendment. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the question occurs on the amendment offered by the gentleman from minnesota. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. it is now in order to consider amendment number 6, printed in house report number 112-590. for what purpose does the gentleman from florida seek recognition? mr. hastings: mr. chairman, i claim time on the -- the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the gentleman has an amendment? mr. hastings: yes. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 6, printed in house report number 112-590, offered by mr. hastings of florida. the chair: pursuant to house

resolution 726, the gentleman from florida, mr. hastings, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from florida. mr. hastings: thank you very much, mr. chairman. this bill is an irresponsible giveaway to the mining industry that has taken enormous profit at american taxpayer expense. one section in particular is extremely disturbing. section 205 of the bill eliminates awarding of attorneys fees to litigants bringing successful legal challenges against certain agencies' actions like the issuing -- issuance of a mining permit. eliminating the possibility of fee shifting mation litigation prohibitively expensive for groups and individuals that don't have the deep pocket of large corporate entities. indeed the whole reason fee shifting exists in the first place is so that a party does

not have to be wealthy in order to file a lawsuit. justice should be accessible to all, regardless of their individual financial circumstances. eliminating the awarding of attorneys fees means that the traditional parties for these kinds of lawsuits such as nearby landowners, small business owners, and environmental groups will no longer be reimbursed for the cause of successfully litigating a claim. the only reason to eliminate this fee shifting is to discourage parties from filing these kinds of suits. and who is the biggest beneficiary of reducing the number of permits challenges? the permit holding mine companies, of course. since litigation can be extremely expensive, these cash strapped plaintiffs usually only bring those lawsuits with the

most likelihood of success because they literally cannot afford to lose. eliminating the awarding of attorneys fees will increase the predictibility of the permitting process only by stifling access to the courts. mr. chairman, my amendment creates an exception for the awarding of attorneys fees to successful challenges submitted by either individual citizens or nonprofit entities so that justice in this country is not reserved for only those who can afford the hefty entry fee. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from washington seek recognition? mr. hastings: i claim time in opposition. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. hastings: i'm pleased to yield three minutes to the gentleman from arizona, mr. quayle. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. quayle: i thank the gentleman for yielding. mr. chairman, i oppose this amendment because it would allow ideological special interest

groups to block mining permits through lawsuits funded by taxpayer dollars. the equal access to justice act of 1980 is a law in need of reform. recognizing the federal government's vast resources, it was intended to help protect small businesses, charities, and ordinary americans from unreasonable litigation or administrative proceedings. to this end the eaja allows individuals with a net worth under $2 million and businesses worth less than $7 million to collect attorneys fees up to $125 per hour. but last year the judiciary committee subcommittee on courts, commercial, and administrative law held a hearing on the need for eaja reform. the subcommittee learned that certain groups, particularly environmental organizations, are aggressively exploiting the eaja. the eaja exempts all not-for-profit organizations from the net worth cap, and it allows attorneys fees over $125

per hour, if a special factor justifies such an award. well-heeled environmental organizations take full advantage of these provisions to collect large awards for towns fees. for example, the center for food safety recently awarded more than $2.6 million under the eaja with its lead counsel compensated at a rate of $50 per hour. -- $650 per hour. it's a good gig if you get it. splim by reviewing court records, the subcommittee found 20 environmental organizations collected $5.8 million in fees between december 1, 2009 and august 31, 2010. the eaja was meant to help give small businesses, charities, and ordinary american citizens a fighting chance against the federal government. considering the pressing need for reform, the national strategic and critical minerals production act of 2012 was wisely written to prevent any

organization or strawman plaintiff who is a member of and whose attorney is paid by such an organization from slowing down the permitting process or advancing its idea lodge inc.al agenda in court use -- ideological agenda no court using public money. they can still bring suit not on the taxpayers' dime. for these reasons i oppose this amendment. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from florida. mr. hastings: mr. chairman, i have no further speakers and i'm at this time prepared to yield the balance of my time. mr. hastings: i have no time. the gentleman yield back his time? mr. hastings: i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from washington. mr. hastings: i yield myself the balance of the time which is how much time? the chair: the gentleman has 2 1/2 minutes remaining. mr. hastings: thank you. i just want to make a point here. the natural resources committee i have the privilege to chair has been investigating the payment of attorney fees and court costs to revolving door plaintiffs in environmental lawsuits. for example, we have learned that based on information that's

