House bill would streamline mining regs, level playing field with China

U.S. Mining Strategic & Critical Minerals

Today In Washington, D.C. - July 9, 1012:

The Senate and House both reconvened today. Tomorrow the Senate is scheduled to vote on the nomination of Jon Tomas Fowlkes, Jr. to be United States District Judge for the Western District of Tennessee.

The House will later today take up the following bills:
HR 4155 - To direct the head of each Federal department and agency to treat relevant military training as sufficient to satisfy training or certification requirements for Federal licenses.
HR 4141 - To increase, effective as of December 1, 2012, the rates of compensation for veterans with service-connected disabilities and the rates of dependency and indemnity compensation for the survivors of certain disabled veterans, and for other purposes.
HR 4367 - To amend the Electronic Fund Transfer Act to limit the fee disclosure requirement for an automatic teller machine to the screen of that machine.
HR 5892 - To improve hydropower, and for other purposes.

An important vote is coming up in the House this week, likely either Wednesday or Thursday, on H.R. 4402, The National Strategic and Critical Minerals Production Act, H.R. 4402. This bill would take steps toward streamlining the excessive regulations on domestic mining activities and providing our manufacturing community with valuable materials it needs. With the recent news that US manufacturing is in steep decline, its essential that we make moves to roll back red tape. And this legislation would reduce our dependence on China.

The Hill adds, "The bill notes that 25 years ago, the United States depended on foreign sources for 30 minerals, but that in 2011, U.S. demand for 67 minerals is satisfied through trade. And increasingly, foreign production, particularly in China and India, is making it harder to secure these minerals. The bill seeks to solve this problem by making it easier to produce these minerals in the United States. Under the bill, the lead government agency in charge of mining permits would have to streamline the approval process, including by allowing for concurrent rather than sequential reviews, and reaching time agreements with companies on when certain stages of the permitting process will be complete. It also allows for flexibility for compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act, including by allowing state standards to be deemed as meeting certain environmental conditions. It also seeks to prioritize the maximum recovery of these rare earths."

The PJ Tatler reports, "The administration’s harsh regulatory environment is harming yet more sectors of the American economy, rare earth minerals mining and electronics manufacturing. We use these minerals every day in cell phones, high tech industries and leading edge medical tech, even jet engines. DoD uses them in some of our most sophisticated information systems and weapons. American businesses want to purchase these minerals from domestic sources, and the US is among the world’s leading sources of rare earth minerals. A huge new source for one rare earth element, niobium, was announced in Nebraska just this week.

"But: It currently takes up to five times longer to get approval to mine for minerals here than it does in other countries, driving investment, production and jobs away from America. From the time a project request is submitted to the time a final ruling is made, a decade can slip by and paperwork as much as 6 feet high filed and reviewed – repeatedly. Not surprisingly, when investors are ready to move on a project, they turn to countries that are ready to do business, rather than tackle the Byzantine regulatory review process here in the United States. . . .

"Rare earth minerals are strategic economic and national security assets. China’s hold on the rare-earth minerals market has raised concerns that the U.S. is too reliant on the country for materials that are necessary for complex weapons systems. The Pentagon last fall, in a report to Congress, warned lawmakers about the U.S. military’s dependence on the raw materials and recommended alternatives to Chinese supplies.

"We have an alternative. The United States has an estimated $6.2 trillion in rare earth minerals under our own soil. But our own government’s policies plus Chinese cheating force our high end industries to go to our competitor to get those necessary minerals."

Abortions in D.C.: The Judiciary Committee of the U.S. House of Representatives is scheduled to meet on Tuesday, July 10, to vote on the District of Columbia Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act (H.R. 3803), a top priority of National Right to Life. Currently, in the Nation's Capital, abortion is legal for any reason, until the very moment of birth. A local body called the "District Council," misusing power that had been delegated by Congress, repealed the entire abortion law. Under the Constitution, it is Congress (with the President) who hold exclusive legislative authority over the District -- and therefore, who are ultimately accountable for the current indefensible policy. The bill, sponsored by Congressman Trent Franks (R-AZ), would prohibit abortion in the District after 20 weeks fetal age, unless the mother's life is endangered. Compelling scientific evidence, including testimony presented to a House subcommittee at a May 17 hearing, demonstrates that by 20 weeks (if not earlier), the unborn child experiences excruciating pain when being dismembered by brute force in a "D&E" abortion.

More on the DISCLOSE Act: Last month in a speech on threats to the First Amendment at AEI, Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell warned, “[I]f disclosure is forced upon some but not all, it’s not an act of good government, it’s a political weapon. And that’s precisely what those who are pushing [legislation like the DISCLOSE Act] have in mind. This is nothing less than an effort by the government itself to exposes its critics to harassment and intimidation, either by government authorities or through third-party allies. . . . Those pushing the DISCLOSE Act have a simple view: if the Supreme Court is no longer willing to limit the speech of those who oppose their agenda, they’ll find other ways to do it.”

And it’s become clear that those other ways go beyond bad legislation like the DISCLOSE Act. The New York Times reports today that Senate Democrats’ campaign arm, the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC) is filing a complaint with the Federal Election Commission against conservative groups aimed at shutting down their political speech or forcing them to disclose private donors. The NYT writes, “The complaint by the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee against Crossroads Grassroots Policy Strategies, Americans for Prosperity and the 60 Plus Association begins a new phase in the Democrats’ struggle to keep pace with Republicans since the Supreme Court’s 2010 Citizens United ruling. That decision cleared the way for unlimited campaign donations to a new breed of ‘super PACs’ from corporations, unions and wealthy contributors. The complaint targets Republican-leaning ‘social welfare’ organizations that have received or are requesting tax-exempt status under section 501(c)(4) of the tax code, which allows funding sources to be kept private. . . . Contending that the tax-exempt groups’ ‘major purpose is federal campaign activity,’ the complaint says that the F.E.C. should regulate them as political committees and that their donors must be disclosed.”

Recently the Democrat Attorney General of New York announced he was opening an investigation into the U.S. Chamber of Commerce’s political activities and its donors. And prior to that the Obama campaign’s chief counsel demanded the FEC force Crossroads GPS to disclose its donors. Of course none of these complaints have asked for scrutiny of Democrat-allied organizations doing similar things.

McConnell explained the problem in an op-ed for USA Today last week: “[W]hat's proposed here is entirely different. [Democrats are calling for] for government-compelled disclosure of contributions to all grassroots groups, which is far more dangerous than its proponents will admit. The Supreme Court addressed this issue in 1958 in NAACP v. Alabama, ruling that forced disclosure of the NAACP's member lists by Alabama would discourage people from freely associating with a cause or group. I support the First Amendment rights of those on the political left and right. My concern is that selective disclosure would be used to harass people — think President Nixon and his ‘enemies list’ — who have participated in the political process or scare others from doing so. I cannot support limiting the right of Americans to speak up.”

---

Tags: Washington, D.C., US Senate, US House, DISCLOSE Act, strategic minerals, rare minerals, mining, jobs, Strategic Minerals, Critical Minerals, abortion To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!