PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 482.
Congressional Research Service
Version 17 · Reported to House with amendment(s) · Apr 11, 2018
National Strategic and Critical Minerals Production Act
This bill addresses the mine permitting process.
Under the bill, projects that provide minerals vital to job creation, energy infrastructure, American economic competitiveness, and national security must be considered to be "infrastructure projects" as described in Executive Order 13604, entitled "Improving Performance of Federal Permitting and Review of Infrastructure Projects" dated March 22, 2012. This order directed federal agencies to significantly reduce the time required to make permitting and review decisions on infrastructure projects.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
The bill sets forth general requirements for an existing mineral exploration or mine permit application.
The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) or the Forest Service shall appoint a project lead for the mine permitting process to coordinate with other agencies to ensure that the agencies: minimize delays, set and adhere to timelines for completion of the permitting process, set clear permitting goals, and track progress against goals.
The requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 are satisfied if the BLM or the Forest Service determines that the agency issuing the permit will address specified factors, such as environmental impact, alternatives to issuance of the permit, or any irreversible and irretrievable commitment of resources that would be involved in the proposed action. The time period for completion of the mine permitting review process shall not exceed 30 months, except by mutual agreement.
Projects on National Forest System land shall be exempt from regulations that prohibit timber tree cutting and road construction in areas without roads.
The bill does not apply to oil, gas, and potash leasing and development within the designated potash areas of Eddy and Lea Counties, New Mexico.
People & committees
Rep. Amodei, Mark E. [R-NV-2] · R–NV
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 482.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Natural Resources. H. Rept. 115-631.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Natural Resources. H. Rept. 115-631.
Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by the Yeas and Nays: 21 - 16.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources Discharged.
Subcommittee Hearings Held.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources.
Referred to the House Committee on Natural Resources.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Dec 5, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.520 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.520 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.520 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.520 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.