    [Senate Hearing 115-523]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                                                            S. Hrg. 115-523

     THE DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR'S FINAL LIST OF CRITICAL MINERALS FOR
        2018 AND OPPORTUNITIES TO STRENGTHEN THE UNITED STATES' MINERAL
                                    SECURITY

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

                                    HEARING

                                   BEFORE THE

                                  COMMITTEE ON
                          ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
                              UNITED STATES SENATE

                         ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 SECOND SESSION

                                   __________

                                 JULY 17, 2018

                                   __________

                      [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

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

            Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.govinfo.gov

                                     ______

                       U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

    30-983                      WASHINGTON : 2020

                   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                JOE MANCHIN III, West Virginia
    CORY GARDNER, Colorado               MARTIN HEINRICH, New Mexico
    LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee           MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii
    JOHN HOEVEN, North Dakota            ANGUS S. KING, JR., Maine
    BILL CASSIDY, Louisiana              TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois
    ROB PORTMAN, Ohio                    CATHERINE CORTEZ MASTO, Nevada
    SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia  TINA SMITH, Minnesota

                          Brian Hughes, Staff Director
                    Patrick J. McCormick III, Chief Counsel
                    Annie Hoefler, Professional Staff Member
                 Mary Louise Wagner, Democratic Staff Director
                    Sam E. Fowler, Democratic Chief Counsel
                  Rebecca Bonner, Democratic Legislative Aide

                                C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------

                               OPENING STATEMENTS

                                                                       Page
    Murkowski, Hon. Lisa, Chairman, and a U.S. Senator from Alaska...     1
    Wyden, Hon. Ron, a U.S. Senator from Oregon......................     3

                                   WITNESSES

    Fortier, Dr. Steven M., Director, National Minerals Information
      Center, U.S. Geological Survey, U.S. Department of the Interior     5
    Eggert, Dr. Roderick G., Viola Vestal Coulter Foundation Chair in
      Mineral Economics, Colorado School of Mines, and Deputy
      Director, Critical Materials Institute, an Energy Innovation
      Hub funded by the Department of Energy, Advanced Manufacturing
      Office.........................................................    14
    Sims, Jim, Vice President of External Affairs, NioCorp
      Developments Ltd...............................................    24
    Mintzes, Aaron, Senior Policy Counsel, Earthworks................    43
    Sayer, Laurel, President and CEO, Midas Gold Idaho, Inc..........    50
    Gregory, Greg, President, Materion Natural Resources.............    64

              ALPHABETICAL LISTING AND APPENDIX MATERIAL SUBMITTED

    Capito, Hon. Shelley Moore:
        Chart of 2017 U.S. Net Import Reliance from the USGS Mineral
          Commodity Summaries 2018...................................    82
    Eggert, Dr. Roderick G.:
        Opening Statement............................................    14
        Written Testimony............................................    16
        Responses to Questions for the Record........................    98
    Fortier, Dr. Steven M.:
        Opening Statement............................................     5
        Written Testimony............................................     7
        Responses to Questions for the Record........................    93
    Gregory, Greg:
        Opening Statement............................................    64
        Written Testimony............................................    66
        Responses to Questions for the Record........................   111
    Mintzes, Aaron:
        Opening Statement............................................    43
        Written Testimony............................................    45
        Responses to Questions for the Record........................   104
    Murkowski, Hon. Lisa:
        Opening Statement............................................     1
    Sayer, Laurel:
        Opening Statement............................................    50
        Written Testimony............................................    52
        Responses to Questions for the Record........................   108
    Sims, Jim:
        Opening Statement............................................    24
        Written Testimony............................................    26
        Responses to Questions for the Record........................   101
    Wyden, Hon. Ron:
        Opening Statement............................................     3

     THE DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR'S FINAL LIST OF CRITICAL MINERALS FOR
        2018 AND OPPORTUNITIES TO STRENGTHEN THE UNITED STATES' MINERAL
                                    SECURITY

                                  ----------

                             TUESDAY, JULY 17, 2018

                                           U.S. Senate,
                     Committee on Energy and Natural Resources,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:03 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, everyone. The Committee will
    come to order.
        We are here today to discuss our nation's mineral security
    or, as I note, the continued lack of mineral security in this
    country. This is not a new issue for us. In fact, this is
    actually the fifth hearing that we have held on this subject in
    almost as many years.
        I think, Senator Wyden, you will recall, we have been
    talking about this for a while. While we continue to discuss
    it, the United States' dependence on foreign minerals has
    continued to increase. Last year our nation imported 100
    percent of our supply of 21 minerals and at least 50 percent of
    50 minerals. So to, kind of, put that in perspective, in 1997
    we imported 100 percent of 11 minerals and at least 50 percent
    of 26 minerals. We have just about doubled our dependence in
    the past two decades alone.
        These trends were ignored for a long time, but I think we
    are finally starting to see some positive efforts to reverse
    the tide. Last December, the President took a significant step
    by issuing an Executive Order that directed multiple
    departments to develop a strategy to reduce our foreign
    dependence. The first piece of that order directed the
    Department of the Interior (DOI) to develop a list of
    ``critical minerals.'' Secretary Zinke published that first
    annual list back in May. It includes 35 minerals deemed to be
    critical because of their economic importance, but vulnerable
    to potential supply disruptions. I am pleased the Secretary and
    his team at the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) put that list out
    for us.
        As members of Congress, we also have an opportunity to pass
    legislation to address this growing vulnerability. I want to
    thank those Senators who co-sponsored and supported my recent
    amendment to the NDAA. We were not able to add it to the bill
    on a unanimous basis, but I am certainly continuing to
    encourage the NDAA conferees to retain language to boost our
    mineral security.
        This hearing and our opportunity with NDAA are particularly
    timely based on what is happening with international trade. A
    few years back, China chose to cut off Japan's supply of rare
    earth elements. At that time, the U.S. had a small supply from
    the Mountain Pass Mine in California, but it only produced
    certain rare earths. It has since closed, so we don't even have
    that as a safety net anymore.
        My concern is if China ultimately responds to tariffs by
    restricting our supply of rare earths, or any number of other
    minerals, the U.S. could be in serious trouble.
        We have heard testimony in the past about the dangers of
    the concentration of supply from a handful of countries that
    control the supply chain. I am hopeful that we are not about to
    experience those dangers firsthand and will continue to urge
    action to reduce this significant vulnerability.
        That is really what this is all about, a serious but, I
    think, needless vulnerability. Our mineral security does not
    have to be at rock bottom. Many parts of our country, including
    Alaska, are rich in mineral resources. What we lack is a sense
    of urgency to ensure that our policies promote their
    responsible production. We have to get away from this
    ``immaculate conception'' theory of your iPhone, fighter jets,
    solar panels, all these things just happen, they just appear
    out of thin air. We have to acknowledge the fact that many of
    the materials that are used to make them actually come from the
    ground. We have to dig them up, and that is an inconvenient
    truth for some.
        I recognize that some are reluctant to address the main
    driver of this problem, and I look to our broken federal
    permitting system. But I believe that we can make some
    improvements, that we have to make improvements, and we must do
    this all while we are protecting the environment.
        The U.S. has the highest safety standards for mining
    anywhere in the world. We have the experience. We have the
    expertise to do it right. We need to work on our workforce. We
    also live in a world where permitting delays and litigation
    deter investment in our country, so we want to speak to that.
        We have a very distinguished panel with us this morning to
    help us understand the latest trends and what we can do about
    them. We will hear from technical experts from the USGS and the
    Critical Materials Institute who are following markets and
    working to develop alternatives to the many minerals, which is
    an important part of the conversation is, what else is out
    there. We will also hear from companies who want to produce
    minerals in states that strongly support their efforts. And we
    will hear from material manufacturers who take minerals and
    turn them into alloys for medical imaging equipment, defense
    applications, and more.
        So I thank you all for being here. Some days, I feel like
    this is Groundhog Day all over again, we are back again, we are
    talking about the same thing.
        Perhaps that is just the role of this Committee. We will
    continue to push on it, because it is an issue that deserves,
    demands the attention and the focus that this Committee is
    giving it.
        With that, I turn to my friend from Oregon, Senator Wyden.
    It is good to have you back here.

