    [Senate Hearing 114-141]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                                                          S. Hrg. 114-141

                          S. 883, THE AMERICAN MINERAL
                              SECURITY ACT OF 2015

    =======================================================================

                                    HEARING

                                   BEFORE THE

                                  COMMITTEE ON
                          ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
                              UNITED STATES SENATE

                        ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION

                                       ON

                          S. 883, THE AMERICAN MINERAL
                              SECURITY ACT OF 2015

                                   ----------

                                  MAY 12, 2015

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                           Printed for the use of the
                   Committee on Energy and Natural Resources

                                                            S. Hrg. 114-141

                          S. 883, THE AMERICAN MINERAL
                              SECURITY ACT OF 2015

    =======================================================================

                                    HEARING

                                   BEFORE THE

                                  COMMITTEE ON
                          ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
                              UNITED STATES SENATE

                        ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION

                                       ON

                          S. 883, THE AMERICAN MINERAL
                              SECURITY ACT OF 2015

                                   __________

                                  MAY 12, 2015

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                           Printed for the use of the
                   Committee on Energy and Natural Resources
                                        ______

                             U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

    95-276                         WASHINGTON : 2016
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
      For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing
      Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800;
             DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC,
                              Washington, DC 20402-0001

                   COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES

                        LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska, Chairman
    JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming               MARIA CANTWELL, Washington
    JAMES E. RISCH, Idaho                RON WYDEN, Oregon
    MIKE LEE, Utah                       BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont
    JEFF FLAKE, Arizona                  DEBBIE STABENOW, Michigan
    STEVE DAINES, Montana                AL FRANKEN, Minnesota
    BILL CASSIDY, Louisiana              JOE MANCHIN III, West Virginia
    CORY GARDNER, Colorado               MARTIN HEINRICH, New Mexico
    ROB PORTMAN, Ohio                    MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii
    JOHN HOEVEN, North Dakota            ANGUS S. KING, JR., Maine
    LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee           ELIZABETH WARREN, Massachusetts
    SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia
                        Karen K. Billups, Staff Director
                    Patrick J. McCormick III, Chief Counsel
                 Brian Hughes, Senior Writer and Policy Advisor
               Angela Becker-Dippmann, Democratic Staff Director
                    Sam E. Fowler, Democratic Chief Counsel
               Spencer Gray, Democratic Professional Staff Member

                                C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------

                               OPENING STATEMENTS

                                                                       Page
    Murkowski, Hon. Lisa, Chairman, and a U.S. Senator from Alaska...     1
    Cantwell, Hon. Maria, Ranking Member, and a U.S. Senator from
      Washington.....................................................     3

                                   WITNESSES

    Kimball, Dr. Suzette, Acting Director, U.S. Geological Survey,
      U.S. Department of the Interior................................     5
    Fogels, Ed, Deputy Commissioner, Alaska Department of Natural
      Resources......................................................    11
    Cosgriff, Vice Admiral Kevin J., USN, Retired, President and CEO,
      National Electrical Manufacturers Association..................    33
    Conger, Harry ``Red'', President, Freeport-McMoRan Americas......    39
    Silberglitt, Dr. Richard, Senior Physical Scientist, RAND
      Corporation....................................................    47

              ALPHABETICAL LISTING AND APPENDIX MATERIAL SUBMITTED

    American Exploration & Mining Association
        Statement for the Record.....................................   416
    Association of American State Geologists
        Statement for the Record.....................................   418
    Cantwell, Hon. Maria
        Opening Statement............................................     3
    Conger, Harry ``Red''
        Opening Statement............................................    39
        Written Testimony............................................    41
        Respons74Strategic and Critical Materials 2015 Report on Stockpile
               Requirements by Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition,
            Technology and Logistics dated January 2015....................
                                                                         75
        Responses to Questions for the Record........................   409
    Cosgriff, Vice Admiral Kevin J.
        Opening Statement............................................    33
        Written Testimony............................................    35
        Responses to Questions from Senator Hirono...................   359
        Responses to Questions for the Record........................   406
    Fogels, Ed
        Opening Statement............................................    11
        Written Testimony............................................    13
        Responses to Questions for the Record........................   403
        Response to Question from Senator Manchin....................   404
    Hartle, Byron C.
        Statement for the Record.....................................   420
    The Industrial Minerals Association--North America
        Statement for the Record.....................................   428
    Interstate Mining Compact Commission
        Statement for the Record.....................................   430
    Kimball, Dr. Suzette
        Opening Statement............................................     5
        Written Testimony............................................     7
        Response to Question from Senator Manchin....................    71
        Responses to Questions for the Record........................   400
    The Minerals Science and Information Coalition
        Statement for the Record.....................................   433
    Murkowski, Hon. Lisa
        Opening Statement............................................     1
    S. 883...........................................................   370
    Silberglitt, Dr. Richard
        Opening Statement............................................    47
        Written Testimony............................................    49
        Responses to Questions for the Record........................   412

               S. 883, THE AMERICAN MINERAL SECURITY ACT OF 2015

                                  ----------

                             TUESDAY, MAY 12, 2015

                                           U.S. Senate,
                     Committee on Energy and Natural Resources,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:05 a.m. in
    room SD-366, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Lisa
    Murkowski, Chairman of the Committee, presiding.

      OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. LISA MURKOWSKI, U.S. SENATOR FROM
                                 ALASKA

        The Chairman. Good morning. We will call to order the
    Energy Committee hearing. We are here to hear testimony on S.
    883, the American Mineral Security Act of 2015. It is nice to
    be able to welcome everyone to the Committee here this morning.
        This is an important topic, the mineral security of our
    nation which directly affects everything from our economic
    competitiveness to our national security. This is the third
    Congress now that I have introduced legislation on this
    subject. I think this is the best version yet, but I also
    believe that passage of this legislation is probably more
    important now than ever.
        I said it before and I will say it again, I think we have a
    real problem on our hands as a result of our nation's
    borderline insidious reliance on mineral imports. And it is not
    just the rare earth elements.
        60 Minutes had a feature on this some weeks ago. The
    reality is the United States now depends on many other nations
    for a vast array of minerals, metals, and materials, and we
    have got the numbers to back it up.
        In 1978 the USGS reported that the United States was
    importing at least 50 percent of our supply of 25 minerals and
    100 percent of seven of them. According to the latest figures,
    that dependence is now far deeper. In 2014 we imported at least
    50 percent of 43 different minerals, including 100 percent of
    19 of them.
        Electric vehicles, solar cells, advanced defense systems,
    you can almost name the technology, almost anything you can
    find in modern society, and then you can go look up who we
    import at least some of the raw materials from.
        Our foreign dependence is difficult enough, but the
    concentration of that supply presents additional challenges.
    Our minerals often come from a handful of countries that are
    less than stable or who might be willing to cut off our supply
    just to serve their own purposes or meet their own needs.
        Rare earth elements are, again, probably the best example
    of this. It is true that our production has picked up thanks to
    Molycorp out in California, but China still produced 86 percent
    of the world's supply in 2014 and close to 60 percent of our
    supply was imported.
        When I look at our foreign mineral dependence and where
    those minerals are coming from, I see reason after reason to be
    seriously concerned. It is not hard to foresee a day of
    reckoning when this will become real for all of us--when we
    simply cannot acquire a mineral or when the market for a
    mineral changes so dramatically that entire industries are
    affected.
        I am glad the Office of Science and Technology Policy is
    taking up our idea for critical minerals designations. It is
    good to see more attention being paid at high levels of
    Government, but executive agencies are not as coordinated as
    they need to be and they do not have all of the statutory
    authorities needed to make lasting progress on this issue.
        So once again I have offered a broad bill to rebuild our
    mineral supply chain. I do not think that there is any
    substitute for legislation.
        When it comes to permitting delays for new mines, our
    nation is still among the worst in the world. We are stumbling
    out of the gate, right at the very start of the supply chain.
    We really never catch up, and it is our own fault.
        When we decide that a mineral is critical, we should survey
    our lands to determine the extent of our resource base so we
    know what we can produce right here at home. We should keep
    working on alternatives, efficiency, and recycling options for
    the minerals that our nation does not have in significant
    abundance. I think that is a very important part of our
    discussion here this morning--once we know or we think we know
    what we have, again, looking to what alternatives might be
    reasonable and recycling options are important.
        We should build out a forecasting capability to provide a
    better understanding of mineral-related trends and an early
    warning when problems arise.
        We also need to ensure a qualified work force. The United
    States, we know, is down to just a handful of mining schools. A
    large share of their faculty will be retiring in the near
    future. We need smart, young people who want to go out into
    these fields.
        This Congress offers a perfect opportunity to bring our
    mineral's policies into the 21st century. My bill offers us
    that chance.
        I would like to thank Senator Heller and Senator Risch for
    co-sponsoring it and Secretary Moniz and his team at the
    Department of Energy for providing technical assistance to us
    as we drafted it.
        I also want to thank our panel of witnesses here today.
    Thank you, Commissioner Fogels, for joining us all the way from
    Alaska. It is a long haul for you. I look forward to the
    testimony from each of you and with that I will turn to my
    Ranking Member, Senator Cantwell.

