2014: Schweikert Voted For Reclassifying Mining Projects As "Infrastructure Projects" To Streaming Permitting Process For Mining On Federal Lands. In September, Schweikert voted to consider for a bill containing a provision that would effectively eliminate public review of hardrock mining activities on federally-managed lands, threatening America's water resources. According to Congressional Quarterly, "The measure includes the provisions of HR 761, which reclassifies certain mining operations as 'infrastructure projects' in order to streamline the permitting process for mining on federal lands." According to the League of Conservation voters, HR 176 "the National Strategic and Critical Minerals Production Act of 2013 [...] would effectively eliminate public review of hardrock mining activities on federally-managed public lands. The mining industry already enjoys free access to hardrock minerals on public lands, and federal land managers are required by law to give mining precedence over all other uses of public lands. While land managers are not in a position to deny hardrock mining claims, they are able to require mining companies to explain to the public how they will comply with applicable environmental laws. Eliminating this public review process would threaten water resources across the United States and limit the ability of impacted communities to protect their land, water, and health." This provision was part of a larger bill called the Jobs for America Act. The bill passed the House by a vote of 253-163. The bill died in the Senate. [House Vote 513, 9/18/14; Congressional Quarterly, 9/15/14; GOP.gov, Accessed 9/15/15; Thomas.loc.gov, Accessed 9/15/15; Congressional Quarterly, 7/14/14; League of Conservation Voters, Accessed 9/17/15; Congressional Actions, H.R. 4]
United States Is Dependent On Foreign 'Rare Earth' Minerals, Cost And Environmental Considerations Are Blamed By Some For This. According to Congressional Quarterly, "Currently, the United States relies on foreign imports for a majority of non-fuel mineral materials, particularly 'rare earth' materials. 'Rare earth' materials are relatively scarce elements or minerals that are used in a broad range of sophisticated industrial and defense applications. Although the United States used to be a major supplier of such elements, cost considerations and environmental concerns have led to most U.S. producers abandoning the market. [Congressional Quarterly, 9/16/13]
If A Project Is Declared A 'Major Federal Action,' An Environmental Impact Statement Is Required. According to Congressional Quarterly, "The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) [...] requires federal agencies to consider the environmental effects of proposed actions and inform the public of the potential environmental consequences of those actions. If a project --- in this case, permitting mineral exploration --- is declared a 'major federal action,' an environmental impact statement is required. A NEPA-required environmental impact statement must include a description of the need for the action, reasonable alternatives and a description of how the environment would be affected by both the alternatives and the preferred proposal. It must include a description of all the direct, indirect and cumulative effects of the proposed action and allow for public comment. The statement must outline other permitting bodies, such as state or tribal governments, that also must approve the project. [Congressional Quarterly, 9/16/13]
Provision Would Reclassify Mining Projects As "Infrastructure Projects" To Streaming Permitting Process For Mining On Federal Lands. According to Congressional Quarterly, "This bill reclassifies certain mining operations as 'infrastructure projects' in order to streamline the permitting process for mining on federal lands. It requires federal agencies to expedite the environmental review process, and it limits the judicial review process for challenges to approved mining permits or associated environmental reviews." [Congressional Quarterly, 9/16/13]
Proponents Claim That Regulatory Delay Is The Reason It Takes Mines To Reach Full Production Capacity. According to Congressional Quarterly, "House Republicans and industry groups have been critical of the length of time it takes to bring a mine to full production capacity, and they point to the regulatory burdens placed on mining companies as a primary cause of the delay. They say that by reducing regulatory burdens and expediting the permitting process, the measure will reduce U.S. dependence on foreign sources of minerals and create jobs, thereby boosting the economy. And because of the location of mineral resources, jobs will be created in many economically depressed areas." [Congressional Quarterly, 9/16/13]
Provision Would Reduce Judicial Review. 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." [Congressional Quarterly, 9/16/13]
Opponents Note That Mining Can Have A Devastating Impact On The Environment, So Any Proposal Must Be Thoroughly Reviewed. According to Congressional Quarterly, "Environmental groups and Democrats argue that the bill is yet another GOP attempt to undermine federal authority and represents a giveaway to industry. 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. Conservation groups also have expressed concerns regarding the disposal and storage of mine-related waste, and they further argue that the bill would not significantly speed up U.S. mineral production." [Congressional Quarterly, 9/16/13]
Statement Of Administration Policy: H.R. 761 "Has The Potential To Threaten Hunting, Fishing, Recreation And Other Activities." According to a Statement of Administration Policy for HR 761, "The legislation also undermines existing law safeguarding the multiple uses of public lands by placing mining interests above all other uses. This change has the potential to threaten hunting, fishing, recreation, and other activities that create jobs and sustain local economies across the country." [Statement of Administration Policy, 7/9/13]
Statement Of Administration Policy: H.R. 761 Would Place Severe Restrictions On Judicial Review, Would Likely Increase Litigation. According to a Statement of Administration Policy for HR 761, "Furthermore, the Administration opposes the legislation's severe restrictions on judicial review. Although the legislation purports to limit litigation, its extremely short statute of limitations and vague constraints on the scope of prospective relief that a court may issue are likely to have the opposite effect." [Statement of Administration Policy, 7/9/13]
2014: Schweikert Voted To Create An Energy Department Program To Ensure A Sustainable And Secure Long Term Supply For Minerals That Are Needed For National Security. In July 2014, Schweikert voted for legislation that would have, according to Congressional Quarterly, "authorize[d] $25 million annually for fiscal 2015 through fiscal 2019 to create an Energy Department program to ensure a long-term, secure and sustainable supply of mineral elements that are critical to satisfy the national security, economic well-being and industrial production needs of the United States. It would [have] require[ed] the department to support new or significantly improved processes and technologies for the extraction, use and recycling of critical elements and to identify and test alternative materials that may be substituted for these elements." The vote was on a motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, which required a two-thirds majority to pass, or 269 yeas. The House rejected the motion by a vote of 260 to 142. No further action was taken on the legislation. [House Vote 435, 7/22/14; Congressional Quarterly, 7/22/14; Congressional Actions, H.R. 1022]