supplied by the department of justice, over $2 million in taxpayer dollars, have been paid to a single organization, the center for biological diversity. they have done that for 50 lawsuits that have been filed under a single environmental statute. this organization which would qualify by the way for payments if the gentleman from florida's amendment is adopted, they have offices in 15 states and they pay their executive director in the six figures. the question arises, why should taxpayers be paying for their attorney? it seems like these lawsuit happy environmental groups make a living from suing the federal government. and when they sue the federal government, they divert resources from the federal government to carry out their statutory duties when it comes to environmental issues or permitting issues or whatever. so i think that this amendment is ill-advised by singling out

some people that should not be covered. i urge rejection of this amendment. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the question occurs on the amendment offered by the gentleman from florida, mr. hastings. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the amendment is not agreed to. it is now in order to consider amendment number 7 printed in house report 112-590. for what purpose does the gentleman from arizona seek recognition? mr. grijalva: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 7, printed in house report number 112-590, offered by mr. grijalva of arizona. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 726, the gentleman from arizona, mr. grijalva, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from arizona. mr. grijalva: thank you, mr. chairman. my amendment states that nothing in this bill should diminish opportunities for hunting, fishing, grazing, or recreation on public lands. h.r. 4402 would elevate the

interest of the mining industry above all others. this legislation contains language requiring that the priority of the federal government, quote, shall be to maximize the development of the mineral resources while mitigating environmental impact so that more of the mineral resource can be brought to the marketplace. this legislation would put mineral extraction on public lands above all other uses. jeopardizing hunting, fishing, life stock grazing, outdoor recreation, and many other critical uses of our public lands. when opened pits covered the american west, tourist may have another grand canyon to visit. this time instead of marveling at what shaped one of the nation's most inspiring sites, they will be left to ponder the chatches left behind by un accountable mining companies. my amendment makes sure all

americans continue to have access to their public lands. in fact, earlier this week the department of interior issued a report on the agency's economic contributions to the nation. many of these contributions come from uses other than mining. in 2011 over 435 million recreational visits to interior managed lands, this activity contributed $48.7 billion in economic activity and supported approximately 403,000 jobs nationwide, including 14,000 jobs in my home state of arizona. by elevating the interest of mining companies above hunters, anglers, and ranchers that h.r. 4402 would do, we threaten that revenue that local communities have come to rely on. last month we considered a so-called urgent legislation from the majority here on the house floor that was billed as vitally necessary to protect hunting and fin -- fining on

public land. -- fishing on public lands. it seems that when the majority was fishing around for new sweetheart deals and ways to help the mining and oil and gas industry, they decided to forget about their commitment the previous month to hunting, angling communities. my amendment would in no way hamper mining on federal lands. it would simply reaffirm we should not bury the other important uses of our public lands below energy development as the underlining bill would do. our public lands belong to the american people and have many important uses. we should not undermine the ability of the american people to hunt and fish on public lands by destroying the current law. i can't get my head around the idea that the mining industry will have first use above all other uses in our public lands while paying no royalties to the american taxpayer. on top of that, a bulk of the resources taken from our public lands is exploited worldwide to

countries like china. multinational mining companies get our resources free of charge while visitors have to pay a user fee to use some of our public lands. now their needs are not as important for the republicans as free access for mining -- for the mining interest in this country. it's very sad and ironic. i would urge a yes vote on my amendment to maintain a balance for the american people in their use of their public lands. with that i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from washington seek recognition? mr. hastings: i rise to claim time in opposition. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. hastings: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. hastings: thank you, mr. chairman. mr. chairman, this is an anti-mining, anti-jobs amendment and it is not a pro sportsman amendment. i believe strongly in multiple uses on our federal lands. it is something as chairman of the natural resources committee i take very, very seriously. and multiple means economic activity and recreational

activity. earlier this year this house worked to promote legislation advocating hunting and fishing on federal lands. it was primarily aimed at promoting and protecting sportsman's access to federal lands. sportsman's access including hunting and fishing. this bill had strong bipartisan support from most of america's sportsmans organizations, and it received a strong bipartisan support here in this body. however, mr. chairman, i must note that the sponsor of this amendment, my good friend from arizona, opposed that bill. . that was a hunting and fishing pro-sportsman bill. if the best use is rare earth mine to secure our nation against foreign nationalism and so forth, we should use the land for that.