     STATEMENT OF HON. MARIA CANTWELL, U.S. SENATOR FROM WASHINGTON

        Senator Cantwell. Thank you, Chairwoman Murkowski for
    calling this important hearing on critical minerals. I know you
    have been dedicated for many years to this subject in seeking
    to reform Federal policy on critical minerals, and this hearing
    is particularly timely as we work on bipartisan energy
    legislation in the Committee.
        The topic today reminds us how integrated the energy sector
    is with the larger economy. The U.S. energy renaissance,
    especially in the growth of clean electricity generation simply
    could not happen without critical minerals. From grid storage
    batteries to wind turbines, to catalytic converters to LED
    lights: critical minerals including rare earth metals make up
    the big chunk of clean energy.
        According to the International Renewable Energy Agency
    there are about 625,000 clean energy jobs in the United States.
    The independent business group, Environmental Entrepreneurs,
    has found that clean energy projects have led to over 230,000
    job announcements in the last three years. Every one of those
    jobs in our new economy has some ties to the mineral supply
    chain.
        The problem of rare earth metals being hoarded by China
    remains a pressing problem for our clean energy economy and our
    national security. It was only a few years ago that China cut
    its rare earth export quota by 72 percent. When 97 percent of
    the rare earth metals are produced in China, this amounts to a
    potentially serious challenge.
        Since 2009 the United States has been forced to file trade
    complaints over China's trade restrictions of minerals
    including bauxite, magnesium, zinc, tungsten and well,
    something I cannot pronounce.
        Mr. Conger. Mendelevium.
        Senator Cantwell. Thank you. Would you say that again?
        Mr. Conger. Mendelevium.
        Senator Cantwell. Yes, mendelevium.
        The Chairman. Mendelevium.
        Senator Cantwell. Mendelevium. [Laughter.]
        Mendelevium. Thank you.
        Only at the very last moment, after stretching out the
    dispute for years, did China comply with trade obligations
    under the World Trade Organization.
        In 2010, the European Commission went through an exercise
    similar to the one outlined in the Chairman's bill which
    proposes that U.S. Geological Survey establish a
    ``criticality'' threshold for various minerals. This is an
    important step, but I think it is also key to recognize the
    dynamic nature of these supply chains. As new technologies in
    manufacturing processes alter these dynamics, the concept of
    ``criticality'' similarly shifts and the market will quite
    often generate its own solutions. So getting this combination
    right between the public and the private sector initiatives is
    very important.
        In addition to pressing for stronger trade enforcement
    action to protect our supply chain, we could also do more to
    innovate here at home. If we can accelerate the development
    cycle for new materials, industry will be better able to
    navigate around the emerging criticalities whether real or
    perceived.
        This is part of the important work being done by the
    Department of Energy Critical Materials HUB. Headquartered at
    the Ames Laboratory in Iowa, the HUB brings together a number
    of preeminent institutions in the United States, including
    Idaho and Oak Ridge National Labs and the Colorado School of
    Mines.
        Recycling is another important component of the strategy,
    and I think we are going to hear from you, Dr. Silberglitt.
    Your testimony explains an example of tungsten well. I was
    struck by the fact that between 2010 and 2011, U.S.
    manufacturers reduced imports of this product by one third
    through recycling efforts. I will look forward to learning more
    about similar opportunities.
        I am pleased that the introduced version of the
    Chairwoman's bill maintains language about alternatives to
    critical minerals and workforce needs, as she just mentioned,
    because this is also very important.
        The core function in the bill before us today, establishes
    and maintains a critical minerals list, which Dr. Kimball's
    agency, the USGS, would be responsible for. I look forward to
    hearing what USGS is able to do on the critical minerals with
    existing authority.
        Finally, while I have noted many worthy objectives in the
    American Mineral Security Act, I continue to believe that we
    need to do a better job overall of addressing our hard rock
    mining in the United States. According to the Forest Service,
    there are nearly 2,000 abandoned mines in my state of
    Washington, alone, and I believe we should create a 21st
    century hard rock mining program.
        We should tighten reclamation standards and establish
    royalty payments like other areas of our natural resources. I
    also want to make sure that we are moving this whole area of
    critical resources forward in a strategic way.
        Again, thank you for holding this important hearing,
    Chairman Murkowski. I look forward to hearing our witnesses
    today and asking them questions.
        Thank you.
        The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Cantwell.
        Let's go to our witnesses here this morning.
        We will start by welcoming Dr. Suzette Kimball. Dr. Kimball
    is the Acting Director at the U.S. Geological Survey. Welcome
    to you this morning.
        She will be followed by the Deputy Commissioner Ed Fogels
    from the Office of the Commissioner of the Alaska Department of
    Natural Resources. Again, thank you for making the trek.
        Next we have Vice Admiral Kevin Cosgriff, President and CEO
    of the National Electrical Manufacturers Association.
        Mr. Harry Conger, Red Conger, President of Freeport-McMoRan
    Americas on behalf of the National Mining Association.
        Wrapping up the panel will be Dr. Richard Silberglitt, who
    is the Senior Physical Scientist at the RAND Corporation.
        Again, to each of you, welcome to the Committee this
    morning.
        Dr. Kimball, we will begin with you for five minutes of
    comments. Your full written statement will be included as part
    of the record. We will just go down the line, and then we will
    ask our series of questions.
        Dr. Kimball, welcome and we appreciate your leadership at
    USGS.

        STATEMENT OF DR. SUZETTE KIMBALL, ACTING DIRECTOR, U.S.
           GEOLOGICAL SURVEY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

        Dr. Kimball. Good morning Chairman Murkowski, Ranking
    Member Cantwell and members of the Committee. Thank you for the
    opportunity to discuss the American Minerals Security Act of
    2015.
        This bill directs the Secretaries of the Interior and
    Energy to perform a number of activities intended to support
    and enhance the nation's critical mineral supply chain
    beginning with developing a methodology to determine which
    minerals are critical to the nation's economy.
        The Department of the Interior supports the goal of
    facilitating the development of critical minerals in an
    environmentally responsible manner. The activities directed by
    the bill would require resources and also would need to compete
    for funding with other priorities.
        The U.S. Geological Survey, USGS, is responsible for
    conducting research and collecting data on a wide variety of
    mineral resources. Studies include how and where deposits are
    formed, the interactions of minerals within the environment and
    information to document current production and consumption of
    about 100 mineral commodities within the United States and
    around the world. This full spectrum of mineral resource
    science allows for a comprehensive understanding of the
    complete life cycle of mineral resources and materials. That is
    resource formation, discovery, production, consumption, use,
    recycling and reuse and allows for an understanding of
    environmental issues of concern throughout the life cycle.
        The Bureau of Land Management, BLM, administers over 245
    million surface acres of public land primarily located in the
    12 Western states including Alaska as well as 700 million acres
    of subsurface mineral estate throughout the nation.
        The BLM manages mineral development under a number of
    different authorities. Each of these authorities along with BLM
    regulations and guidance provides a legal framework for the
    development of minerals including critical minerals on federal
    and Indian lands. The global demand for critical mineral
    commodities is on the rise with increasing applications in
    consumer products, computers, automobiles, aircraft and other
    advanced technologies.
        To better understand potential sources of critical mineral
    commodities the USGS has completed studies of known domestic
    and global rare earth reserves, resources and uses which
    summarized basic geologic facts and materials flow issue
    related to rare earth element resources, one type of critical
    mineral.
        Other USGS studies analyze world trade and supply chains
    for other critical minerals including lithium, platinum group
    metals and tantalum.
        In 2014 the United States was 100 percent dependent on
    foreign suppliers for 19 mineral commodities and more than 50
    percent dependent on foreign sources for an additional 24
    mineral commodities.
        In 2008 a National Research Council Committee, funded
    largely by the USGS, developed a criticality matrix that
    combines supply risk with importance of use as a first step
    toward determining which mineral commodities are essential to
    the nation's economic and national security. This has been
    updated by subsequent studies and ongoing work by the critical
    and strategic minerals supply chain interagency subcommittee of
    the National Science and Technology Council which is co-chaired
    by the USGS on behalf of the Department of Interior.
        S. 883 directs the Secretary of the Interior through the
    Director of the USGS to perform a number of actions that build
    on current USGS activities and capabilities including the
    recent rare earth's inventory. It also directs the BLM to
    improve the quality and timeliness of decisions regarding
    environmentally responsible development of critical material--
    minerals on Federal lands.
        I appreciate the interest this Committee has shown on this
    important issue, and we look forward to working with you as
    this bill moves forward.
        The Department maintains a workforce of geoscientists with
    expertise in critical minerals and materials. The Department
    continuously collects, analyzes and disseminates data and
    information on domestic and global rare earth and other
    critical mineral reserves and resources on their production,
    consumption and use. The Department, through the USGS, stands
    ready to fulfill its role as the Federal provider of unbiased
    research on known mineral resources, the assessment of
    undiscovered mineral resources and information on domestic and
    global production and consumption of mineral resources for use
    in global critical mineral supply chain analysis.
        The BLM is committed to implementing efficiencies for the
    environmentally responsible development of critical minerals on
    Federal lands.
        Thank you very much for the opportunity to present the
    views of the Department on S. 883, and I look forward to your
    questions.
        Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Dr. Kimball follows:]

       [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        The Chairman. Thank you, Dr. Kimball.
        Deputy Commissioner Fogels, welcome.