                     STATEMENT OF HON. RON WYDEN,
                        U.S. SENATOR FROM OREGON

        Senator Wyden. Thank you, Madam Chair, and I very much
    appreciate your holding this hearing. I think we both know that
    reminiscing around here can just be insufferable.
        I do just briefly want to note that you and I have a
    history on this topic. When I was Chair, we held a hearing to
    discuss our comprehensive, bipartisan bill, the Murkowski-Wyden
    Critical Minerals Policy Act. That bill was smart minerals
    policy because it demonstrated that efficient, predictable
    management of U.S. mineral supplies and protecting America's
    land and water are not mutually exclusive. That bill showed it
    is possible to do both.
        Now today's hearing is especially important because, in my
    view, the President has embarked on an about-face on both
    fronts. The Trump Administration is now promoting an unfair
    policy on tariffs that means that because of his approach with
    respect to tariffs on critical minerals, U.S. companies will be
    needlessly hurt in their ability to compete. This is going on
    while simultaneously there is an effort to gut the
    environmental laws. That is a real combination. Hurting family-
    wage jobs and clean air and water is, in my view, foolish even
    by Washington, DC, beltway standards. Here's why: The U.S.
    imports most of these key minerals, including 100 percent of
    rare earth metals. The imports come mostly from China. Critical
    minerals are at the heart of technologies like solar cells,
    wind turbines and batteries that are moving our country to a
    more efficient, lower carbon energy future. They are essential
    to creating more red, white and blue jobs as the clean energy
    economy already supports 6.4 million jobs across the country.
        Now, as the Chair just noted, it is especially important
    this morning to also talk about trade issues. As the Ranking
    Democrat on the Senate Finance Committee with jurisdiction over
    trade, my trade philosophy has been really simple. Make it in
    America, grow it in America, add value to it in America, and
    then ship it somewhere. One sentence.
        Instead of that kind of approach, which means you have to
    have a level playing field for our red, white and blue
    manufacturers, the President is now taking a bad situation and
    making it worse. Our manufacturers are already heavily
    dependent on Chinese supplies and China has made it difficult
    for them to obtain raw materials. Now the President wishes to
    make it even harder for U.S. manufacturers with a flawed tariff
    approach that would impose new U.S. tariffs on the raw
    materials import, making it yet more expensive and potentially
    prohibitive for U.S. tech manufacturers to make products here
    at home.
        In 2010, China tried to restrict the export of critical
    rare earth minerals, causing both price spikes and supply
    shortages across the tech sector. The United States
    successfully challenged China before the World Trade
    Organization and we were able to restore a measure of stability
    in the market. But now, thanks to the Trump Administration,
    U.S. manufacturers that depend on China for these and other
    critical materials are once again in great jeopardy.
        To basically have that trade policy that I just outlined,
    growing things here, making things here, American manufacturers
    have to have access to critical minerals. The President's trade
    strategy is almost impossible to determine, but what I know for
    sure is that we get a daily dose of trade chaos and that kind
    of chaos, particularly here, threatens access to minerals, and
    it will be American workers and American companies who suffer
    for it.
        Our country has come a long way in efficiently locating,
    extracting, processing and using critical minerals. And I want
    to come back, just as we wrap up because I see Senator Manchin
    is here. I enjoyed going to West Virginia and talking about
    energy policy with him.
        Colleagues, this does not have to be an either/or choice.
    Making sure we have markets for our companies while not harming
    our land, air and water--those things are not mutually
    exclusive. We can have smart policies that do both.
        I think I remember, Mr. Eggert, we talked about this
    already once here in this Committee.
        I am very much in favor, as I know the Chair is, of
    developing domestic supplies of rare earth and critical
    minerals. The two of us showed, back in 2013, how to go about
    doing it. We also called for a review of federal hard rock
    mining regulations and permitting, which the Chair noted, and
    leasing procedures.
        I really look forward to this morning's discussion. We
    should not have to wait another six years to come out with the
    kind of smart policy that I thought the Chair and I were
    striving for back in 2013.
        Madam Chair, thank you and I look forward to tackling this
    issue, and I know a number of others do, with you.
        The Chairman. Senator Wyden, thank you and thanks for, kind
    of, outlining some of the history there. You have reiterated
    that there has been a multiyear effort to direct a focus on
    this as a problem, recognizing that there is a level of
    urgency. When there are other policies that then come on top of
    what we might be seeking to do, that conflict and confound it,
    we have our work cut out for us.
        Senator Wyden. Sounds like a law firm, conflict and
    confound.
        The Chairman. Conflict and confound, yes. I am not going
    there.
        [Laughter.]
        I want to welcome our panel this morning. I think we
    recognize that we have a good group to help educate us further
    on these issues, so I welcome each of you.
        I would ask you to try to keep your comments to about five
    minutes. Your full statements will be included as part of the
    record.
        I do believe that we have a couple votes that are scheduled
    around 11:45 or noon, so we will be on the lookout for that. We
    are going to try to get through all of your opening statements
    and all of our questions.
        We are joined this morning by Dr. Steven Fortier. He is the
    Director at the National Minerals Information Center at USGS.
    We are pleased to have you here this morning.
        As Senator Wyden has noted, Dr. Eggert has been with us
    before. He is with the Viola Vestal Coulter Foundation. He is
    the Chair in Mineral Economics at the Colorado School of Mines
    and the Deputy Director for the Critical Materials Institute.
        Mr. Jim Sims is the Vice President for External Affairs at
    Nio Corporation Developments Limited. We are pleased to have
    you.
        Aaron Mintzes is the Senior Policy Counsel at Earthworks.
    We welcome you.
        Ms. Laurel Sayer is the President and CEO for Midas Gold
    Idaho. Welcome.
        And Mr. Greg Gregory is the President for Materion Natural
    Resources Incorporated.
        We are pleased to have all of you with us this morning.
        Dr. Fortier, if you would like to lead off the panel?
        Again, thank you.