while at the same time that the mine is being developed, we allow for mitigation to balance out disturbance of other activities. if a company that serves an acre here, they can mitigate that with an acre there. the amendment completely ignores that reality. so we should call this amendment for what it is. it is an teement to stop mining on federal lands -- attempt to stop mining on federal lands which of course will make us more dependent on foreign minerals. this amendment contradicts the expressed purpose of this legislation which is to require the lead agency responsible for permitting strategic and critical mineral exploration and mining projects to reduce the permitting timelines through better coordination. this amendment would empower a federal agency to unilaterally choose to redtape another process that can take -- which we've seen in the past -- up to a decade long to complete a permitting process. the only effect, and this is important, as a matter of fact, i might say, mr. chairman, the only effect of this amendment

and other amendments that we've heard is to protect bureaucratic red tape. which of course is what the underlying bill wants to streamline. make sense. every amendment we've heard from the other side seems to want to protect that point. so, this amendment falls into that sam category, does -- same category, does not deserve our support and i urge rejection and i will reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from arizona. mr. grijalva: mr. chairman, i can inquire as to how much time? the chair: the gentleman has 90 seconds remaining. mr. grijalva: let me yield the remainder of my time to my good friend from new mexico and member of the resource committee, mr. lujan. the chair: the gentleman from new mexico is recognized for 90 seconds. mr. lujan: mr. chairman, thank you so much. this amendment is straightforward. it's about protecting hunting and fishing, not -- how simple this is. sadly a similar amendment was rejected by the rules committee when we had a similar debate on oil and gas leasing. but i rise in strong support of the grijalva amendment and i

urge my republican colleagues to take a step back and consider the true impacts their policies are having on public lands. public lands are just that. lands for the public to enjoy and use for the great benefits that they provide. generations of new mexicans have used our state's lands for hunting, fishing, recreation and grazing. mineral development is important but let's do it where it makes sense. we have seen bill after bill on this floor that are giveaways to big oil companies, mining companies and corporate interests that don't consider the long-term detrimental impacts to wildlife habitat and public use for recreational use. today's bill would require the federal government to maximize the development of mining on public lands and threaten access to lands for hunting, fishing and recreational shooting. all the grijalva amendment says is let's protect that little area. this is a bad bill for hunters, anglers and ranchers and i urge support of the grijalva amendment to h.r. 4402, to protect our access to public lands, and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from washington.

mr. hastings: i yield myself the balance of the time. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. hastings: i would just simply say that this is an amendment, as i mentioned in my earlier remarks, that simply will -- it's anti-mining at its best. and because there is in current law a procedure for giving -- a procedure forgiving higher -- for giving higher access to certain activities and then there's mitigation process. but to suggest that this is something that would protect sportsmen defies logic. as a matter of fact, mr. chairman, the n.r.a. has come out against the grijalva amendment. so with that i urge a no vote on the amendment and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from arizona, mr. grijalva. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the

noes have it. the gentleman from arizona. mr. grijalva: mr. chairman, on that i would request a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from arizona will be postponed. pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, proceedings will now resume on those amendments printed in house report 11-590 on which further proceedings were postponed in the following order. amendment number 1 by mr. tonko of new york. amendment number 2 by mr. hastings of florida. amendment number 3 by mr. markey of massachusetts. amendment number 4 by mr. young of alaska. and amendment number 7 by mr. grijalva of arizona. the chair will redeuce to minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote after this first vote in the series. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on amendment number 1 printed in house report 112-590 by the gentleman from new york, mr. tonko areow, on which further proceedings were postponed and which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 1 printed in house report 112-590

offered by mr. tonko of new york. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this vote theys are 162. the nays are 251. less than the majority voting in the affirmative the amendment is not adopted. the unfinished business is the request for recorded vote on amendment number 2 printed in house report 112-590 by the gentleman from florida, mr. hastings, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 2, printed in house report number 112-520 offered by mr. hastings of florida. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of a requested for recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, members will record their votes by electronic

device. this will be a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this vote the yeas are 156, the nays are --

the chair: on this vote the yeas are 162, the nays are 252. less than majority voting in the affirmtive, the amendment is not adopted. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on amendment number 3 printed in house report 112-590 by the gentleman from massachusetts, mr. markey, on which further proceedings were postpone aded and the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk: amendment number 3 printed in house report 112-590 offered by mr. markey of massachusetts. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a two-minute vote.

[captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this vote the yeas are --

the chair: on this vote the yeas are 163, the nays are 253. less than the majority voting in the affirm tifpk, the amendment is not adopted -- affirmative the amendment is not adopted. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on amendment number 4 printed in house report 112-590 by the

gentleman from alaska, mr. young, on which further proceedings were postponed and the ayes prevailed by voice voice -- vote. the clerk: amendment number 4 printed in house report 112-590 offered by mr. young of alaska. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this lab two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this vote the yeas are 238, the nays are 178. a majority voting in the affirmative, the amendment is adopted. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on amendment number 7 printed in house report 112-590 by the gentleman from arizona, mr. grijalva, on which further proceedings were postponed and which the noes prevailed business voice vote. the clerk: amendment number 7 printed in house report 112-590 offered by mr. young -- grijalva of arizona. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly

prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this vote the yeas are 167. the nays are 248.

the amendment is not adopted. the question is on the amendment in the nature of a substitute. as amended. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the amendment is adopted. accordingly, under the rule, the committee rises. the speaker pro tempore: the committee will be in order. the chair: mr. speaker, the committee of the whole house on the state of the union has had under consideration h.r. 4402, and pursuant to house resolution 726 i report the bill back to the house with an amendment adopted in the committee of the whole. the speaker pro tempore: the chair of the committee of the

whole house on the state of the union reports that the committee has had under consideration the bill h.r. 4402 and pursuant to house resolution 726 reports the bill back to the house with an amendment adopted in the committee of the whole. under the rule the previous question is ordered. is a separate vote demanded on any amendment to the amendment reported in the committee of the whole? if not, the question is on adoption of the amendment in the nature of a substitute, as amended. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. the question is on engrossment and third reading of the bill. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. third reading. the clerk: a bill to require the secretary of the interior and secretary of agriculture to more efficiently develop domestic sources of the minerals and mineral materials of strategic and critical importance of the united states economic and national security and manufacturing competitiveness.

the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. the house will be in order. for what purpose does the gentleman from new york rise? -- the gentlewoman from new york rise? ms. slaughter: mr. speaker, i have a motion to recommit at the desk and the house is not in order. the speaker pro tempore: is the gentlewoman's time has expired opposed to the bill? -- is the gentlewoman opposed to the bill? ms. slaughter: in the present form, i am. the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. will members take conversations off the floor. the clerk: to the committee on natural resources with instructions to report the same

back to the house forthwith with the following amendment. page 9 after line , insert the following -- section 105. prohibition on issuance of permits to persons, corporations and subsidiaries that are delinquent on taxes. no exploration or mine permit shall be pursuant to this act to a person, corporation, partnership, trust or other form of business organization that has failed to pay any tax required under state or federal law or to -- ms. slaughter: mr. speaker, i ask that the read be -- reading be dispensed with? the speaker pro tempore: is there objection? without objection, so ordered. the gentlelady is recognized for five minutes. ms. slaughter: we just concluded debate on a bill that will make it easier for the mining industry to profit from digging up valuable minerals on land owned by the american taxpayer. and what will the american people gain in return? nothing except poor public health, a dirtier environment

and fewer opportunities for hunting, fishing and recreation. instead of the bill we are considering today, we should be amending the bill that was signed into law but ulysses s. grant. can you imagine that? in 1872, that's our mining law today, which gives away the valuable minerals and we should be saving for ourselves or very least -- but, no, at least 140 years later we still have this bill which has long outlived its usefulness. but over the 25 years that i served in congress, every attempt to repeal this law has failed. today we compound the problem by voting on legislation that will give even more power to mining interests. adding insult to injury, the companies benefiting from this bill -- mr. speaker, may i have order? the speaker pro tempore: the