    STATEMENT OF ED FOGELS, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, ALASKA DEPARTMENT
                          OF NATURAL RESOURCES

        Mr. Fogels. Thank you, Chairwoman Murkowski, Ranking Member
    Cantwell and the honorable members of the Senate Committee on
    Energy and Natural Resources.
        My name is Ed Fogels, and I'm Deputy Commissioner of the
    Alaska Department of Natural Resources. On behalf of Governor
    Bill Walker, thank you for this opportunity to testify in
    strong support of the American Minerals Security Act of 2015.
        I've also been entrusted by the 26 member states of the
    Interstate Mining Compact Commission to convey their strong
    support for Senate bill 883 to the committee and to express
    their gratitude for your leadership in this area.
        Senate bill 883 identifies several important goals for the
    Federal Government related to strategic and critical minerals.
    We strongly endorse all of these goals.
        The USGS has found that as of 2014 the United States relied
    on imports for almost all of the 63 identified strategic and
    critical minerals. Furthermore our reliance on imports is
    growing as is our need for these minerals.
        Our overreliance on imported minerals, however, is
    certainly not due to an absence of resource potential. In fact
    many U.S. regions contain significant potential for strategic
    and critical minerals. With the reforms outlined in Senate bill
    883, this potential in Alaska and the other IMC member states
    can be explored.
        The State of Alaska is blessed with vast mineral potential
    on its lands. Based on USGS estimates if Alaska were a country
    it would be in the top ten in the world for coal, copper, lead,
    gold, zinc and silver. In addition, Alaska has more than 70
    known occurrences of rare earth elements and multiple
    occurrences of other strategic and critical minerals.
        Alaska has two exciting projects currently in pre-
    permitting. The Graphite One deposit is the largest graphite
    deposit in the U.S., and the Bokan Mountain project contains
    significant amounts of the heavy or more valuable rare earth
    elements.
        The State of Alaska has increased its efforts to
    incentivize and promote the development of strategic minerals
    in Alaska. I'd like to briefly touch on three of these lines of
    effort.
        First, my department, the Division of Geologic and
    Geophysical Surveys, has embarked on a program to better
    characterize Alaska's mineral endowment. Over the last several
    years we have mapped a total of 7.7 million acres, an area
    about one-third the size of the Commonwealth of Virginia. In
    addition we have obtained modern geochemical analysis of nearly
    10,000 archived and new samples and much of this geochemical
    work has been in cooperation with the USGS.
        We have been working to make sure this data is readily
    available to governments, stakeholders and the public. To this
    end we have built a new geologic materials center in Alaska
    which contains samples representing over 14,000,000 feet of oil
    and gas drilling, 300,000 feet of core drilling for mineral
    projects and over 200,000 surface samples.
        Senate bill 883 will greatly enhance and support these
    types of efforts and initiatives on both state and Federal
    lands.
        Second, Federal partnerships have been critical to the
    success of our mapping efforts. These include the National
    Cooperative Geologic Mapping Program, the National Geological
    and Geophysical Data and Preservation Program. We have also
    partnered with the private sector and Alaska native
    corporations to leverage mapping resources. We believe that
    Senate bill 883 will encourage these kinds of partnerships.
        Third, DNR has pursued permitting reform to make our
    processes more timely, predictable and efficient.
        Senate bill 883 lays the framework for a Federal analog.
        Here are some of our specific initiatives.
        We are working hard to improve the efficiency of our day to
    day permitting processes, and we have seen great success and
    have greatly reduced our permitting backlogs.
        We have also developed a program for health impact
    assessments to ensure we can evaluate the potential impacts to
    human health, of our communities, both negative and positive,
    from development projects.
        We have been looking for ways the state can help improve
    the permitting regime for Clean Water Act, Section 404 Wetlands
    Authorizations in our state. And we are looking for ways to
    increase public participation in our permitting process
    especially from local communities.
        A cornerstone of Alaska's process which could assist the
    Federal agencies to accomplish the objectives of Senate bill
    883 is our large mine permitting team approach for mining
    projects.
        This team-based approach, to our knowledge, is unique in
    the nation. Applicants can voluntarily enter into an agreement
    with the state to get a project coordinator who tracks every
    permit for a project. The coordinator serves as a liaison
    between the applicant and all of the relevant agencies and the
    public to provide a single, efficient point of contact.
        The State of Alaska has long felt that the Federal
    counterpart to the state coordinator would vastly improve the
    NEPA process.
        We believe that Alaska's efforts to date and those of our
    other IMCC states can be instructive of how this effort might
    work on a national scale, and we will continue to be available
    to share the lessons we have learned.
        Thank you again for the opportunity to testify before this
    Committee, and I will be happy to answer any questions.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Fogels follows:]

     [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        The Chairman. Thank you, Commissioner Fogels.
        Vice Admiral Cosgriff, welcome.

      STATEMENT OF VICE ADMIRAL KEVIN J. COSGRIFF, USN, RETIRED,
         PRESIDENT AND CEO, NATIONAL ELECTRICAL MANUFACTURERS
                              ASSOCIATION

        Admiral Cosgriff. Thank you, Chairman Murkowski, Ranking
    Member Cantwell, members of the Committee.
        I'm Kevin Cosgriff. I'm the President and CEO of the
    National Electrical Manufacturers Association. We represent
    some 400 electrical equipment and medical imaging technology
    companies across the United States, Canada and Mexico. Our
    combined industries account for more than 400,000 American
    jobs, some 7,000 facilities across the U.S. and domestic
    production that exceeds $117 billion per year.
        We'd like to think that our industry is at the very
    forefront of producing safe, reliable, resilient and efficient
    electrical energy, useable by customers and consumers at all
    levels.
        So we'd like to thank you for the opportunity to provide
    comments in support of Senate 883, the American Mineral
    Security Act.
        Challenging supply conditions and corresponding volatile
    prices of basic mineral inputs can, as you imagine, have
    significant challenge effects for the U.S. electro-industry, as
    we call our companies, including in sectors such as lighting,
    electric motors, energy storage, superconducting materials and
    medical imaging. Likewise risks exist in closely related
    electric intensive businesses including wind and solar
    electricity generation and things like hybrid and electric
    vehicles.
        Importantly, while in many cases only small amounts of
    specific mineral or mineral derivatives may be present in a
    manufactured component, its presence may be the key performance
    variable and in some cases the key efficiency variable as in
    lighting.
        When NEMA surveyed our member companies several years ago
    about the importance of minerals to their products, the results
    were insightful. In addition to well known usage in electro-
    industry of elements such as copper, tin, increasingly lithium,
    we found that many of the so-called rare earth elements are
    being used by our companies in products they manufacture or
    have under development for the market.
        For example, fluorescent and solid state lighting, highly
    efficient permanent magnet electric motors and magnetic
    resonance imaging units utilize these materials.
        Consequently we find the approach taken in S. 883
    contributory to improving the prospects that the U.S. electro-
    industry companies will have access to the minerals and the
    related information they'll need to be globally competitive in
    the future. And I would add to that in addition, the value of
    having qualified and work ready individuals to work in these
    industries.
        At the end of the day for us this legislation is about the
    Government enabling U.S. manufacturers to compete fairly into
    the future because it will have access to the information, the
    minerals and the other resources it needs to conduct its
    business.
        So, thank you again for this opportunity to provide these
    brief remarks in support of the American Mineral Security Act.
    I look forward to working with the Committee in the days ahead
    as you move this bill forward.
        Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Admiral Cosgriff follows:]

        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        The Chairman. Thank you, Admiral.
        Mr. Conger, welcome.

    STATEMENT OF HARRY ``RED'' CONGER, PRESIDENT, FREEPORT-MCMORAN
                                AMERICAS

        Mr. Conger. Thank you, Chairwoman Murkowski, members of the
    Committee.
        My name is Red Conger. I'm President of Freeport-McMoRan
    Americas. I'm testifying today on behalf of the National Mining
    Association. NMA is the national trade association representing
    the producers of most of the nation's coal, metals, industrial
    and agricultural minerals, manufacturers of mining and mineral
    processing machinery, equipment and supplies as well as
    engineering and consulting firms, financial institutions and
    other firms serving the mining industry.
        Today I'm testifying in support of S. 883, the American
    Mineral Security Act of 2015. I want to thank Chairwoman
    Murkowski for her leadership in introducing legislation to
    address a key obstacle for the country's economic growth and
    global competitiveness. A slow and inefficient permitting
    process for mines that produce the minerals essential for our
    basic industries, technology, national defense and the products
    made here in America.
        Freeport-McMoRan's U.S. employees include 8,500 workers in
    Arizona, 1,600 in New Mexico and 950 in Colorado. They produce
    copper, mendelevium and those things that allow Americans to
    drive safer cars on better roads and bridges, use laptops and
    smart phones and generally enjoy a high quality of life.
        Continued growth and demand for minerals and metals is key
    as we see global population growth, rapid industrialization and
    urbanization in the developing world and a rising global middle
    class are all driving demand for metals. Most of this growth
    will occur in the developing world where per capita consumption
    rates of energy and mineral commodities are just a fraction of
    what they are in the developed countries. Demand for minerals
    is also increasing as new frontier technologies require a wider
    range of minerals and materials.
        For example, a modern computer chip contains more than half
    the elements in the Periodic Table. And even though they may be
    present in various small amounts, each is essential to function
    and the performance of that chip.
        All of these trends point to sustained growth and global
    demand and increased competition for mineral resources. As the
    resource competition grows fiercer, stable and reliable mineral
    supply chains will become more critical here in the United
    States. Mining's contribution to sustainable economic growth is
    important in recognizing the connection between minerals and
    economic growth and have developed strategies to ensure access
    to the minerals that form the building blocks of their
    economies and help them compete globally.
        The European Union's Raw Materials Initiative is designed
    to ensure a sustainable supply of raw materials. A balanced
    policy incentivizes and removes obstacles to new mining
    activities to support the availability of the metals and
    minerals for the European economy. As the world's largest
    consumer of many mineral commodities including copper, zinc and
    iron ore, China is giving special attention to its resource
    security by making global investments to ensure access to
    supply.
        When we turn to the U.S. however, we see a lack of urgency.
    The U.S. is blessed with a world-class mineral resource base
    with an estimated value of $6.2 trillion. According to the U.S.
    Geological Survey when it comes to copper, silver, zinc and
    other key mineral commodities what is left to be discovered in
    the U.S. is almost as much as what has already been found.
        Frankly I'm even more optimistic than the USGS. My
    experience over my 38-year career suggests we will exceed the
    USGS predictions in discovering those minerals here at home.
        However since the Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970,
    the U.S. has struggled with establishing effective policies to
    foster and encourage private enterprise and the development of
    economically sound and stable domestic mining minerals, metals
    and mineral reclamation industries. The lack of enabling
    domestic policies carries consequences for the competitiveness
    of downstream industries that depend upon reliable supply
    chains. Our nation's import dependence for key mineral
    commodities has doubled over the past two decades.
        Much of our domestic mineral resources remain locked
    beneath our feet by an outdated and inefficient mining
    permitting system plagued by unnecessary delays and
    redundancies at the local, state and Federal levels. NMA urges
    Congress to work together on enabling policies that ensure
    timely and responsible access to U.S. mineral and metal
    resources. If we do not and become increasingly marginalized as
    a supplier of these essential resources, the consequences are
    severe for our nation's global competitiveness.
        Thank you for the opportunity to testify today.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Conger follows:]

        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Conger.
        Finally Dr. Silberglitt, welcome.