    STATEMENT OF DR. STEVEN M. FORTIER, DIRECTOR, NATIONAL MINERALS
    INFORMATION CENTER, U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF
                              THE INTERIOR

        Dr. Fortier. Good morning, Chairman Murkowski, Ranking, or
    Senator Wyden and members of the Committee.
        Thank you for the opportunity to discuss the U.S.
    Geological Survey's efforts related to critical minerals.
        The U.S. Geological Survey conducts scientific research on
    minerals, assesses subsurface mineral resources in geological
    deposits and provides statistics on the worldwide supply and
    demand for minerals commodities essential to the U.S. economy
    and national security.
        USGS data show that domestic and global demand for mineral
    commodities continues to increase. An increasingly broad range
    of mineral commodities is used in consumer and national
    security applications, especially those involving advanced
    technologies.
        While the United States remains a major mineral producer
    with an estimated total of non-fuel mineral resources of $75.2
    billion in 2017, our country is increasingly reliant on foreign
    sources for many sources of raw and processed mineral
    materials.
        As the Chair noted, in 2017 the U.S. was 100 percent import
    reliant for 21 mineral commodities and at least 50 percent
    import reliant for 50 mineral commodities. This dependency of
    the United States on foreign sources creates the potential for
    strategic vulnerabilities for our economic and national
    security interests as a result of adverse foreign government
    actions, natural disasters or other events that can disrupt
    supply of important minerals.
        On September 20, 2017, President Trump issued Executive
    Order 13817, a federal strategy to ensure secure and reliable
    supplies of critical minerals. The Executive Order directed the
    Federal Government to deliver an interagency report to include:
    (1) a strategy to reduce the nation's reliance on critical
    minerals; (2) an assessment of progress toward developing
    critical minerals recycling and reprocessing technologies and
    technological alternatives to critical minerals; (3) options
    for accessing and developing critical minerals through
    investment and trade with our allies and partners; (4) a plan
    to improve the topographic, geologic and geophysical mapping of
    the United States; and (5) recommendations to streamline
    permitting and review processes related to critical minerals.
        The Executive Order directed the Secretary of the Interior,
    in coordination with the Department of Defense (DoD) and in
    consultation with other Executive Branch agencies, to produce a
    list of critical minerals. The USGS, in coordination with the
    Bureau of Land Management and with broad federal interagency
    input, led the development of the critical minerals list.
        The Secretary of Interior published a final list of 35
    critical minerals in the Federal Register on May 18, 2018. This
    list was developed using multiple sources of data but started
    with a screening methodology developed by the National Science
    and Technology Council. Following this methodology, the U.S.
    applied two principle quantitative criteria to evaluate
    minerals for inclusion on the list of critical minerals: a
    quantitative metric to measure country concentration of
    production and a net import reliance metric which measures the
    extent to which the U.S. is dependent on other countries for
    its supply of the material. Both metrics are based on USGS
    data.
        The list of critical minerals does not include a number of
    important minerals that are produced domestically in large
    quantities. The U.S. is not highly reliant on imports for these
    minerals and typically has a combination of domestic reserves
    and reliable foreign sources adequate to meet foreseeable
    domestic consumption requirements.
        Pursuant to the Executive Order, the USGS is also leading
    development of a plan to greatly enhance the nation's
    understanding of its subsurface geological endowment of
    critical mineral resources. The plan would lead to the creation
    of a new generation of geological, geophysical and topographic
    maps based on the newest technologies in science. The analysis
    and interpretation of these new maps will also improve our
    understanding of groundwater resources, energy resources,
    geologic hazards and other societal needs.
        Thank you for the opportunity to present on the important
    subject of critical minerals. We appreciate the strong
    engagement of Congress, other federal agencies and of the
    coordinating roles played by the White House Office of Science
    and Technology Policy, the Council on Environmental Quality and
    the National Economic Council.
        I will be happy to answer any questions.
        [The prepared statement of Dr. Fortier follows:]
        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0983.001

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0983.002

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0983.003

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0983.004

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0983.005

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0983.006

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0983.007

        The Chairman. Thank you, Dr. Fortier.
        Dr. Eggert, welcome.

       STATEMENT OF DR. RODERICK G. EGGERT, VIOLA VESTAL COULTER
       FOUNDATION CHAIR IN MINERAL ECONOMICS, COLORADO SCHOOL OF
     MINES, AND DEPUTY DIRECTOR, CRITICAL MATERIALS INSTITUTE, AN
       ENERGY INNOVATION HUB FUNDED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY,
                     ADVANCED MANUFACTURING OFFICE

        Dr. Eggert. Good morning, Chairman Murkowski, Senator
    Wyden, members of the Committee. Thank you for the opportunity
    to testify once again before this Committee.
        As you noted in your introduction, I wear two hats this
    morning. I'm a mineral economist at Colorado School of Mines,
    and I also am Deputy Director of something called the Critical
    Materials Institute, an existing federal initiative related to
    mineral security.
        This morning I will devote my oral testimony to two aspects
    of the second theme of the hearing, not the critical minerals
    list, but rather, opportunities for enhancing U.S. mineral
    security.
        I begin by talking about what I think of are five essential
    roles for the Federal Government in this space and then second,
    I will talk about the Critical Materials Institute.
        So with respect to five roles for government. First,
    there's ensuring raw materials for military needs. Second,
    facilitating undistorted international trade. Third,
    establishing a regulatory framework for efficient, domestic
    development of mineral resources that appropriately balances
    national needs for minerals with environmental protection,
    worker health and safety and the interests of local
    communities. Fourth, collecting and disseminating information
    and conducting strategic analysis on which both private and
    public decisions can be made. And fifth and finally, fostering
    technological innovation through education and research
    throughout the material supply chain which, in turn, leads me
    to the second topic of my written and oral testimony, the
    Critical Materials Institute, an existing federal initiative in
    this area.
        The Critical Materials Institute, or CMI, is a multi-
    institutional, multi-disciplinary consortium funded through
    Department of Energy's (DOE) Advanced Manufacturing Office and
    led by the DOE's Ames Laboratory. We're a consortium of
    national labs, universities and companies. Our mission at CMI
    is to create technological options for assuring material supply
    chains through three types of complimentary research, research
    aimed at diversifying and enhancing primary production,
    research aimed at reducing wastes through improved
    manufacturing efficiency, recycling and reuse and research
    aimed at using less by developing substitute materials for the
    critical minerals. CMI is active in all three areas. I should
    note that we are not involved in the upstream activities of
    geoscience research or mining, so we really start with mineral
    processing and extractive metallurgy.
        We just completed our first five years of activity. We grew
    out of the 2010 and 2011 DOE Critical Materials Strategy
    document. To date, our principal focus has been on rare earths
    with a modest amount of activity focused on lithium. We have
    filed 78 invention disclosures, filed 50 patent applications,
    received six patents and received two R&D 100 awards.
        We've had 12 innovations adopted by U.S. industry through
    licenses or other mechanisms. Examples include membrane solvent
    extraction for rare earth separations, 3D printing of magnets,
    rare earth magnets, cost-effective process for recycling rare
    earth magnets from hard disk drives and developing replacement
    materials for the rare earths, europium and terbium in
    florescent lighting. So a combination of, in effect,
    technological innovations to produce more, waste less and use
    less.
        As we enter our sixth year, we're excited to continue our
    work in linking early stage, applied research with industrial
    and societal needs. We're expanding our set of materials. We're
    engaging with a wider range of industrial partners. We're
    working to enhance our activities in education and training.
        In closing, let me cite, go back to a point I raised at the
    beginning, technology development is one of government's
    essential roles and the Critical Materials Institute is one
    existing federal initiative that has accelerated delivery of
    technological solutions to the marketplace.
        Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Dr. Eggert follows:]
        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0983.008

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0983.009

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0983.010

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0983.011

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0983.012

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0983.013

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0983.014

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0983.015

        The Chairman. Dr. Eggert, thank you.
        Mr. Sims, welcome.

