Steven Holt: “I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak on this amendment because it makes a point very well that I was making…”

“I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak on this amendment because it makes a point very well that I was making earlier today. We have criticized this bill because, while it is being sold as necessary for critical and strategic minerals, the definition is so broad that it would cover virtually all mining on public lands. Mr. Pearce shares our concern. The gentleman is worried that, if H.R. 761 is enacted, the definition is broad enough that it would cover even potash. Now, potash is important as fertilizer for crops and for other purposes, but let's be clear--it is not used very much in high-tech manufacturing; it is not used in manufacturing items that are important for our national defense; and it is not scarce. It is one of a long list of minerals that produces money for miners, but it should not be covered under this very broad definition in the underlying bill. I agree with Mr. Pearce that potash could be covered under this legislation, and we agree that elevating mining for potash on public lands under this bill could impact other uses of those lands, including the development of oil and gas, so I am happy to support this amendment to clarify this overly broad definition. I would like to note that we had an amendment a few moments ago, offered by our colleague Mr. Lowenthal, which would fix the definition in this bill by limiting the bill to truly strategic and critical minerals determined to be, as the gentleman Mr.…”