         STATEMENT OF DR. RICHARD SILBERGLITT, SENIOR PHYSICAL
                      SCIENTIST, RAND CORPORATION

        Dr. Silberglitt. Chairman Murkowski, Ranking Member
    Cantwell and distinguished members of the Committee, thank you
    for inviting me to testify this morning. My remarks will be
    based on a 2013 RAND study for the National Intelligence
    Council.
        I'd like first to define critical material. Although the
    United States has extensive mineral resources and is a leading
    global materials producer, we depend on imports for many
    materials that are critical inputs to manufacturing. The United
    States Geological Survey Minerals Commodity Summary reports
    that more than 20 materials that are critical inputs to U.S.
    manufacturing are imported, most at a level greater than 50
    percent. These are the critical materials to which I refer.
        Many of these critical materials are imported from
    countries that dominate mining and processing, often with
    greater than 50 percent of global production. Such cases U.S.
    manufacturers are vulnerable to export restrictions that limit
    their access to these materials and that can result in two tier
    pricing in which manufacturers in the exporting country has
    access to materials at lower prices than those charged for
    exports. This damage is the international competitiveness of
    U.S. manufacturers and creates pressure to move manufacturing
    away from the U.S. and into the producing country.
        The dominant producer of greatest concern is China with
    more than 50 percent of global production of 11 different
    critical materials. China built its dominant position with a
    large resource base, a long term emphasis on mineral production
    and the ability to produce raw materials at a lower cost
    because of its lax environmental and occupational standards.
        China was once viewed as a reliable, low cost materials
    supplier. However, in the past decade China ramped up export
    restrictions that resulted in distorted markets for these
    materials placing our manufacturers into an uneven global
    competition with Chinese manufacturers who had access to
    critical materials at lower prices.
        The United States and its allies successfully challenged
    these policies before the World Trade Organization. After
    exhausting all allowed time to comply, China finally eliminated
    export quotas and some export duties. While this is welcome, it
    remains to be seen whether China will find other ways to
    provide its manufacturers with competitive advantages based on
    its position as a dominant producers.
        What can be done to mitigate these critical materials
    risks?
        The RAND report recommended two types of actions. Those
    that can increase resiliency to supply disruptions or market
    distortions and those that can provide early warning of
    developing problems with concentration of production.
        Concerning resiliency the most effective actions will
    encourage the operation of mines in several different
    countries. Such diversification is already beginning to take
    place; however, the uncertainty created by these highly
    concentrated markets must be overcome by actions at the local,
    national and regional and global levels to create a favorable
    and sustainable climate for the investments and time needed to
    bring diversified supplies into place. Over the long term
    actions to increase resiliency include the development of new
    and more efficient methods of extraction, processing and
    manufacturing, increased recovery from waste and scrap and
    research and development of alternative materials and new
    product designs.
        Concerning early warning, how might we recognize a
    developing pattern such as an increasing concentration of
    production, export restrictions or two tier pricing before it
    creates harmful market distortions? The benchmarking and market
    activity with diversified commodity markets provides a guide.
    If a critical materials producer seeks a deal that the United
    States Department of Justice would view in a commodity market
    as presumed likely to enhance market power that should be a red
    flag. When such situations occur international coordination and
    cooperation could potentially prevent them from reaching a
    level of concern that led to the WTO disputes mentioned
    previously.
        While as an independent and non-partisan organization RAND
    does not take any position on pending legislation, I'd like to
    note the relation some aspects of S. 883 to our recommended
    actions.
        S. 883 actions and requirements expedite permitting related
    to our recommended action to diversify production. The section
    on recycling efficiency and alternatives relates to our
    recommended actions to increase resiliency over the long term.
    The section on analysis and forecasting relates to our
    recommended action and foresight of developing problems and
    could provide the data for the type of benchmarking against
    diversified commodity markets that we recommend.
        Thank you for inviting me to testify. This concludes my
    formal remarks. I'd be pleased to answer any questions that you
    may have.
        [The prepared statement of Dr. Silberglitt follows:]