      STATEMENT OF JIM SIMS, VICE PRESIDENT OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS,
                       NIOCORP DEVELOPMENTS LTD.

        Mr. Sims. Chair Murkowski, Ranking Member Cantwell and
    other members of the Committee, thank you.
        I'm Jim Sims with NioCorp Developments.
        NioCorp, we're a small business, but we're on a very large
    mission. That mission is to bring into commercial operation a
    breakthrough critical minerals mine and processing facility in
    the State of Nebraska.
        Why do I use the word breakthrough in this project? Well,
    because it's very unique. We're going to produce multiple
    critical minerals, and we're going to produce only critical
    minerals at this mine in Nebraska.
        The niobium and scandium and titanium that we're going to
    make, in addition to being critical minerals, are all used in a
    variety of commercial applications and a number of defense and
    military applications. All of those, the U.S. is overwhelmingly
    reliant on foreign nations for the supplies of each of those
    three elements.
        I would also note, I think this project is unique because
    of the way in which we've designed it to minimize and limit
    and, in some cases, eliminate planned impacts to the
    environment. I'll talk briefly about those, Madam Chair.
        Our flagship mineral is niobium. Many of you remember
    niobium, I think, on your period table from your high school
    chemistry classes. Well, you will soon.
        [Laughter.]
        Almost everybody who came to this hearing today, whether
    you came in a car or a cab or a truck or a bus or a train or
    like me, in a commercial jetliner, you experienced some of the
    benefits of niobium in the super alloys and the high strength
    steel that now goes into almost all of those vehicles and
    systems today.
        How much of that niobium that you experienced today, was
    made in the U.S.? Zero. We're 100 percent reliant on foreign
    nations for niobium. The Elk Creek project will turn that
    around. We're going to put the U.S. in a position of being a
    producer of niobium for the first time in U.S. history.
        Our second critical mineral is called scandium. It's also
    an element on the periodic table. What niobium does for steel,
    scandium does for aluminum, strengthens aluminum to a great
    degree. Scandium has applications, a variety of applications,
    in both commercial and defense. The U.S. uses it in a number of
    different military technologies.
        How much of the scandium that we use today is made in the
    U.S.? Zero. One hundred percent reliant on foreign imports. The
    U.S. will not only emerge as a scandium producer with the
    Nebraska project, the Elk Creek project, we will emerge as a
    scandium superpower. And I say that because there's only 15
    metric tons made everywhere in the world today for scandium.
    Nebraska is going to come online and make 100 metric tons per
    year.
        I think our third mineral is also important. That's
    titanium. We are about 91 percent reliant on titanium mineral
    concentrates. So we're going to help the U.S. increase our
    production of that as well.
        This is also a breakthrough of a very unique project
    because of how we've worked on the front end of the project. We
    spent a little more money, we spent a little more time to try
    to limit the environmental impacts of this project. Most mines
    of this type have to go through a number of federal permits,
    with NEPA processes. We've been able to limit our, the need for
    us to go through a lot of these because we have limited impacts
    on the front end.
        For example, we have avoided the need to go through a full
    NEPA analysis for the 404 permit that we have now in hand from
    the Army Corps of Engineers. And we did that by avoiding any
    permanent impacts to waters of the U.S. It was not easy to do.
    We had to do some metallurgical innovations that reduce the
    amount of chemicals we had to bring in. That then reduced our
    expected waste stream. It reduced the size of our tailings
    basin. It did a lot of things. It allowed us to avoid those
    impacts in the first place.
        Now not all projects are similarly situated and can do what
    we did. It makes us a little unusual. But that helps us move
    forward faster. It also reduces the risk, the permitting risk,
    that investors look at when they look to capitalize these
    projects. That helps our project go forward a lot faster.
        Finally, I just want to note in summary, Madam Chair, that
    scandium in particular, I think, is a very exciting element. It
    represents or it presents revolutionary opportunities to
    decrease the weight of automobiles, commercial airliners, in
    particular. That will increase fuel efficiency pretty
    dramatically and, of course, reduce emissions as well. We need
    more scandium. We don't have it. It's critical and strategic to
    the U.S.
        I also just want to note quickly that this project enjoys
    tremendous ``local support'' in Nebraska. That's largely due to
    our local landowners with whom we have partnerships. We're all
    on private land. We have agreements with all them for this
    project. That's usually helpful.
        Governor Ricketts has been very, very helpful, all the
    members of the Nebraska Congressional delegation, folks in the
    legislature. We just--we're gratified by that support.
        I'll also mention finally, that not only is that support
    just nice to have, it really is a requirement for a mine like
    ours to get up and running, to have that local support and
    we're glad we have it.
        Madam Chair, thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Sims follows:]
        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0983.016

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0983.017

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0983.018

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0983.019

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0983.020

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0983.021

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0983.022

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0983.023

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0983.024

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0983.025

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0983.026

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0983.027

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0983.028

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0983.029

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0983.030

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0983.031

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0983.032

        The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Sims.
        Mr. Mintzes, welcome.

