2024: Schweikert Voted To Allow Mining Companies To Stake Claims On Public Lands Without Proof Of A Mineral Deposit. In May 2024, Schweikert voted for , according to Congressional Quarterly, "the bill that would amend current law on mining plans to allow a mining claimant to have the right to use and occupy the land to conduct operations on public land with or without the discovery of a valuable mineral if the claimant makes timely payment of fees, including lands for mining-support activities such as waste or processing sites. It would stipulate that a claimant who fulfills the fee requirements would be deemed in compliance with current law regarding payment for the fair market value of the use of public land and its resources." The vote was on passage. The House passed the bill by a vote of 216 to 195. [House Vote 191, 5/8/24; Congressional Quarterly, 5/8/24; Congressional Quarterly, 5/1/24; Congressional Actions, H.R. 2925]
The Bill Could Have Allowed Activities Like The Burial Of Toxic Waste Or Stalled Renewable Energy Projects. According to Congressional Quarterly, "Critics of the bill said it could allow activities such as burial of toxic waste on public lands, or simply allow opponents of renewables projects to place stakes in the ground and thereby claim the land for themselves in order to stall progress." [Congressional Quarterly, 5/1/24]
The Bill Was Previously Pulled From The Floor Due To A Protest Vote By GOP Hardliners. According to Congressional Quarterly, "The House on Wednesday will revisit a Republican-drafted mining bill that was pulled from the floor last week in what seemed to be a rebuke of Republican leadership by a few of the party's hard-line members. Six Republicans joined the Democratic-led motion to recommit the bill (HR 2925) on May 1, a step normally employed by the minority party that's rarely successful. Despite its success this time, however, leadership was not technically required to send the bill back to the House Natural Resources Committee, and instead can bring it back to the floor." [Congressional Quarterly, 5/8/24]
2024: Schweikert Effectively Voted For A Bill Allowing Mining Companies To Stake Claims On Public Lands Without Proof Of A Mineral Deposit. In May 2024, Schweikert voted against , according to Congressional Quarterly, the "Leger-Fernandez, D-N.M., motion to recommit the bill to the House Natural Resources Committee." The bill would "allow hardrock mining companies to stake claims on public lands without first having proven the existence of a valuable mineral deposit was yanked off the floor and sent back to committee on Wednesday, a procedural move that hasn't been seen possibly in decades." The vote was on the motion to recommit. The House rejected to the motion by a vote of 203 to 208. [House Vote 190, 5/8/24; Congressional Quarterly, 5/8/24; Congressional Quarterly, 5/1/24; Congressional Actions, H.R. 2925]
2024: Schweikert Effectively Voted For A Bill Allowing Mining Companies To Stake Claims On Public Lands Without Proof Of A Mineral Deposit. In May 2024, Schweikert voted against , according to Congressional Quarterly, the "Leger-Fernandez, D-N.M., motion to recommit the bill to the House Natural Resources Committee." The bill would "allow hardrock mining companies to stake claims on public lands without first having proven the existence of a valuable mineral deposit was yanked off the floor and sent back to committee on Wednesday, a procedural move that hasn't been seen possibly in decades." The vote was on the motion to recommit. The House agreed to the motion by a vote of 210 to 204. [House Vote 175, 5/1/24; Congressional Quarterly, 5/1/24; Congressional Quarterly, 5/1/24; Congressional Actions, H.R. 2925]
2019: Schweikert Voted Against Blocking Mining In The Pebble Mine of Alaska. In June 2019, Schweikert voted against an amendment that would, according to Congressional Quarterly, "prohibit the use of funds made available by the bill to finalize the environmental impact statement for a proposed Army Corps of Engineers infrastructure project in southwest Alaska, including a mine site, port, transportation corridor, and natural gas pipeline." The vote was on adoption of the amendment. The House adopted the amendment by a vote of 233-201. [House Vote 363, 6/19/19; Congressional Quarterly, 6/19/19; Congressional Actions, H.Amdt.384; Congressional Actions, H.R. 2740]
The Amendment Prevented Mining At Pebble Mine In Alaska, Which The NRDC States Would Put A $1.5 Billion Annual Fishery At Risk. According to NRDC, "Pebble Mine is a reckless scheme that carries unprecedented risk. The giant gold and copper mine proposed at the headwaters of Bristol Bay's legendary salmon runs is an ill-conceived project fraught with economic, environmental, social and legal risk [...] The mine would put at risk a $1.5 billion annual sustainable commercial fishery that provides 14,000 jobs and supplies half of the world's sockeye salmon [...] It's no surprise that the Pebble Mine faces opposition from a fierce and diverse group of people, including Bristol Bay tribes, village corporations, commercial, subsistence, and recreational fishermen, hunters, lodge owners, businesses, and conservationists." [NRDC, 1/21/19]