        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        The Chairman. Thank you, Dr. Silberglitt. I appreciate your
    testimony here. And thank you all for being with us this
    morning.
        Dr. Kimball, let me begin with you.
        Both in your written testimony and in your written
    statement, you did not come right out and embrace Senate bill
    883. Your written testimony provides that the Department of the
    Interior, ``supports the goal of facilitating the development
    of critical minerals in an environmentally responsible
    manner.''
        We had an opportunity last year to have Dr. Meinert of USGS
    testify that he was, ``thrilled and delighted'' to see our
    critical minerals legislation. Around here we always like that
    warm embrace of legislation.
        So a yes or no answer from you, please. Do you think this
    legislation furthers the goal of facilitating the development
    of critical minerals in an environmentally responsible manner
    and increasing the mineral security of the United States?
        Dr. Kimball. Thank you, Senator.
        Well, Dr. Meinert is here with me today, and I can vouch
    for the fact that he still is thrilled and delighted.
        The Chairman. Good. [Laughter.]
        Dr. Kimball. In terms of a one word answer is yes, we do
    think that the goals embraced in Senate bill 883 will advance
    those priorities. And we really commend you and the Committee
    for elevating this very important issue.
        The Chairman. Well, I appreciate that, and know that we
    want to work with you on this.
        Let me ask about this Mineral Commodities Summaries Report
    that you do each year. We have all agreed across the table here
    that our reliance on other countries in terms of our mineral
    needs is increasing, but when USGS reports that we are seeing
    this increasing foreign mineral dependence, what happens? What
    happens next?
        If we are seeing this matrix go up do we have a concerted
    effort within the agency, anywhere within the Federal
    Government really, to reduce or then minimize the imports of
    those minerals where we are seeing this increased reliance?
        Dr. Kimball. With the USGS Mineral Commodities Report
    provides essential information that can inform national
    economic policy and trade considerations. The USGS itself does
    not enter into those kinds of policy decisions which factor
    into account economies, factor into account trade
    considerations and industry capabilities. And so once we----
        The Chairman. So you put the summary out there, but not
    much further beyond that. Is that correct?
        Dr. Kimball. That is correct.
        The Chairman. Okay.
        Let me ask you about permitting reform, because we have
    heard from many of you here at the table that permitting reform
    must be addressed. It takes an average of seven to ten years to
    permit a new mine here in this country, and one leading
    consultancy has found that permitting delays are the most
    significant risk to mining projects here in this country.
        Mr. Fogels, you mentioned a couple specifics in the State
    of Alaska where we have made some headway. I think you refer to
    the large project coordinator where you have a liaison between
    the applicant and all the agencies that are coordinating it
    that way, and we have seen improvements at the state level.
        What do you hear at the Federal level though, in contrast
    to what you are doing at the state level?
        Then a follow-on question to you, Mr. Conger, is if we were
    to adopt this type of an approach that the State of Alaska has
    with this liaison, would this help us with the Federal
    permitting process?
        Mr. Fogels.
        Mr. Fogels. Thank you, Senator.
        Yes, as I said in my testimony and further elaborated on in
    my written testimony, we have developed a fairly unique
    process. We put together our large mine team that's been in
    existence for probably close to 20 years now. Basically how it
    works is an applicant will voluntarily decide to sign up with
    the State of Alaska to get a project coordinator assigned to a
    specific project. This isn't limited to just mining projects,
    but it did start in the mining sector. And then that
    coordinator will essentially shepherd the process, will track
    every single permit, state, Federal, local, trying to bring all
    the parties to the table and be that efficient, single point of
    contact.
        I think, most importantly, it gives the public a real
    holistic way to look at the process. It makes it easier for the
    public to follow along. The process also has a strong cost
    recovery component where the applicant essentially pays for
    almost all, if not all, the state permitting expenses. And
    again, this is just for the state side that that cost recovery
    is implemented. We have a statute that gives the Department of
    Natural Resources that authority to coordinate state agencies.
    It has enabled us to build a team with expertise. The mining
    sector is very complicated. To permit a mine is a very
    complicated endeavor, so we have this built up expertise.
        On the Federal side, they don't really have a counterpart
    to our coordinator, and we've long dreamed that someday the
    Federal agencies should contemplate something similar.
        We understand that it's a little more difficult to do
    something like that on the Federal side, with a Federal family,
    but we still think there's room for the Federal agencies to
    somehow coordinate a little bit better. I think the Canadian
    National Government has a major projects office and that may be
    something to look at.
        But I think there's room----
        The Chairman. Well, I appreciate that.
        My time is up. Mr. Conger, I wanted you to just very
    briefly comment if you think that Federal application of what
    we have seen at the state level would help us with a more
    expedited or more efficient permitting process?
        Mr. Conger. Chairwoman Murkowski, it would be very helpful.
        The Chairman. Okay, good. Thank you.
        Senator Cantwell.
        Senator Cantwell. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        I have a couple of different questions.
        Dr. Kimball, I just wanted to know from you, what do you
    think you are currently lacking right now to ensure that there
    is a stable supply chain of these critical minerals for our
    economy?
        Vice Admiral Cosgriff, I wanted to ask you about what you
    have seen that are the best research partnerships with the
    Department of Energy, again, to lessen the supply chain
    challenges and disruption.
        Dr. Silberglitt, I wanted to ask you about the examples of
    using recycling as alternatives in the supply chain.
        Obviously this is all about these industries that have to
    resource and keep this development going, so I just wanted to
    really hone in on that supply chain with those questions.
        Dr. Kimball. Thank you, Senator Cantwell.
        We believe we actually have the adequate existing
    authorities to undertake the kinds of assessments and resource
    determinations around the critical minerals supply chain
    issues. And in fact, life cycle analysis is a fundamental part
    of our strategic plan for mineral resources program.
        Enabling the USGS to be able to provide the kind of
    information on the time frame identified, within the time
    frames identified, in Senate 883 will be a challenge under our
    current funding constraints.
        Senator Cantwell. Because of the complexity of that or?
        Dr. Kimball. Not so much because of the complexity, but
    because of the amount of work that it will take and the number
    of individuals that will be required to complete those
    assessments in the time frames that are identified.
        Senator Cantwell. Don't we already have a report that was
    done? Right? The DOE report, Critical Materials Strategy?
        Dr. Kimball. That's the Department of Energy document.
        Senator Cantwell. We do share, right?
        Dr. Kimball. Yes, we do. [Laughter.]
        And actually the Department of Interior and the Department
    of Energy work very, very closely together on these issues.
        The Department of Energy is focused more on technology and
    technological development associated with various industrial
    applications, whereas we're involved more with understanding
    the distribution of the resource both discovered and
    undiscovered.
        Senator Cantwell. Research partnerships, Admiral Cosgriff?
        Admiral Cosgriff. Thank you, Senator.
        Well the Critical Minerals Institute comes to mind in the
    context of this hearing and what they're working on. And in
    addition to that, which we welcome, we also have affiliations
    or companies have affiliations with universities. The larger
    ones are in-house technologists and they're always pursuing
    technology as a competitive advantage when they can find
    something the other guys don't have yet.
        So all of this R and D is going to be important across the
    entire life of these minerals from extraction I'll defer to the
    gentleman on my left for that, but all the way through their
    life, their application and the manufacturing process and then
    the sunset of that product at the end of life.
        A good example of that is what NEMA members are doing with
    lighting in a number of states where we recover lights, extract
    minerals that would be environmentally dangerous and dispose of
    it responsibly.
        Senator Cantwell. Doctor, on the recycling aspect of the
    supply chain?
        Dr. Silberglitt. Thank you, Senator.
        Recycling is certainly very important, and it's certainly
    market driven today.
        The case study of tungsten, that you quoted in your
    remarks, indicates that one can respond very rapidly, in fact,
    in some industries. The tungsten manufacturer that we talked to
    pointed out to us that they were already trying to substitute
    for tungsten as well as they could in cutting tools and using
    as little as possible and using it as efficiently as possible,
    but then with the problems with the supply chain they were able
    to start to recycle scrap and waste at an even greater rate.
        The USGS had done a study several years before, Dr. Kim
    Shed, and showed that the supply chain for tungsten has places
    where you can recycle. And so I agree that we should recycle as
    much as possible. It's a very good alternative.
        Senator Cantwell. Thank you.
        The Chairman. Senator Capito.
        Senator Capito. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you to
    the panel. I am going to start with Mr. Conger, please.
        Most of what we have heard in the panel discussion today
    has been in support of S. 883 for the reason I am going to ask
    in that the permitting process for new mines is very, very
    difficult to navigate. Generally speaking, you mentioned that
    you have been in this business for several decades.
        Would you say how the United States compares to other
    countries, and we touched on this a little bit, when it comes
    to permitting timelines for new mines?
        Mr. Conger. Thank you, Senator.
        First of all, the standards that we use throughout the
    world are based on U.S. standards. Most of the countries in the
    rest of the world have rapidly adopted the standards for the
    quality and the veracity of the regulations.
        What we find most different is the other countries that we
    work in have specific timelines for various aspects of the
    permitting process to be completed within. And they're adequate
    time frames, two, three years, typically. A lot of public
    involvement in those so there's plenty of opportunity for
    everyone to be informed and arrive at the best, you know,
    overall outcomes for the project.
        When we work on permitting here in the United States
    there's absolutely no timeline estimates that you can make. The
    most recent property that we permitted and built from scratch
    in Arizona took 12 years to permit. And there's just, in many
    cases, no way to make--break the log jams that occur and it
    just takes a long time.
        Senator Capito. Just so I understand the semi-science of
    this and maybe, Dr. Kimball, you can answer this for me. On the
    mineral, we have heard that most of the producing and most of
    the importing is from China. Is that because we do not actually
    have the minerals here or is it what Mr. Conger was saying that
    investors and companies are not investing here because of the
    uncertainty of the regulatory issues? Do we have these minerals
    here? Could we be dominating in this field?
        Dr. Kimball. I think there's a combination of factors. In
    some cases we do not have adequate resources to meet our needs
    domestically. In other cases there are industry considerations
    in terms of practicality of extracting those resources. In some
    cases we have not completely mapped the full extent of the
    resources nationally, so we aren't able to make an assessment.
    So there are a number of factors that complicate.
        Senator Capito. Contributing on the last point that you
    made in terms of that we have not adequately mapped, is that
    because we haven't placed a great enough priority on it? Is it
    because the supply is there from other countries? How would you
    perceive that?
        Dr. Kimball. Again, there are a number of factors that
    affect that. We, in fact, have done national assessments on a
    number of minerals, critical, some identified as critical
    materials, some other metals, copper and zinc come to mind as
    ones where we have done national assessments.
        There is a timeline and a work load commitment associated
    with that. We've been very fortunate to have a very good
    working relationships with industry, with other Federal
    agencies and with the university communities, but that
    coordination to move forward in a national context is not only
    complex, but it's a very, very large work load.
        Senator Capito. Does the State of Alaska do their own
    mapping exploration? I mean, do you feel like this is a
    necessary, for us to move forward, could we do it statewide
    with the Federal, sort of, overseeing in terms of discovery?
        Mr. Fogels. Absolutely, Senator. The State of Alaska does
    do its own mapping, very heavily partnering with the Federal
    agencies such as the USGS.
        Senator Capito. Right.
        Mr. Fogels. But I should make a point that as of today we
    have mapped 17 percent of Alaska, 17 percent, at a scale that's
    suitable for mineral exploration. And the remaining unmapped
    acreage in Alaska is equal to the States of Washington, Oregon,
    California, Nevada and Arizona, combined. [Laughter.]
        Senator Capito. You could probably even stick West Virginia
    in a little corner in there and still be accurate. [Laughter.]
        Mr. Fogels. I believe so.
        Senator Capito. Let me just ask a quick question. Somebody
    might be able to answer this with a yes or no.
        My perception of these types of minerals is that they are
    very expensive to purchase and could be a very lucrative
    business if we would get together and use this law to better
    coordinate and expedite our regulatory regime here. Is that
    true? Are most of them very expensive or not? Yes?
        Mr. Conger. Senator Capito, I think there would be more
    people exploring and looking for minerals if they knew that
    they could bring it to fruition and produce them, that there's
    just a huge barrier to entry with the uncertainty of how long
    it's going to take to permit.
        Senator Capito. Okay. Thank you very much.
        Thank you.
        The Chairman. Thank you.
        Senator Franken.
        Senator Franken. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        In 2013 I was a co-sponsor of the Chair's Critical Minerals
    Policy Act, and I believe that bill was able to strike a
    balance between supporting domestic critical mineral production
    and doing so in an environmentally responsible way.
        We need to continue, to make sure that mining activities
    which are vital to local economies are carried out in a manner
    that is consistent with protecting the public health, welfare,
    safety, our national security and the environment of the United
    States. I am not sure why these considerations got less
    attention in the legislation that has been introduced in this
    new Congress.
        Dr. Kimball, in your opinion have environmental impacts of
    extracting critical minerals lessened over the last two years?
        Dr. Kimball. Senator, I'm not qualified to answer that
    question in terms of whether or not the impacts have lessened
    due to changes in technology or industry practices.
        I can say that it's a very important issue. Mineral, any
    extractive industry development and environmental protection
    are not mutually exclusive goals. And so that a good
    understanding of the resource distribution, a good
    understanding of how technology can be applied and what the
    potential environmental impacts might be due to that extraction
    can work, those entities can work cooperatively together for an
    effective----
        Senator Franken. I think they have to. I mean, they are not
    mutually exclusive. They are intrinsically tied together.
        In our efforts to increase domestic production of critical
    minerals shouldn't we be concerned with doing it in a way that
    really pays due attention to health, safety and the security of
    communities and the environment as well? Anybody?
        Mr. Conger. Senator, if I may?
        We have the best regulatory regime in the world for those
    kinds of things, and I would submit that the minerals coming
    from China, for instance, are not being extracted with near the
    care and attention to the environment that we do here in this
    country.
        So I think the best thing for global population overall is
    for us to do it under our standards. As you said, they're
    intrinsically linked between our security interests and our
    ability to do it the best anywhere in the world.
        Senator Franken. Well in the prior version of the bill, in
    the previous Congress, it included substantial funding, about
    $15 million, for research to look at things like recycling and
    other alternatives to limit the overall environmental impacts
    of mineral extraction. I think that we should continue to lead
    the world in that. I think that is good for Americans, and I
    think we can do both, but the bill does not include any
    specific authorization for these programs. It is something that
    I would be interested in working with the Chairman on.
        Dr. Silberglitt, as you noted, rare earth metals are
    critical to the high tech sector, in the energy sector, but we
    also know that in many cases we are dependent on imports from
    China, as testimony cited. In recent years we have seen large
    price increases for these rare earth elements, and we need to
    make sure that our dependency does not harm our manufacturing
    sector.
        I know that there is a real risk when it comes to
    developing clean energy technologies. Dr. Silberglitt, can you
    talk about which particular clean energy technologies are most
    dependent on rare earth elements?
        Dr. Silberglitt. Thank you, Senator.
        The report that the Senator just held up from the
    Department of Energy goes into that in a lot of detail, and
    many of the renewable energy technologies such as wind energy
    rely--and more energy efficiency projects such as using
    substitutes for incandescent lighting, phosphors are important.
        So there are a host of new energy technologies, as the
    Department of Energy and the national labs have documented, for
    which the rare earths are very important.
        Senator Franken. Well I see my time has run out, so maybe I
    will include a couple of extra questions for the record.
        Thank you, Madam Chair.
        The Chairman. Senator Daines.
        Senator Daines. Madam Chair, thank you.
        Mr. Conger, according to recent studies metal mining in
    Montana has contributed $403 million, as this 2012 numbers in
    tax revenues and non-metal mining contributes $128 million.
    That includes $288 million of state and local taxes.
        Metal and non-metal mining has created nearly 20,000 jobs
    in Montana including 8,500 direct jobs. These are good paying
    jobs. In fact in Montana we know this balance between
    developing our natural resources with responsible environmental
    stewardship is the only option.
        As access to our state's one of a kind public lands is
    crucial to our state's tourism economy and our very way of
    life, it is critical that mining operators in Montana engage
    members of the community and responsible stewards of the
    resource.
        In fact, the Stillwater Mining Company mining only one of
    two of the platinum and palladium resources in all of North
    America, recently received BLM's hard rock mineral community
    outreach and economic security award in October of 2014. I
    visited the operation. These are great jobs. They do so much
    for the community, and this mining is occurring right in the
    backdrop of the Absaroka-Beartooth Wilderness Area. These
    miners work during the week, and they are backpacking, fishing,
    climbing mountains and hiking on the weekends. It is a great
    example of that balance that we seek.
        The question I have is I am told your company also has an
    excellent reputation for investing in the communities where its
    mines are located including partnering to foster
    sustainability. Could you tell me more about your company's
    initiatives in that area?
        Mr. Conger. Thank you, Senator Daines.
        We are certainly proud of Stillwater Mining as a member of
    the National Mining Association. So, congratulations on those
    achievements.
        At Freeport-McMoRan it is very important that the people in
    the areas where we live and work understand that the true
    benefit of having us as a neighbor verses us not being there.
    And there's no question we have an impact on the environment.
    We know that. We do a variety of things to ameliorate those
    impacts.
        But in the areas of education, health, and community
    development, we're strong supporters of local communities. We
    give generously to things that meet those criteria, education,
    health, etcetera, in the form of projects at schools,
    scholarships, infrastructure in cities and towns and things
    that make sense for us and the people where we live and work.
        Senator Daines. We have also seen, however, in Montana
    there have been some mining projects that have been burdened by
    extensive permitting processes that are keeping these job
    creating projects from moving forward, valuable investments in
    the communities.
        A couple that come to mind are the Rock Creek Mine and the
    Montanore Mine which have been undergoing extensive permit
    analysis for several years. The Montanore Mine is up in Lincoln
    County, up in the Northwest part of our state.
        When I was going to high school, Libby was a Double A high
    school. We are a Double A high school, my home town of Bozeman.
    Libby has gone from Double A to A. They are moving to Class B
    next year. That is really, I think, the story of what is going
    on with some of our communities which are dying with high
    unemployment rates and very low incomes. There has been truly
    an extensive, almost analysis by paralysis going on for several
    years on these projects.
        Could you expand more on the on ground impact that the slow
    permitting process has had for members of the National Mining
    Association?
        Mr. Conger. Senator Daines, in general you can't make a
    business plan without some kind of estimate of timing of
    investment itself of activities when, you know, when do we hire
    engineering, when do we hire construction, when do we hire
    permanent employees. And you know, the key to all of that is
    being able to have the permits to proceed.
        So when there's no surety of how that process is going to
    work and there are plenty of opportunities for it to be stalled
    and delayed, people can't count on anything. You can't.
        If this, the communities that you mentioned, their people
    would like to go to work there at those operations, but they
    don't have any idea when that might be able to take place.
        Senator Daines. As we say in Montana, we work but we also
    like to play.
        Mr. Conger. Yeah.
        Senator Daines. But if you do not have a job the only folks
    that will be playing in Montana are tourists coming from out of
    state because Montanans no longer can afford to raise their
    families there and that is why we need these jobs. Thanks for
    your comments.
        Mr. Conger. Thank you.
        The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Daines.
        Senator Hirono.
        Senator Hirono. Madam Chair, I would like you to allow
    Senator Manchin to go before me since he has a mark up to
    attend.
        The Chairman. Yes, certainly.
        Senator Manchin.
        Senator Manchin. Thank you, Madam Chairman, and thank all
    of you.
        I think we all know the constraints that we have producing
    the minerals this country depends on and needs. I come from
    West Virginia, as you know, and West Virginia has been
    challenged in so many ways.
        We have consistently found better ways to do things, better
    ways to find a balance between the economy and the environment.
    There has to be a balance.
        With that being said, under the Strategic and Critical
    Minerals Stockpiling Act, the Department of Defense is
    responsible for stockpiling critical minerals. In fact, one of
    the stockpiles used to be in Point Pleasant, West Virginia. An
    unbelievable site, deep water port, both rail lines coming in,
    CXS/Norfolk Southern. And it just disappeared. GSA disposed of
    it all.
        So I would ask a question to all of you concerning our
    defense and our economy, the defense of our nation and the
    economy that we depend on and all of us live our life.
        Do you believe the United States is positioned right now
    and we have sufficient rare earth minerals to do the job that
    we need done in this country to defend it and to sustain
    economic growth that we need or have we become more reliant on
    others, the outside world? All I can speak about is I have seen
    all the other countries buying up the minerals in West
    Virginia. People do not realize, basically, our best
    metallurgical coal is being bought up by Russia and India and
    China. It continues. I am sure it continues in other hard
    rocks.
        But if you all could, just very quickly on that one, talk
    about do you believe we are in a position to defend ourselves
    from the economic and the defense that we should be by having
    strategically either control or ownership of rare earth
    minerals? We will just start right down the line. Dr. Kimball.
        Dr. Kimball. Thank you, Senator.
        Well, of course, USGS does not engage in those kinds of
    analyses, so I don't feel that we're qualified to determine
    whether or not----
        Senator Manchin. You all have not looked at the inventory?
    You have not looked at basically what we have in this country?
    Who the ownership is and what the production levels are?
        Dr. Kimball. Through our mineral commodities analyses, yes,
    we have, but we have not put that in terms of what is----
        Senator Manchin. Could you get us a report on that? I mean,
    I want to know are we dependent on other countries or do other
    countries have control of our minerals which we are dependent
    on for our economy and the defense of our nation. If you could
    get me an answer on that I would really appreciate it.
        Dr. Kimball. We'll provide information for the record. Will
    that be suitable?
        Senator Manchin. Absolutely.
        [The information referred to follows:]