     STATEMENT OF AARON MINTZES, SENIOR POLICY COUNSEL, EARTHWORKS

        Mr. Mintzes. Good morning. Thank you, Madam Chair, Ranking
    Member Wyden and members of the Committee for the opportunity
    to testify before you on opportunities to strengthen the United
    States' mineral security.
        My name is Aaron Mintzes. I'm with Earthworks. We're a non-
    profit dedicated to protecting communities and the environment
    from the impacts of mineral and energy development while
    seeking sustainable solutions.
        In December 2017 President Trump issued his critical
    minerals Executive Order (EO). The policy recommendations
    flowing from that EO are due on the President's desk this
    November.
        We are deeply concerned about any critical minerals policy
    that attempts to limit the scope of environmental reviews or
    undermines public input in our government's mining decisions.
    We understand the metals are important and used in the
    manufacture of items we use every day, including minerals
    needed for renewable energies. Yet, simply because we designate
    a mineral as critical does not mean we need more mining. This
    is particularly important given the harms and costs mining has
    on communities and the environment, extracting these minerals
    from mines damages water quality frequently, forever.
        Securing our supply of critical minerals, as Mr. Wyden
    noted, often has little to do with domestic mining. Supply
    chains, refining and product manufacturing occur globally. A
    number of our allied countries have both critical mineral
    supply and refining capacity. The best way to ensure a reliable
    supply of critical minerals is for Dr. Eggert's job, public and
    private partnerships, the sectors divest and research,
    conservation, recycling and substitution.
        DoD has a national defense stockpile and, of course, the
    Committee, as the Chairman noted, has passed legislation with
    provisions improving critical minerals research, recycling,
    workforce training and supply chain management.
        Securing our critical mineral supply does not require
    weakening of any of our environmental laws. Section 3(d) of the
    President's EO directs agencies toward, ``streamlining leasing
    and permitting processes.'' Permit streamlining is tantamount
    to removing environmental and community protections. We worry
    the Administration may justify limiting public comment, tribal
    consultation, environmental study and judicial review because
    critical minerals have defense or other important applications.
        The Administration has added to these concerns with the
    Critical Minerals Secretarial Order and CEQ's proposed NEPA
    regulations revisions. For nearly 50 years, NEPA, the National
    Environmental Policy Act, has provided certainty and
    predictability through a transparent process well understood by
    governments, permit applicants and affected communities. It
    ensures that Americans can take part in the review and
    development of projects affecting our social, economic and
    environmental health and it works. That's what Mr. Sims just
    said, it works. Public input has improved agency consideration
    of project alternatives and resulted in better environmental
    outcomes. Ultimately, NEPA is a source of strength and
    predictability. It helps lay the foundation for a mining
    company's social license to operate which gives domestic mining
    a distinct competitive advantage.
        Other nations like China, without this longstanding
    commitment to public input in mining decisions, remain
    relatively undesirable destinations for mining investment. NEPA
    lowers investment risk as compared to jurisdictions without a
    similar public outreach process. Limiting NEPA or reducing
    meaningful public participation could actually undermine
    investment by revoking the industry's social license to
    operate.
        Existing law already creates the kind of regulatory
    certainty mining companies seek. Mining is risky and mining
    companies crave that certainty. The 1872 Mining Law statute is
    still on the books from our Manifest Destiny era of westward
    expansion, still governs domestic mining. Under the 1872 law
    Americans have no choice in balancing mining with any competing
    land use. Federal land managers have little or no discretion
    with whether to permit a mine. And so, if a permittee seeks
    certainty on public lands, it doesn't get much more certain
    than that.
        Besides, any critical mineral policy must also link with
    our rapid transition to 100 percent renewable energy. Critical
    minerals play an important role in our nation's emerging
    renewable energy industry and responsible sourcing of these
    minerals means clean energy can truly be clean.
        Mining companies interested in getting on the ground floor
    and making clean energy clean may seek certification with the
    Initiative Responsible Mining Assurance, or IRMA, a multi-
    stakeholder mining certification that improves social and
    environmental performance and creates value for mines. The
    voluntary IRMA process provides investors, governments and
    mining impacted communities with a seal of approval that
    follows responsible practices. The standard is iterative, can
    be adapted to incentivize from the waste management practices
    that capture some of the byproducts on the critical minerals
    list. The private sector can help drive innovation. Honda
    expects to recycle 80 percent of their rare earths from some of
    their batteries, Siemens plans to recycle rare earths from some
    of their electric motor vehicles, and Congress and the
    Administration should focus their efforts on increasing funding
    research for the Critical Materials Institute. West Virginia
    has developed a pilot project that designed to harvest rare
    earth minerals from waste piles generated during abandoned coal
    mine reclamation.
        Finally, conservation, efficiency, recycling, substitution
    will each do more to ensure available supply of critical
    minerals than any policy that limits community input in mining
    decisions. The United States should embrace innovation, demand
    best practices and lead the world in responsibly securing our
    critical mineral supply while protecting our precious water
    resources.
        Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Mintzes follows:]
        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0983.033

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0983.034

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0983.035

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0983.036

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0983.037

        The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Mintzes.
        Ms. Sayer, welcome.

             STATEMENT OF LAUREL SAYER, PRESIDENT AND CEO,
                         MIDAS GOLD IDAHO, INC.

        Ms. Sayer. Chairman Murkowski and Senator Wyden and
    distinguished members of the Committee, my name is Laurel Sayer
    and I am President and CEO of Midas Gold Idaho. I appreciate
    the chance to come before you today to talk about our project,
    the Stibnite Gold Project.
        Once permitted Stibnite will be a producer of both critical
    minerals and precious metals. We will also restore a historic
    mining legacy site and provide jobs in rural Idaho.
        During World War II, Stibnite was essential for the war
    effort and produced more tungsten and antimony than any other
    mine in the U.S. and through on until the end of the Korean
    War. Both were critical minerals for defense. Ninety percent of
    the domestic antimony output and 40 percent of the domestic
    tungsten came from Stibnite, Idaho. However, operations at
    Stibnite did not go through the rigorous regulatory oversight
    and the site was left abandoned and in need of repair. This is
    where we come in.
        Midas Gold has identified 4.5 million ounces of gold and
    100 million pounds of antimony reserves remaining at Stibnite.
    In September of 2016 we delivered a Plan of Restoration and
    Operations, or PRO, to the Forest Service, our lead agency, to
    begin the NEPA permitting process. We designed the PRO with
    final closure in mind to ensure that the ESA-listed fish are
    reconnected to native spawning grounds that have been blocked
    for 80 years.
        The PRO will remove, reprocess, repurpose and safely store
    millions of tons of spent ore and tailings left by prior
    operators and also repair the largest source of sedimentation
    in the East Fork of the South Fork of the Salmon River. The PRO
    laid out this radical idea that mining could be used to restore
    the environment.
        We spent well over $20 million developing this plan right
    here which was summarized in a 486-page PRO and provided the
    regulators 21,564 pages, or 2.3 gigabytes, of data. Our initial
    planning was exhaustive.
        The Forest Service must approve our plan of restoration and
    operations and review the project impacts pursuant to NEPA. And
    as you can see from our visual, we must receive over 50 permits
    and approvals before we can begin construction and operation.
        My testimony is not to be misunderstood as advocacy for any
    weakening of environmental laws that play a part in permitting
    our project; however, since delivering our plan to the
    regulatory agencies almost two years ago, we have spent an
    additional $4 million paying for a Forest Service project
    manager and their third-party contractor. And in the last two
    years we spent $11 million on meeting those additional demands
    related to permitting.
        The Committee can see from this visual, how far we have
    gone under NEPA and where we have left to go. Our NEPA schedule
    has slipped three times.
        Each quarter that we fail to meet our deadline costs us
    $1.5 million in permitting costs payable to the Forest Service
    and their contractor and another $2.6 million for our personnel
    and consultants. To date, we have invested $36 million in
    presenting our project to regulators and responding to their
    queries. And yet, we are still two years away from publication
    of a Record of Decision (ROD). At the current rate of
    expenditure, the amount will almost double before a ROD is
    issued. These are substantial costs to incur even before a
    shovel goes in the ground.
        Neither Congress in the original Act nor courts which have
    reviewed NEPA challenges require perfection. The hallmark of
    NEPA review is that federal agency decision-makers should have
    before them a reasonable amount of information to make a
    reasonably informed decision. There are steps that can be taken
    to make this process work better.
        The Federal Government should bring everyone around the
    same permitting table, including the applicant, but often this
    is not the case and a simple example illustrates this. Our
    regulators wanted us to analyze an alternative location for our
    tailing storage facility which request the Forest Service
    communicated to us. We spent considerable time and dollars
    internally and externally with consultants to evaluate the
    alternate location, prepare a written report and analysis and
    then submitted it to the agencies. We later found out that the
    original requesting regulator was talking about a different
    location and the whole process had to be repeated. If we are in
    the same room working together many unrealistic, uneconomic or
    technically infeasible project alternatives can be quickly
    eliminated saving everyone time and money.
        The same holds true with ESA. The earlier project
    proponents and federal agencies can resolve issues before they
    become a problem. We are, as a Fish and Wildlife official told
    me, would be smart from the start.
        Madam Chairman and distinguished members of this Committee,
    we will clean up the Stibnite site as we execute our PRO and
    leave this magnificent part of our state better off. It's the
    right thing to do because we are blessed to live and work in
    our beautiful home State of Idaho, and we want to keep it that
    way, so does our state legislature and a joint resolution
    supporting our project is attached to my testimony.
        Again, I do not advocate for overlooking any required legal
    element of environmental review or reducing standards but
    future employment of Idahoans and environmental restoration
    hinges in the balance with each passing day while our project
    is undergoing environmental review.
        Permitting can always be more efficient which is what we in
    the mining industry believe Congress intended in the first
    place through its environmental laws.
        Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Sayer follows:]
        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0983.038

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0983.039

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0983.040

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0983.041

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0983.042

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0983.043

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0983.044

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0983.045

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0983.046

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0983.047

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0983.048

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0983.049

        The Chairman. Thank you, Ms. Sayer.
        Mr. Gregory.