gentlelady is correct. please take conversations from the floor. please take conversations from the floor. members in the back of the chamber, please remove your conversations from the floor. the gentlelady is recognized. ms. slaughter: thank you, mr. speaker. adding insult to injury, the companies that benefit from this bill can continue to take minerals owned by the american taxpayers royalty-free. even if they are foreign companies or have cheated or delinquent on their taxes. there is still time to fix three of the glaring loopholes in this bill and my amendment does just that. it will not kill the bill and we will immediately move forward with a final vote on

its passage. however, if adopted my amendment will insert safeguard into the final legislation to protect our national security and to protect american jobs. first, my amendment will -- last week, the las vegas sun reported that mining companies in nevada have underpaid their taxes by $8.7 million since 2008. at a time when cities and towns across america are going bankrupt and we are facing disasters in many areas of the country and some in congress threaten to cut medicare and all in the name of fiscal responsibility we must and should hold corporations accountable for the taxes they owe to the american people. if mining companies are to profit from our natural resources, they must be required to pay their fair

share. i'm the author of the reciprocal author of a bill that will finally put an end to the wholesale of importing u.s. manufacturing jobs to china. and my amendment today echos this plan. with the passage of this amendment today, we will make sure that the doors closed when china comes knocking to profit from our precious natural resources. and finally, my amendment protect american jobs by prohibiting outsourcing and requiring mining companies to use mining equipment made in the united states. isn't that little enough to ask? the sweat and blood of middle-class americans built the united states and it's time this congress put their interests first. with my amendment today, we can do just that. by putting in place safeguards that will protect american jobs, ensure that mining equipment is made in america. i'm introducing my amendment on

behalf of the people of rochester new york, some of the greatest workers that the country has ever known lives there. my constituents are among the 300 million rightful owners of our nation's natural resources and not a single one of them want this congress to simply give them away to china or outsource precious american jobs. over the last two years, the majority has consistently pandered the corporate interests. now, listen to this, because we have been very concerned this week of how many times we've voted to repeal health care. well, try this one on. we have voted more than 100 times this term, the last 18 months, over 100 times to benefit the oil industry. and as demonstrated last night by a wonderful cbs news program, it can cost millions and millions of dollars. they just admit the health care costs taxpayers $50 billion. but last year we voted --

remember, i voted against this, to give a federal land to a single mining company that has ties to iran's nuclear program. that was mining of uranium free about eight miles from the grand canyon. i don't know how more stupid we can get. maybe 1872. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. ms. slaughter: i think it is absolutely obvious to us that a law passed in 1872 is nowhere near adequate for what we need today. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. ms. slaughter: i urge a yes vote on this amendment to protect american workers, american resources and to protect our -- we are extremely worried that iran do not benefit at all. the speaker pro tempore: the chair will receive a message. ms. slaughter: thank you. the messenger: mr. speaker, a message from the senate. the secretary: mr. speaker, i have been directed by the senate to inform the house that the senate has passed without amendment h.r. 4155, cited as

the veterans' skills to jobs act. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from washington seek recognition? mr. hastings: mr. speaker, i rise in opposition to the motion to recommit. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. hastings: mr. speaker, the house is not in order. the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. the gentleman from washington. mr. hastings: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, the underlying bill is about american jobs and not only american mining jobs. because our manufacturing sector as part of it uses the minerals from these mining jobs. and so it is much, much broader than that. but i have to -- i have to comment on the tone here that we have heard over and over from the other side on this issue. the bill streamlines the bureaucracy and red tape. every amendment that was offered today and the tone of

all of their debate on this was to side with the bureaucracy imposing more red tape. but what is even more ironical, this is about mining in america, and the arguments from the other side all day was, don't mine in america. so what's the motion to recommit? don't -- they didn't want to mine any first place, and now they're saying, we can't sell it if we mine it. it doesn't make any sense. mr. chairman -- mr. speaker, this is a jobs bill for american workers. i urge rejection of the motion to recommit and yes on the underlying bill and yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the previous question is ordered. the question is on the motion to recommit. all those in favor say aye. all those opposed, no. the noes have it. ms. slaughter: mr. speaker, i ask for the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. those favoring a vote by the yeas and nays will rise. a sufficient number having

arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a 15-minute vote. pursuant to clause 9 of rule 20, the chair will reduce to five minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote on the question of passage. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 181. the nays are 231. the amendment is not adopted. the motion is not adopted. the question is on passage of the bill. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no.