     [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Manchin. Mr. Fogels.
        Mr. Fogels. Yes, Senator, thank you. I guess I would have
    to say no, we're not prepared to supply ourselves with what we
    need.
        Senator Manchin. You think right now that we are dependent,
    strategically, on the things that it takes for the quality of
    life we have and defending our homeland, that we cannot take
    care of ourselves right now without outside rare earth
    minerals?
        Mr. Fogels. Absolutely. I firmly believe that, but I
    believe that we have the potential to turn that around.
        Senator Manchin. Do you have any statistics on that or any
    info that can back that up basically saying that we are not in
    a position today to self-sustain or take care of ourselves?
        Mr. Fogels. I think it is out there. I think we can----
        Senator Manchin. Can you put that together for me?
        Mr. Fogels. Get it together? Sure.
        Senator Manchin. Okay. Vice Admiral.
        Admiral Cosgriff. I think what my members look for more
    than anything else is predictability. For the most part in a
    globalized market, no matter where these minerals reside, in
    the main right now it's predictable.
        But I think as----
        Senator Manchin. You think basically we have either
    ownership or control as the United States?
        Admiral Cosgriff. I think it's a predictable source of
    minerals from my company that they need in manufacturing, but I
    think as a West Coast port problem showed, as a one off example
    of how quickly disruption can riffle through the economy.
        Senator Manchin. Oh, I----
        Admiral Cosgriff. So as I am not a miner, I do not know the
    geology of this. But as a representative of manufacturers, they
    are looking for predictability and affordability in their
    supply.
        Senator Manchin. I think my question goes deeper basically
    saying that the hard challenges we have through regulatory, of
    being able to produce the rare minerals that we depend upon
    make us more dependent, that we have less control, is what I am
    trying to say. If you all have the expertise and everything, we
    have got to make sure that the people in the United States of
    America, 300 plus million, understand that we are not in a
    position to take care of ourselves either over regulations or a
    lack of inventory or dependency on countries that basically
    could shut us off in a heartbeat.
        We know what we are talking about is China, about them
    being very aggressive in the world market. Correct? Red, do you
    have any comments on this?
        Mr. Conger. Yes, Senator Manchin, thank you. In a word, no,
    we are not self-sufficient. We could be more independent.
        To be direct about your question, the National Mining
    Association will provide you with that data and that back up
    information.
        Senator Manchin. Thank you.
        [The information referred to follows:]