                 STATEMENT OF GREG GREGORY, PRESIDENT,
                       MATERION NATURAL RESOURCES

        Mr. Gregory. Good morning, Chairman Murkowski, Senator
    Wyden and distinguished members of the Committee.
        Thank you for inviting me to participate in this hearing on
    the Department of the Interior's Final List of Critical
    Minerals.
        My name is Greg Gregory. I am President of Materion Natural
    Resources, and I work in Utah at the only domestic mine for
    production of beryllium.
        My parent company, Materion Corporation, is a publicly
    traded company founded in 1931 and headquartered in Cleveland,
    Ohio, with 2,600 employees and 33 locations worldwide. In
    addition to mining and refining beryllium, Materion works with
    25 of the 35 critical minerals listed by the Department of
    Interior.
        Materion products are used in everything from delicate
    sensors found in medical devices and implants to the harsh
    environments found in mining and oil and gas exploration.
        The product we're known for, beryllium, is the only mineral
    listed by the Department of Defense as both strategic and
    critical.
        Materion strongly urges a whole of government policy
    approach to the issue of minerals and material security. We
    also recommend that the government encourage production from
    domestic sources by buying American critical minerals and
    components made from American critical minerals, especially in
    the defense and nuclear supply chains.
        These policies broadly align with initiatives already
    approved or under consideration within the Executive Branch.
    Senior government officials consistently understand the need
    for a secure, affordable supply chain for strategic and
    critical minerals such as beryllium but the lack of a clear
    governmentwide policy concerning critical minerals has, at
    times, led to mistakes at the operational levels that have
    threatened success of the broader strategy.
        Beryllium, a space-age metal that is very strong and light
    with unique properties, enables high-tech military sensors,
    nuclear devices, mammography imaging and computers to name a
    few.
        My company operates the only mine-to-mill supply chain for
    beryllium in the world and is the only company that can say its
    beryllium products are fully made in America.
        For beryllium metal or high beryllium content materials,
    the market is driven primarily by government-funded
    applications. For low beryllium content materials such as
    copper-beryllium alloys, the markets are driven primarily by
    commercial applications. The two sides of our businesses are
    closely related.
        Materion is glad the government has taken steps to secure
    beryllium supplies including the creation of the Pebble Plant
    in Ohio.
        Between 2005 and 2011, Materion partnered with the
    government through the Defense Production Act Title III Office
    to build the first beryllium metal production facility in the
    United States in more than 50 years. Materion continues to work
    with the government, especially within the Departments of
    Defense and Energy, to ensure that beryllium remains available
    for government needs.
        The successful mine-to-market strategy shows how a
    government program can successfully identify and address a
    materials vulnerability and turn it into a source of strength
    for the American military and for American industry.
        With that being said, we see several challenges in critical
    minerals policies, especially for beryllium. Regulatory
    initiatives in Europe and the U.S., such as the 2017 OSHA
    standard, continue to threaten Materion's ability to produce
    beryllium. The OSHA standard was recently revised pending final
    rulemaking following litigation brought by Materion and other
    groups, but we remain concerned until the rule is completed.
        Within the Department of Defense, which generally
    recognizes the importance of a secure beryllium supply chain,
    there are individual program offices that undermine the
    Department's overall strategy by trying to source beryllium
    from non-allied, foreign sources. These regulations and
    procurement decisions do little or nothing to improve safety,
    but they will have significant effects on security for the U.S.
    military and the wider U.S. industrial base.
        Critical minerals, such as beryllium, are key to both
    economic and military strength. A whole of government approach
    to security of supply, including a review of regulatory
    policies, domestic sourcing legislation, investment in critical
    in item uses and industrial technologies should be considered
    to ensure access to these minerals in the future.
        Materion is glad to see that both Congress and the
    Administration are engaging with these concerns in a realistic
    and forthright manner and we look forward to supplying the U.S.
    Government and consumer needs for years to come.
        Thank you and I look forward to your question.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Gregory follows:]
        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0983.050

