On the recordOctober 22, 2015
Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, my amendment would fix a critical problem with this bill, namely, that the name of the bill doesn't match the substance of the bill. When you read the title, you would think this bill has something to do with critical and strategic minerals, but, in fact, as currently written, the bill would define practically every mined substance--and that is every mined substance in the United States--as being strategic and critical. Sand, gravel, gold, copper, clay, all of these, are strategic and critical under this bill, and I think that is going too far. In fact, I am still waiting for someone to explain to me what mineral wouldn't fall under the definition of this bill. Certainly none of the witnesses at our June Committee on Natural Resources could name one. The National Research Council published a 2008 report called ``Minerals, Critical Minerals, and the U.S. Economy,'' and it states: To be critical, a mineral must be both essential in use and subject to supply restriction. They go on to point out some specific examples of minerals that are essential, but not critical, such as copper, iron ore, and construction aggregates, such as sand and gravel, except that this bill would completely ignore the National Research Council and many other organizations that know what criticality means and define all of these--copper, iron ore, sand, gravel, and more--as strategic and critical minerals.…