        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Manchin. Dr. Silberglitt.
        Dr. Silberglitt. Thank you, Senator Manchin. I think the
    key words that we've heard today from my colleagues here are
    access and uncertainty and predictability. And so we have these
    world markets for materials and the rare earths are a perfect
    example of where we don't have control, where we depend on
    imports.
        And if that market were a fair marketplace and our
    companies could have access at the same price that anyone else
    would pay then, I think, we would have no problem. We don't
    have to control it ourselves, but that isn't currently the case
    as we said in our report.
        Senator Manchin. Okay. Well, I do not subscribe to throwing
    caution to the wind. I think there is a balance between the
    economy and the environment. We have a responsibility, but also
    we are very vulnerable, I think, and that is what I am
    concerned about.
        I want to thank Senator Hirono very much for allowing me to
    do this. Thank you.
        The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Manchin. I think your
    questions get right to the heart of why we want to have this
    legislation because there is a vulnerability and it is very
    real.
        So, Senator Hirono, thank you for generously letting your
    colleague precede you. Go ahead.
        Senator Hirono. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        This is a question for Vice Admiral Cosgriff. We have heard
    testimony today on the limited supply of critical minerals that
    are in products that we rely on everyday from smart phones to
    toothpaste to vehicles. As a consequence our landfills are
    filled with products containing critical minerals and looking
    at the testimony from Dr. Silberglitt that that in the tungsten
    situation the industry responded relatively quickly to
    producing through secondary production of tungsten through
    recycling, filling a need.
        So my question, Vice Admiral Cosgriff, is what percentage
    of electrical equipment containing rare earth minerals is
    recycled across your members and what are the impediments you
    see to increasing recycling rates?
        For the rest of the panel, anyone who wants to weigh in,
    what is recycling of critical minerals from the products that
    already contain these minerals feasible and what can we do at
    the Federal level to incentivize recycling of these products
    containing these minerals?
        Let's start with you, Vice Admiral Cosgriff.
        Admiral Cosgriff. Thank you, Senator. I can't give you a
    percentage of products that have critical minerals in them or
    the percentage of recycling that they are in. We will do our
    best to get----
        Senator Hirono. It is probably not very much.
        Admiral Cosgriff. Well, we will do our best to get that
    information to the Committee because I think it's a very good
    question and a very right question about the responsibility we
    all have, you know, suppliers, manufacturers and users, to make
    sure at the end of life of these products for environmental
    reasons and increasingly for other reasons, in this case the
    rarity of a key substance in that product, to do our level best
    to recover that.
        Admiral Cosgriff. I know in manufacturing we spend a lot of
    time trying to wring inefficiency out of our processes. Waste
    is an inefficiency. You wouldn't want to waste something with
    the word rare in it. So that's an important part of it.
        Likewise at the end of life teaming with consumers and
    other users we recover those materials as best we can. There
    are programs that do that. DOE incentivizes that. States do
    that. There is some research being done on that. I would
    encourage and congratulate the Committee on addressing that
    whole life cycle approach to these products or these materials.
        Senator Hirono. You say that there are already Federal
    incentives to recycling? Yes?
        Admiral Cosgriff. The ones I'm familiar with are for
    environmental reasons for recovering materials in lighting
    systems, and I will find out on the critical materials from the
    manufacturers point of view.
        [The information referred to follows:]