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0983.051

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0983.052

        The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Gregory, and thank you, each
    of you for your comments this morning. Good panel.
        Dr. Fortier, let me begin with you.
        You have indicated that when the list was put together that
    it was a cooperative collaborative. You had, obviously it is
    USGS, BLM, you have the interagency which, I think, is
    important. I further understand that there is to be a report,
    basically an action report, that will be delivered to the
    President in August. Is that correct?
        Dr. Fortier. I believe the date is now September.
        The Chairman. September.
        Dr. Fortier. Yes.
        The Chairman. Okay, so we are pushing the date back.
        My question to you is, we now have a list.
        Dr. Fortier. Yes.
        The Chairman. There are some who argue that the list isn't
    comprehensive enough. They did not get their mineral on. Some
    have generated a little bit of controversy. Uranium is clearly
    in that category.
        But a couple questions. Is this a list that will evolve? In
    other words, will we see updates to the list? What can we
    expect out of this action report?
        Because it is one thing to have a list, and I want to talk
    about whether or not there is an advantage to being on the list
    if you are designated as a critical mineral, but what is the
    process going forward and what might we expect in September in
    terms of action plan?
        Dr. Fortier. Yes. Well, to address your first question
    about whether the list is final. It is not our intention to put
    out a list that is final. It's final for this first phase, but
    the intention is to revisit this periodically. The mineral
    criticality is----
        The Chairman. Like annually or----
        Dr. Fortier. We haven't decided on the exact timing yet.
    So, we update the NSTC screening methodology annually. The
    Europeans update their critical mineral list every three years.
    So there are different schools of thoughts about how you should
    approach this.
        The Chairman. Yes.
        Dr. Fortier. We haven't agreed on that yet.
        But this is an issue that does evolve as our import
    reliance changes, as country concentration changes. We need to
    take those factors into account as well as additional, new
    applications. So it's not a static process. It will be renewed
    periodically.
        You know, in terms of the next steps and what is to come
    out of this effort. The Department of Commerce is leading the
    effort to develop a full report to comply with the different
    directives in the Executive Order that will address all the
    different aspects of critical mineral issues and strategies,
    including trade with reliable partners, options for
    substitution, needs for improved recycling, the improvement of
    the U.S. mapping of the geology and geophysics and topography
    of the United States, as well as addressing permitting issues.
    So the report is intended to lay out options for the
    Administration to consider to address these perceived strategic
    vulnerabilities that are at risk.
        The Chairman. Let me ask then about that and recognizing
    that it is not just identifying the minerals, it is looking to
    those technologies that can allow for a level of reuse or
    alternatives. It is the whole package.
        The Critical Minerals Institute that Dr. Eggert is involved
    with, do you derive good benefit from the research that comes
    from them?
        Dr. Fortier. Yes, they clearly are focused on a different
    part of the supply chain than the USGS is. We're more focused
    on mining and mineral processing, but it's complementary.
        The Chairman. And that is, I mean, looking at what the
    mission and Dr. Eggert, what you have outlined, it seems that
    within DOI there is a clear understanding. We have a
    vulnerability when it comes to our critical minerals. We need
    to identify them. We need to have an action plan. We need to
    work on certain aspects of permitting and you have that view.
        Within the Department of Energy, here is a very real role,
    and yet I understand that in the 2019 budget request the
    Administration intends to eliminate the funding and ultimately
    close the Critical Minerals Institute at DOE. Do we have a
    disconnect between what is going on in DOI and DOE, Dr. Eggert?
        Dr. Eggert. There are competing proposals, I think it's
    fair to say.
        As I understand it, as you say, the President's request
    zeros out the Critical Materials Institute but my understanding
    also is that both versions of the Energy et cetera minibus,
    both the House and the Senate, include another year of funding
    for the Critical Materials Institute----
        The Chairman. I appreciate that. It sounds like a very
    politically correct answer.
        But I guess I want to know that we are doing this on all
    fronts because as we develop this strategy and really a whole
    of government approach, which I think is the right approach,
    involve everybody because it goes across agencies. Ms. Sayer
    has indicated the issues that she has working with Forest
    Service. Mr. Gregory, you are with the Department of Defense.
    We all have to be in this together.
        Senator Wyden is very concerned on the trade in the
    commerce side of it. But it seems to me that we clearly have an
    application for the research and development that will go on.
    We will not be able to produce everything on our own. So, how
    we can reuse, how we can just be smarter with that, I think, is
    something that we should focus on.
        Let me turn to Senator Wyden.
        Senator Wyden. Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
        Dr. Eggert, let me start with you.
        As I indicated, a few years ago, Senator Murkowski and I
    had a bipartisan bill and it was good for industry, it was good
    for companies as it related to supply, and it didn't unravel,
    for example, protection for water and communities and places
    that would get hurt by reckless policies. Right now, the
    Administration is looking at policies that move us away from
    both of those objectives, particularly on the issue of tariffs.
        What I have always said is they ought to be part of the
    trade tool kit, but they have to make sense. It seems to me the
    President now is embarking on shooting American manufacturers
    in the foot by arbitrarily imposing tariffs on the raw
    materials that our companies need. For example, this month the
    Administration proposed $200 billion in tariffs on China,
    including virtually all critical materials. In your view, what
    kind of effect would that have on the ability of our companies
    to get access to the materials they need to be in the
    manufacturing business?
        Dr. Eggert. Clearly, imposing tariffs on imported
    intermediate products containing critical materials will
    increase costs for U.S. manufacturers which, for those that
    compete in international markets, will reduce their
    competitiveness.
        Senator Wyden. So it would be your view, having looked at
    this, and you are an economist so you do this for a living,
    that the Trump approach is going to harm the ability of
    American manufacturers to compete against others around the
    world who do not have tariffs imposed on their raw materials?
        Dr. Eggert. As I've testified previously and again today,
    I'm a strong proponent of undistorted international trade and
    multilateral approaches toward reducing tariffs.
        Senator Wyden. So, is that a yes?
        I mean, I am talking about being able to tell an American
    company, and I have consistently been for trade. One out of
    five jobs in my state revolves around trade. The trade jobs
    often pay better.
        But I am not for ill-advised policies. I think these
    tariffs are. Yes or no, will these tariffs hurt the ability of
    our U.S. companies to compete with people around the world who
    do not have tariffs imposed on their raw materials? I think
    that is a yes or no.
        Dr. Eggert. Well, the answer is yes.
        Senator Wyden. Okay, thank you.
        Let me ask you one other question with respect to Chinese
    market manipulation of the market for rare earths, because this
    has already been shown to wreak havoc on our production.
        Mountain Pass, a rare earth mine in California with the
    potential to reinvigorate U.S. rare earth production, had to
    declare bankruptcy in 2015 and they were basically put out of
    business because of Chinese market manipulation. This was a
    mine that was relicensed. It met the Murkowski-Wyden objective,
    our lodestar. It met the U.S. environmental standards, and we
    showed production and environmental protection are not mutually
    exclusive. Now Mountain Pass has been bought by a Chinese
    company which is going to control production.
        What effect would a mine like Mountain Pass have on U.S.
    domestic production if it really got to operate in a free and
    undistorted market?
        Dr. Eggert. Two quick responses.
        One, Mountain Pass could be an important starting point to
    reestablishing a U.S., or at least North American, supply chain
    for rare earths.
        Second, I think it's incorrect to say that it was purchased
    by a Chinese company. That Chinese company has, I think, eight
    or nine percent ownership of the equity in the company, but
    it's a non-voting----
        Senator Wyden. So who is going to control production?
        Dr. Eggert. It will be the owners overall, the vast
    majority of which is non-Chinese.
        Senator Wyden. Alright.
        So you think Mountain Pass though, from the standpoint of
    the U.S. domestic market, really could make a difference in
    terms of rejuvenating a free and undistorted market?
        That is my basic, kind of----
        Dr. Eggert. It could be a very important starting point,
    yes, for an extensive supply chain of rare earths.
        Senator Wyden. Well, I want it understood that I also
    consider Chinese market manipulation to be a serious problem,
    and I will look forward to continuing that discussion with you.
        Thank you, Madam Chair.
        The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Wyden.
        Senator Daines.
        Senator Daines. Chair Murkowski, Senator Wyden, thank you
    for holding this hearing.
        I am going to start this conversation by showing you my
    iPhone. Many of the minerals that we are talking about here
    today can be found in everyday devices like an iPhone. In fact,