in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. markey: on that i request a recorded vote. the speaker pro tempore: a recorded vote is requested. those supporting a -- favoring a recorded vote will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 256. the nays are 160. a majority voting in the affirmative, the bill is passed, and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. for what purpose does the gentleman from arkansas seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that my name be removed as co-sponsor from h.r. 835. the speaker pro tempore:

without objection. for what purpose does the gentlelady from hawaii seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent that the record reflect that i intended to vote no on roll call number 465, the amendment offered by my friend, congressman young of alaska. the speaker pro tempore: the record will so reflect.

the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from maryland seek recognition? mr. hoyer: i ask unanimous consent to speak out of order for one minute to inquire about the schedule for the week to come. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. cantor: i thank the democratic whip for yielding. mr. speaker, on monday the house is not in session. on tuesday the house will meet at noon for morning hour and 2:00 p.m. for legislative business. votes will be postponed until 6:30 p.m. on wednesday and thursday, the house will meet at 10:00 a.m. for morning hour and noon for

legislative business. on friday, the house will meet at 9:00 a.m. for legislative business. last votes of the week are expected no later than 3:00 p.m. mr. speaker, the house will consider a number of bills under suspension -- excuse me -- madam speaker, the house will consider a number of bills under suspension of the rules. a complete list of which will be announced by the close of business tomorrow. in addition, the house will consider h.r. -- mr. hoyer: madam speaker, the house is not in order. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's correct. the house will come to order. members, please take their conversations off the floor. mr. hoyer: i again yield to the majority leader. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman may proceed. mr. cantor: madam speaker, i thank you. in addition, the house will consider h.r. 5872, the sequestration transparency act sponsored by congressman jeb hensarling. this is a bill that will bring needed transparency to the administration's process for implementing devastating cuts to our national defense and many social programs on january

2. chairman paul ryan and the budget committee passed this bill in a bipartisan fashion, so i expect it to be brought up under suspension of the rules. finally, and in keeping with funding our national security, the house will consider h.r. 5856, the department of defense appropriations act, sponsored by congressman bill young. this will be the house's seventh appropriations bill of the year. i expect the defense funding bill to be on the floor for the balance of the week. members should be aware that late evening votes are possible on wednesday, july 18, and thursday, july 19. i thank the gentleman and yield back. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for that scheduling information. as the gentleman knows, we have -- as i calculate, 12 legislative days left to go in july and the beginning of august of which three of those days we will be coming in at 6:30.

as a result, we don't have much time left. i would ask the gentleman if there is any expectation of having bills other than the -- i understand one of those weeks will be the regulatory week. other than the regulatory bills, will we have any jobs legislation on the floor? mr. cantor: i thank the gentleman for the question. madam speaker, we've been, as the gentleman knows, very transparent about scheduling the floor, sending out a memo, making members aware of where we're headed for the remainder of the summer -- remainder of the july period. i would say to the gentleman, after next week, we will be focusing on cutting red tape, reducing the regulatory burden on our job creators. as we know, the regulatory atmosphere in this country is making it more difficult, more expensive for small businesses and lawyers to create jobs. we will be focusing on that,

and the following week, madam speaker, will be the week in which we'll bring forward a piece of legislation to stop the tax hikes to ensure that all americans know we are not going to see taxes go up for them at the end of this year. in addition to that, we'll bring forward a bill that will be focused on how we get to a pro-growth tax system in this country, laying out the principles for tax reform and suggesting an expedited procedure so that we can actually achieve results for the american people so that our job creators and working families can get back to work. i yield back. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for yielding. i understand the gentleman's answer and i think we have consensus on this floor by cutting red tape and facilitating decisions by the federal government or by the state government or by local

governments. we have all heard that complaint throughout our careers. i think that's a legitimate concern for us to have. however, when i ask about a jobs bill, the gentleman responds on the -- couple of levels. i think i may have mentioned this before, but what concerns me is that bruce bartlett, who i think the gentleman probably knows, former reagan and president george h.w. bush official saying that no claim for regulatory issues have increased. he says this. republicans have embraced the idea that this is holding back employment. they assert that barack obama has unleashed a tidal wave of new regulation which created uncertainty of business and prevents them from investing in hiring. as i said, he said, no hard evidence is offered for this claim. he then says, in my opinion he then says, in my opinion that