     [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Hirono. Do any of the other panelists want to weigh
    in on how feasible is it to recycle more of the products to get
    critical minerals out of these products?
        Mr. Conger. Senator Hirono.
        Senator Hirono. Yes?
        Mr. Conger. Thank you.
        Senator Hirono. Mr. Conger.
        Mr. Conger. One thing that I would point out in the case of
    copper which is well-documented. Copper has been mined and
    produced for over 4,000 years. Estimates have been made that 99
    percent of all the copper that's ever been extracted from the
    Earth's surface is still in use today and we track that
    annually. It's an integral part of the supply cycle of copper.
    Wires, you know, get--you tear down something that has copper
    wires in it, for instance, or an old motor. You take that, put
    it back into the supply chain, and that ends up constituting
    about ten percent of the total marketplace.
        So what I would point out is yes, recycling is important.
    We need to continue to encourage people to recycle and
    facilitate recycling, but it's not going to replace the growing
    demand that the world's population has for all of these things.
    It's part of it, but it's not sufficient----
        Senator Hirono. Yes.
        Mr. Conger. To not have new mines.
        Senator Hirono. I understand that, but I think recycling
    probably should/could play a bigger role in our need for these
    critical elements.
        I have another question about the Department of Energy in
    2011 and under Chair Murkowski's bill would require the DOE to
    identify and develop alternative minerals and energy
    technologies that are less reliant on minerals that could face
    supply restrictions.
        So perhaps, again, Vice Admiral Cosgriff, you can let us
    know how much progress has been made within the manufacturing
    industry on finding these alternative minerals and
    manufacturing techniques that will be less dependent on
    critical minerals? How are we progressing on that front?
        Admiral Cosgriff. Yeah, I think the thing to remember
    there, Senator, is that our companies pursue technology for
    competitive advantage, so they're always trying to find that
    special something that's going to give them a leg up.
        Pick on lighting again, in the case of LEDs, we do use
    these rare earth elements to help us tune the light to get the
    right colors, to get the right mix of colors so that white
    looks like white light, looks like white light to your eyes and
    not some off shade that drives consumers crazy.
        Right now that's the rare earth component of LEDs. In the
    future, I can't say. But it's an example of where technology
    got us to a point where we are reaping tremendous energy
    savings with these new devices. And I think it's logical to
    think that our companies will continue to pursue alternatives
    to something that's going to be expensive to source, rare earth
    elements.
        Senator Hirono. Okay.
        Thank you, Madam Chair.
        The Chairman. Senator Warren.
        Senator Warren. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        As we have discussed this morning, the innovative use of
    minerals is expanding rapidly from advanced defense technology
    to cutting edge clean energy developments. New uses are
    cropping up with increasing frequency. We depend on these
    valuable materials every day for components in phones,
    computers, roads and that means we count on having a steady
    supply of them.
        For many of these minerals we know that is not a problem.
    We know that our manufacturers and researchers will have access
    to them at reasonable prices for the foreseeable future. But
    for others, we do not have much choice except to use unreliable
    foreign sources and to accept the risks that come along with
    that.
        That is why it is so important that we invest in developing
    alternatives to critical materials and finding other ways to
    reduce our reliance on oversea suppliers.
        Northeastern University in Boston, for example, has
    conducted important research on rare earth minerals focusing on
    potential substitutes for these minerals in ultra strong
    magnets that are now used in everything from hybrid cars to
    headphones to jet engines.
        Dr. Silberglitt, given how reliant we are on importing
    critical minerals, can you explain how high quality research
    can reduce the risks associated with supply shortages and
    disruptions?
        Dr. Silberglitt. Thank you, Senator Warren. Well, research
    can reduce the risks in several ways.
        One is to reduce the amount that we use simply by using a
    material that using the same material more efficiently with a
    better product design. This is going on in the tungsten
    industry for many years, and it's accelerated because of the
    situation you describe.
        Another is, you know, to be more efficient in the way we
    actually produce these materials. Right? We talked about better
    ways to actually produce the material, to do it in a more
    environmentally sound way, to process it more efficiently, so
    that we essentially get more out of what's in the ground.
    Right?
        And another possibility is to substitute one material for
    another. I believe the research you quoted talks about using
    cerium which is a very, much more abundant and less supply
    risky material than neodymium and dysprosium which are the ones
    that are quite a bit of a problem according to the Department
    of Energy, for example.
        So there are all these different ways, and I think we need
    to, like with energy, it's not one verses another. You need
    them all. So I think we need to pursue all of those.
        Senator Warren. Good. Well that is very valuable to talk
    about the different ways in which research can be helpful in
    this area.
        Dr. Kimball, what mineral needs does our country have that
    we might be able to help address with better investments in
    research? Can you just give us an idea of that?
        Dr. Kimball. Senator, are you asking what specific minerals
    we should be pursuing?
        Senator Warren. Or general areas where we should be
    working?
        Dr. Kimball. Well, I think one of the most important things
    is really looking at the life cycle analysis of various
    minerals where we know that there is demand through industry.
    And some of those minerals are included in the list that has
    been referenced several times this morning where we do have a
    foreign dependence.
        Part of the challenges that we, as a nation, face is to not
    become too dependent on a single source for any particular
    commodity but to understand the distribution so that if there
    is disruption in those commodities that, in the supply of those
    commodities, that our needs are not put at risk. And so I think
    that's another valuable area for research.
        Senator Warren. Good. That is very important. Thank you.
        I realize that investments in high quality research cannot
    solve all our problems, but this research represents a very
    important opportunity to reduce our reliance on unreliable,
    foreign mineral sources. We can do a better job of developing
    alternatives to critical minerals, strengthen our research
    workforce and explore other ways to improve our resilience to
    supply disruptions and our nations and other research
    institutions can play a critical role in that process.
        I am pleased that the bill we are talking about today takes
    steps to address these concerns, and I look forward to working
    with the Chairman on this.
        Thank you.
        The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Warren.
        We have had a good discussion here this morning about
    understanding what it is that we have, the analysis, the
    assessments and then trying to forecast out what it is that we
    will need. How we can be more efficient in our use, how we can
    recycle, how we can find alternatives.
        I want to go back to you, Mr. Fogels, with a follow-on to
    Dr. Kimball, just in terms of the mapping.
        You have indicated that 17 percent of the State of Alaska
    has been mapped, and we have a long way to go in understanding
    what it is that we have available to us. I would imagine that
    we are in a similar situation around the country just in terms
    of having mapping and an understanding of the resource across
    the country. Obviously the more we know, the better prepared we
    are.
        How do we go about placing a priority then on mapping? We
    have had a difficult time just getting an inventory of many of
    our oil and gas resources. In my view, this falls in that same
    category.
        Is it something, and I think this goes to Senator Capito's
    point, where if the Federal Government is not doing it we rely
    on the states to do it? How do we do a better job in terms of
    the assessment?
        Mr. Fogels. Madam Chair, thank you. I mean that's a really
    good point. I think as we all know a lot of you have heard
    Alaska's financial situation at this point given the low oil
    prices probably won't let us contribute as much to our mapping
    efforts as we once have, for at least for the time being. We
    hope that----
        The Chairman. So if we do not have the mapping does that
    mean that we have investors that are just not looking at us
    because they don't know?
        Mr. Fogels. Well again, we've done a lot of really good
    work on our mapping. Already state mapping data has enabled us
    to find two significant prospects in Alaska, the Pogo gold mine
    which is producing right now and the Livengood project which is
    a fabulous project that's in pre-permitting. Both of those were
    discovered at least in part because of the state release of
    data.
        We have other projects such as the Richardson Highway area
    where a company recently staked 23,000 acres of mining claims
    based on state data. So existing state data is still driving
    investment in Alaska and will continue to do so.
        We're just looking----
        The Chairman. What about on the Federal side? If we have 17
    percent of our state lands that have been mapped, how much of
    our Federal lands have been mapped?
        Mr. Fogels. Actually I think the 17 percent figure that I
    mentioned was all of Alaska.
        The Chairman. It is, okay.
        Mr. Fogels. State, Federal and probably even private Native
    corporation lands. I don't have the actual break out,
    percentage by land ownership.
        But I mean, we definitely need to do more, and we're
    looking for innovative ways to partner with the Federal
    agencies such as the USGS to keep that rolling. And for awhile
    now anyway we'll have to rely more on the Federal agencies to
    help us with that mapping.
        The Chairman. Let me ask you, Dr. Kimball, are we giving
    sufficient priority just to the assessment and mapping in your
    view?
        Dr. Kimball. I think that we could put more effort into
    developing those baseline assessments. And as we've talked a
    lot today about how technology is driving a need for critical
    minerals, advances in scientific technology can help us with
    those assessments and mapping.
        New techniques for using hyper-spectral technology, for
    instance, which is being pioneered right now domestically in
    Alaska has the opportunity, provides us with the opportunity to
    be looking at larger areas, especially those that are
    inaccessible to the usual boots on the ground prospecting
    types.
        The Chairman. Good. Now let me ask about this early warning
    system that you referenced, Dr. Silberglitt.
        Your report contains this index that approximates the
    global concentration and production for critical raw materials.
    Can this type of an index then serve as some kind of an early
    warning system for problems related to concentration of
    production? Because it seems to me, look, this is expensive to
    produce. You have long lead times. If we can see it coming
    perhaps we can be a little more proactive here. Is that a fair
    observation?
        Dr. Silberglitt. Thank you, Senator. There are two indexes
    that we used in our report.
        One is the Herfindahl-Hirschman Index, the HHI, which is
    commonly used for commodity markets, and it shows you if you
    see that's becoming more concentrated then you see that there
    is producers that are dominating the market.
        The other, we folded into that HHI index, the World
    Governance indicators that the World Bank produces to look to
    see if the dominant producers indeed one that has a poor
    governance or that controls their market so that we need to
    worry more about that.
        I think that both of those indexes can be used if you
    benchmark them against commodity markets. So if you look at the
    changes in those indexes and you ask yourself, if I were the
    Department of Justice and this were a commodity market, would I
    worry about this?
        So yeah, that will give you some foresight. And that kind
    of benchmarking can suggest where there might be a problem
    evolving. If we had done that years ago when we saw the Chinese
    growth----
        The Chairman. Right.
        Dr. Silberglitt. In all these different markets we would
    have said, maybe, gee, this could be a problem eventually.
        But I think that forecasting can be a problem too, right?
    Because there's so much uncertainty in these markets. They can
    change very rapidly as we've seen with the rare earths and with
    other materials.
        So I think one has to take those forecasts with a grain of
    salt, use them as a guide. I'd like to do foresight rather than
    forecasting. Look at what's plausible and what the range of
    uncertainty is and then yes, these indexes can give you
    benchmarks that might enable you to see when a problem could
    occur.
        The Chairman. Let me ask you, Admiral Cosgriff and Mr.
    Conger or others, if we were better able to forecast or to
    operate with foresight, as Dr. Silberglitt has mentioned, does
    that help us here from a manufacturing perspective?
        Admiral Cosgriff. Oh absolutely. I mean, the
    predictability, that enhanced predictability, that comes with
    this sort of, these sorts of information flows, whether it's a
    forecast or foresight, reinforces the instinct of manufacturers
    to have, to always have a plan B on their supply chain. So what
    happens if?
        So they're not happy about having a single source of
    anything, no matter where that single source is from. So if
    it's in a geopolitical sensitive area that increases their
    risk.
        If there's a marker on the business side or the economic
    side that they get to see then they start to take the logical
    actions you'd expect. How do I mitigate the risk? How do I keep
    this product line going in the face of this sort of challenge?
    So information would drive this.
        The other thing that will drive it is cost. If somebody
    starts manipulating it for some reason at home or abroad that
    would get their attention very quickly, and they'd start
    looking for other sources.
        Intuitively I think my companies identify themselves as
    North American companies so intuitively they would think about
    sourcing closer just to avoid the cost of moving things
    farther.
        So all this, I think, contributes to a notion inside the
    electro industry of wanting to bring as much of this as close
    as you can and have multiple sources available.
        The Chairman. Mr. Conger.
        Mr. Conger. Chairwoman Murkowski, I would also add that if
    the free market system is allowed to work, if I can compete in
    this country with mines in other countries that have the same
    permitting horizons, roughly the same standards, then the
    supply will come from those that are most economically viable
    to do it. And in some of the cases that were pointed out by the
    Vice Admiral, if we had the opportunity to go search for and
    produce those minerals with certainty in this country, you've
    got the opportunity to actually increase the supply and drive
    the cost down.
        So it benefits us in many, many ways, and it should be, you
    know, we should not be giving up a competitive advantage of
    these minerals we have here at home because we've got such a
    difficult permitting horizon to get through.
        The Chairman. Let me ask you all one more question, and it
    is to any of you.
        You have reviewed the legislation that we have introduced
    here. One of the questions that was presented this morning, I
    think, perhaps, left a little bit of confusion about the bill
    itself and whether or not it weakens or removes any requirement
    to provide for environmental safeguards. I want to make sure
    that it is very clear that the intent of the legislation, of
    course, is to do what we can to allow for a more streamlined
    permitting system but in no way to pull the rug out from
    underneath any environmental requirements there. So to any of
    you who may wish to jump in here. Do you believe that the bill
    weakens or waves any of the requirements of existing
    environmental laws? Commissioner Fogels.
        Mr. Fogels. Yes, Senator. The State of Alaska and the
    Interstate Mining Compact Commission, we've reviewed the draft
    bill in its current form and we do not believe that. We believe
    that it provides the opportunity for the Federal agencies to
    evaluate how they do permitting, and it provides some of the
    directions to improve their permitting process.
        In Alaska we've spent a lot of time trying to improve our
    permitting process. And a lot of people will take that to mean
    we're trying to short cut it somehow and reduce protections,
    and that's not at all the case.
        With every mine project that we permit we learn from
    previous mine projects. We learn from mine projects around the
    planet, and we take what's worked well, what hasn't and we
    build on the next mine project.
        So I think we're in a process of continually improving our
    permitting process both environmentally and efficiently, and we
    believe this bill would do that.
        The Chairman. Do you think that any of the Federal agencies
    would carry out the activities that it authorizes in a manner
    that is not environmentally responsible?
        Mr. Fogels. I would certainly hope not, Senator.
        The Chairman. Any other comments? Mr. Conger.
        Mr. Conger. Senator Murkowski, Deputy Commissioner said it
    very well that you're not giving up environmental safeguards.
    We've done it in other countries. It's all about a view to
    working through a process to get to an end point not to just
    keep going through the process with various agencies all on
    their own different path.
        We, you know, the suggestions that have been made here so
    we can coordinate that. We can eliminate duplication, delays
    that come from that and have the same or better outcomes in
    less time but certainly not less safeguards.
        The Chairman. Certainly. Admiral Cosgriff.
        Admiral Cosgriff. I know this isn't the question you asked
    but something that's very much on the minds of my members is
    addressed in the bill which is the workforce development. I
    would congratulate you on that and just suggest that when we
    think about that so the poster child becomes STEM which almost
    by definition tends one to move in the direction of college and
    advanced degrees.
        But a challenge across the electro and medical imaging
    industry is the production workforce readiness too which is a
    different part of the education spectrum.
        So we commend the Committee on addressing the criticality.
    This is a generational shift occurring in our industry, and we
    are actively exploring any and all good ideas and opportunities
    to team with jurisdictions at all level and educators to see if
    we can get this right.
        The Chairman. Thank you for bringing that up because it is
    an absolutely vital piece, not only to this legislation, but
    again, when we look at our workforce that is out there. This is
    an area that I think is very important that we be weighing in
    and addressing.
        I want to thank you each for your contribution here this
    morning in discussing these issues. We talk a lot here in the
    Congress about made in America. We want everything to be made
    in America. We talk a lot about the fact that we do not like
    outsourcing. We want to bring everything back.
        I think it is so important that we recognize that so many
    of the basics we all start out with, with our phones or
    whatever, we would not be able to utilize them were it not for
    the guts of them. And where do those guts come from? It comes
    from the ground.
        If we have greater opportunity to take that from the ground
    here and do so in an environmentally responsible way--which as
    you have stated, Mr. Conger, we have higher standards than
    elsewhere around the world--then we should. It seems we do not
    have a problem taking it from another country where their
    environmental laws may be lax or their work safety or their
    labor laws are abysmal, but we will take the resource because
    we have to have it. We have to have it for our computer
    technologies. We have to have it for our renewable energy
    projects, and we are just going to turn a blind eye to how it
    came to us.
        I do not think that that is responsible. I do not think
    that is how we should be operating when we have that resource,
    when we have that potential.
        So I think it is incumbent upon us. How are we going to
    define exactly what that potential is? How do we ensure that we
    not only know what is in the ground, but how we use responsibly
    what we then take? For purposes of recycling, how we are smart
    that way.
        I do think that we have opportunities through our
    laboratories, through DOE, to be doing more to build out these
    technologies that will allow us greater opportunities for
    recycling, looking to what those alternatives are, but I am
    also very cognizant it is not unlike the goal that we have for
    renewable energy in this country. I, too, would like to get us
    off of fossil fuel, but I know that we just cannot flip that
    switch today and be there. So when we talk about alternatives,
    we need to recognize that there is a transition here, and it is
    going to be years, decades, in coming.
        So how, in the meantime, we allow for a level of security,
    energy security, is what we should be talking about.
        The discussion this morning, I think, is very, very
    important in moving us in that direction. I think what we are
    seeing from some of the states is good. We can work to
    replicate that, but let us push ourselves in terms of how we,
    as a nation, do more for our own energy security initiatives.
    It is not just when it comes to oil and gas, it is also what we
    utilize with our minerals.
        Know this Committee is going to be working on these
    initiatives. We will rely on you as the experts that you
    presented yourselves here today.
        Dr. Kimball, thank you for your leadership, again, at USGS.
    We have got a lot of work to do here, but you are clearly very
    knowledgeable in the arena and we look forward to working with
    you as we develop this moving forward.
        With that, we stand adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 11:43 a.m. the hearing was adjourned.]

                                  ----------

                          APPENDIX MATERIAL SUBMITTED

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]