NRDC: The Trump Administration Was "Inexplicably Fast-Tracking A Permit" For Pebble Mine. According to NRDC, "Nonetheless, the Trump administration is inexplicably fast-tracking a permit for this colossal mistake [...] the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is rushing ahead with a fatally flawed and wholly inadequate draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). The draft EIS lacks critical information and analysis and fails to properly evaluate the risks of Pebble to Bristol Bay water, fisheries, wildlife, communities, and cultures." [NRDC, 1/21/19]
2015: Schweikert Voted To Reclassify Mining Operations As "Infrastructure Projects" To Allow For A Streamlined Permitting Process. In October 2015, Schweikert voted for classifying certain mining operations as critical infrastructure in order to streamline the permitting process. According to Congressional Quarterly, the legislation would have, "deem[ed] mining operations of 'strategic and critical minerals' as 'infrastructure projects' as described in a 2012 presidential order regarding permitting of infrastructure projects. The bill would [have] define[d] 'strategic and critical minerals' as those that are essential for national defense, energy infrastructure, domestic manufacturing, and for the nation's economic security. The bill would [have] require[d] the lead agency responsible for issuing mining permits to appoint a project lead to coordinate interagency permitting to minimize delays and set timelines. The bill also would [have] deem[ed] requirements under the National Environmental Policy Act to have been met if the lead agency determines that any state or federal agency has or will address certain factors specified in the bill, including the environmental impact and public participation. The bill also would [have] limit[ed] to 60 days the period in which civil action could be taken against the federal government regarding a mining permit and prevent the awarding of attorney's fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act." The vote was on passage. The House passed the bill by a vote of 254 to 177. The Senate took no substantive action on the legislation. [House Vote 565, 10/22/15; Congressional Quarterly, 10/22/15; Congressional Actions, H.R. 1937]
Legislation Required Any Civil Action Against A Mining Permit To Be Filed Within 60 Days. According to Congressional Quarterly, "The bill requires that any civil action against a mining permit be filed within 60 days of final agency action approving the permit. The measure bars the payment of any relief beyond what is necessary to correct the violation of the legal requirement specified in the complaint. It also bars the payment of attorneys' fees by the federal government in such cases." [Congressional Quarterly, 10/16/15]
Bill Opponents Claimed That The Measure Defines Mining Too Broadly And That Because Mining Can Have Significant Impact On Drinking Water, Any Permit Should Be Thoroughly Reviewed. According to Congressional Quarterly, "Opponents of the bill, primarily Democrats and environmental groups, argue that the measure is yet another GOP attempt to undermine federal authority and that it simply represents a giveaway to industry. They say that mining, while essential, has potentially devastating environmental effects on drinking water and the surface area surrounding a mine, so any proposed mining should be thoroughly reviewed. The bill, they argue, uses a definition of critical minerals so broad that it encompasses mining for virtually all hardrock resources in the United States and, when coupled with the expedited environmental reviews provided by the bill it would shift how mines are permitted on U.S. public lands --- elevating mining above all other uses of our public lands, thereby threatening hunting, fishing, grazing and conservation activities." [Congressional Quarterly, 10/16/15]
China Currently Supplies Nearly All Minerals In The Global Market. According to Congressional Quarterly, "Although it has only 30% of the world's estimated deposits, China now supplies more than 97% of the global market for the minerals, in part because of lower labor costs and lower environmental standards. Concerns over Chinese control were heightened in 2010 when Beijing suspended exports to Japan in the middle of an unrelated territorial dispute in the South China Sea. According to the United States Geological Survey, the United States is currently almost completely dependent on foreign sources for rare earth minerals." [Congressional Quarterly, 10/16/15]
Bill Supporters, Mainly Republicans And Industry Groups, Claim That Mining Is A National Security Issue And That The Current Process Is Too Onerous. According to Congressional Quarterly, "Supporters of the bill, primarily Republicans and industry groups, argue that domestic mineral production is very important for large swaths of the economy and that many minerals are critical, integral components of the aerospace and defense industries. However, they say, mining of these resources has been hampered by the length of time it takes to begin mining and bring a mine to full production capacity, citing regulatory burdens on mining companies as a primary cause of the delay. They argue that the measure will enhance U.S. national security by reducing U.S. dependence on foreign sources of minerals while also creating jobs, thereby boosting the economy. And because of the location of mineral resources, they note that jobs will be created in many economically depressed areas." [Congressional Quarterly, 10/16/15]
2020: Schweikert Voted Against Prohibiting New Mining Or Mineral Production On 1.3 Million Acres Of Federal Land In Arizona And Colorado. In July 2020, Schweikert voted against an amendment to the FY 2021 NDAA that would, according to Congressional Quarterly, "effectively prohibit any new mining or mineral production activities on approximately one million acres of federal lands in the Grand Canyon region of Arizona and approximately 261,000 acres of land in Colorado by withdrawing the federal lands from eligibility for mining and mineral and geothermal leasing. It would also designate or expand a number of federal land management areas in Colorado; designate the Camp Hale National Historic Landscape in Colorado and authorize $10 million for its administration; and modify or expand certain Interior Department land use authorities, including authorities related to land transfer and acquisition, livestock grazing and military high altitude flight training." The vote was on adoption. The House adopted the amendment by a vote of 234-181. [House Vote 147, 7/21/20; Congressional Quarterly, 7/21/20; Congressional Actions, H.Amdt.838; Congressional Actions, H.R.6395]
2018: Schweikert Voted Against The $1.3 Trillion FY 2018 Omnibus Spending Deal Which Raised Spending By $138 Billion Over FY 2017 Levels, Including $374 Million For The Mine Safety And Health Administration For Administration, Salaries And Expenses. In March 2018, Schweikert voted against the FY 2018 Omnibus spending bill. According to Congressional Quarterly, "Combined, the spending measures would provide about $1.3 trillion in discretionary spending, with $1.2 trillion subject to discretionary spending caps, and $78.1 billion designated as Overseas Contingency Operations funds. The measure's spending levels are consistent with the increased defense and non-defense budget caps set by the two-year budget deal agreed to last month. That agreement increased the FY 2018 defense cap by $80 billion and the non-defense cap by $63 billion. Given that the previous caps were set to reduce overall discretionary spending by $5 billion, the net increase provided by the omnibus is $138 billion over the FY 2017 level." The vote was on the motion to concur in the Senate Amendment with an Amendment. The House agreed to the motion, thereby passing the bill, by a vote of 256 to 167. The Senate later agreed to the legislation, sending it to the president, who signed it into law. [House Vote 127, 3/22/18; Congressional Quarterly, 3/22/18; Congressional Actions, H.R. 1625]
2017: Schweikert Voted For Legislation That Would Have Repealed Significant Portions Of Dodd-Frank, Including Repealing A Rule Requiring Mining Companies Include Mine Safety And Health Violations In SEC Reports. In June 2017, Schweikert voted for the Financial Choice Act. According to NPR, "House Republicans voted Thursday to deliver on their promise to repeal Dodd-Frank --- the massive set of Wall Street regulations President Barack Obama signed into law after the 2008 financial crisis. In a near party-line vote, the House approved a bill, dubbed the Financial Choice Act, which scales back or eliminates many of the post-crisis banking rules." The vote was on passage. The House passed the bill by a vote of 233 to 186. The Senate took no substantive action on the legislation. [House Vote 299, 6/8/17; NPR, 6/8/17; Congressional Actions, H.R. 10]
The Financial Choice Act Repealed Section 1503 Of Dodd-Frank. According to the text of H.R. 10, "SEC. 862. REPEAL. (a) REPEAL.---The following sections of title XV of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act are repealed, and the provisions of law amended or repealed by such sections are restored or revived as if such sections had not been enacted: (1) Section 1502. (2) Section 1503." [Congress.gov, H.R. 10]
Section 1503 of Dodd-Frank Required Mining Companies To Include Safety Violations In SEC Reports. According to the SEC, "Under Section 1503 of the Dodd-Frank Act, mining companies are required to include information about mine safety and health in the quarterly and annual reports they file with the SEC. The Dodd-Frank Act disclosure requirements are based on the safety and health requirements that apply to mines under the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977, which is administered by the Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA). The new SEC rules, which take effect 30 days after publication in the Federal Register, specifically require those companies to provide mine-by-mine totals for the following: Significant and substantial violations of mandatory health or safety standards under section 104 of the Mine Act for which the operator received a citation from MSHA Orders under section 104(b) of the Mine Act Citations and orders for unwarrantable failure of the mine operator to comply with section 104(d) of the Mine Act Flagrant violations under section 110(b)(2) of the Mine Act Imminent danger orders issued under section 107(a) of the Mine Act The dollar value of proposed assessments from MSHA Notices from MSHA of a pattern of violations or potential to have a pattern of violations under section 104(e) of the Mine Act Pending legal actions before the Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission Mining-related fatalities The accompanying instructions specify that a mining company must report the total penalties assessed in the reporting period, even if the company is contesting an assessment. For legal actions, mining companies are instructed to report the number instituted and resolved during the reporting period, report the number pending on the last day of the reporting period, and categorize the actions based on the type of proceeding." [SEC, 12/21/11]