    many of them we are 100 percent dependent on.
        For example, manganese, tantalum, vanadium, gallium, all
    100 percent dependent on imports; bismuth, 96 percent;
    tungsten, 50 percent. The point is these minerals are critical
    for our consumer economy. They are also critical for our
    defense industry. I will talk about that more later.
        In fact, when we talk about renewable energy, we often
    forget what it takes to develop energy storage for renewables.
    Critical minerals in battery storage technology: manganese, 100
    percent dependent on imports; indium, 100 percent; cobalt, 72
    percent; aluminum even, 61 percent.
        We talk in this Committee a lot about reducing our
    dependence and our allies' dependence on Russia and other
    countries for oil and natural gas, but I believe we are not
    focusing enough on our dependence on critical minerals.
        I gave the examples of my phone and energy storage, but it
    also affects our defense infrastructure. In fact, missile
    defense, aircraft, communications technology, even ammunition,
    all contain these critical minerals. It is important that we do
    not have to rely on Russia and on China for minerals and
    materials, that we can produce them right here in the United
    States, including my home State of Montana.
        This is not only a major national security issue but also
    has environmental consequences. Many states in the U.S., like
    Montana, have tough, and rightfully so, environmental standards
    leading to the cleanest and safest mining industry in the
    world. However, other countries do not have these same
    standards. I lived in China for five and a half years working
    for Proctor and Gamble. I saw it firsthand. These countries are
    not known for their regard for the environment. In fact, I have
    a chart right here that shows globally-sourced mineral
    commodities used in the Navy Seal gear. Whether it is night
    vision goggles or there are global positioning systems, whether
    it is their M4 carbine, they are all right here. In fact, it
    takes me back to my days studying as a chemical engineer. It
    gives you the periodic charts here again. It is kind of nice.
        Let me start by asking Mr. Sims a question.
        Do you agree the U.S. has better mining practices than
    countries like China, India, Rwanda, Russia and South Africa?
        Mr. Sims. Senator, I haven't done mineral development in
    any of those countries. I focus my efforts here in the states.
    I think it would be hard to argue, however, that the U.S.
    generally does not have stricter environmental laws, stricter
    environmental practices and processes that we have to go
    through to get permits.
        And it's also important, as I mentioned in my testimony, to
    have support from the local community in which you intend to
    operate. If you don't have, sometimes we call it a social
    license to operate, if you don't have that, you've got a lot of
    problems.
        So I think the U.S. is the best place in the world to do
    mineral development in terms of the resources we have. It is
    difficult and it does take probably longer to go through the
    permitting processes for some mines. It's not the case for us,
    but for many it is.
        There's another side of that coin and that is that you have
    to go to a really high level in order to earn those permits.
    That's probably a good thing.
        Senator Daines. So we are going to talk about the other
    side of that coin here next.
        I have a question of Ms. Sayer.
        As you describe, the lengthy permitting battle your company
    is going through, it reminds of projects in Montana like Rock
    Creek and Mountain Ore that have invested millions of dollars,
    a decade of work and are still are not approved to begin
    mining. These are locally supported. I can't tell you how much
    the local community is pleading for this permitting to be over
    with. This is up in the northwest corner of my state.
        In fact, I had dinner with a family several years ago that
    said, Steve, this is poverty with a view. It is beautiful
    country, but we lack the jobs. High unemployment rates, lost
    our tax base, can't fund our teachers, schools and
    infrastructure. These are locally supported, scientifically
    driven, and would bring huge economic benefits while also
    making the United States more secure. However, we are seeing
    huge delays. And even when the permits are given, we have to
    deal with lengthy litigation from these fringe, extreme
    environmental groups.
        Ms. Sayer, what could Congress or the Administration do
    today to speed up safe, locally supported mining projects?
        Ms. Sayer. Thank you, Senator.
        Yes, I believe that the single most thing that we could do
    would be to let the applicant proponent in the room.
        I testified earlier that we have gone through mountains and
    piles of money as we have one, as we have stood outside the
    door and slipped notes underneath the door to our federal
    agencies answering their questions, where if we could be in the
    room, if we could, if they could give us a phone call, if we
    could discuss issues and we could sit around a table and
    discuss the issues, answer their questions, we would be much,
    it would move the process forward much quicker.
        We have gone through a process of RFAIs, which is Requests
    For Additional Information. We have--the Forest Service has
    sent us requests, over 100 of them. I have a whole list of them
    right here. They have sent us these requests. They send it. It
    takes a week to get the request in writing. We respond and then
    they say, no, that really isn't the question we asked. Could
    you answer it this way or this way? And then we respond. Where
    if we were in the same room, instead of outside the door, and
    we could be there and talk directly with them and answer the
    questions. We're not asking for a decision. We're not asking
    for collusion or anything like that. We just need to answer the
    questions. We're the ones that have invested the $20 million in
    the project, we have gone and analyzed every possible
    alternative we could, so we're the experts on our project. So
    being able to be in the room because we, as well in Idaho, have
    a strong social license.
        Senator Daines. That sounds like a pretty reasonable ask,
    Ms. Sayer.
        Thank you.
        The Chairman. Thank you.
        Senator Manchin.
        Senator Manchin. Thank you, Madam Chairman, and thanks to
    all of you for being here today.
        I was very pleased to see last December when President
    Trump issued Executive Order 13817, which is a federal strategy
    to secure monopoly supplies of critical minerals. The fact that
    China maintains a near monopoly on the critical components
    needed for our defense system is beyond comprehension, and the
    ramifications of their dominance of this industry could have
    widespread implications.
        Let me give you a few figures that I have and see if you
    all have any comments on them.
        The nation experienced the danger of such extensive foreign
    dependence when China began reducing its exports in 2006. The
    average cost of rare earth imports from China rose 2,432
    percent from 2002 to 2011 and by 723 percent in 2011 alone, and
    demand is still increasing. In 2017, the value of rare earth
    compounds and metals imported by the United States increased by
    27 percent.
        What I am getting to is that we have been, for the last
    seven, eight years at WVU, NETL, the National Energy Technology
    Lab, have been--we have already mined the coal. We already have
    the waste products and all the responsibilities we have
    environmentally to clean this up. Knowing that we can extract
    these rare earth minerals from something we have already done
    is what they have been testing.
        Today or tomorrow, they are going to host a ribbon cutting
    ceremony to commission its pilot scale separation plant for
    rare earth elements from coal and coal byproducts such as acid
    mine drainage from the Appalachian Basin.
        There is so much more that we can be doing and, speaking
    hypothetically, can you describe for the Committee what we
    could expect to happen should the Chinese decide to place a
    choke hold, not even wanting to sell it to us, just basically
    through these so-called trade wars we might be entering into,
    how that would impact everyday consumers across the country and
    in my State of West Virginia?
        Whoever wants to start can start, and we will chime right
    in.
        Dr. Eggert.
        Dr. Eggert. A trade war would be unfortunate to say the
    least.
        Senator Manchin. I mean, they have a big chunk of a
    bargaining tool right now if they want to use it. Correct?
        Dr. Eggert. Absolutely.
        Senator Manchin. What does it do to the tax?
        Dr. Eggert. More tariffs or a cutoff would have significant
    negative consequences for U.S. users. One hopes that U.S. users
    have working inventories that appropriately reflect the supply
    chain risks that they face at the moment.
        In the private sector, there would be negative----
        Senator Manchin. Would it be devastating to our defense,
    for our Defense Department? We rely on so much of this.
        Dr. Eggert. Clearly, there could be implications for our
    military and essential civilian needs. I know there is a
    portion, there are people within DoD, that focus on raw
    material security and I have to say, I don't know the details.
        Senator Manchin. Okay. Dr. Eggert, maybe, Mr. Gregory, I am
    sorry.
        Mr. Gregory. Thank you for the opportunity. You could see
    me sit up.
        I come from a family with a long history of military
    service and, in fact, I have family members in the service
    today. Since the conflict started in Afghanistan and Iran, I
    can't remember a time when we didn't have family members on the
    ground.
        I feel very passionately that those soldiers that are
    representing us overseas and protecting us, who deserve the
    best systems possible, and when the ability to provide those
    systems to our soldiers is jeopardized, that's a travesty. We
    need to secure the supply of critical minerals so our soldiers
    have the best systems available to keep them out of harm's way.
        Thank you.
        Senator Manchin. Mr. Mintzes, is it Mintzes?
        We might not always agree on a lot of things coming from
    our backgrounds.
        [Laughter.]
        But with that----
        Mr. Mintzes. We might agree on one thing.
        Senator Manchin. Yes, I am sure.
        But with that being said, since we mined the coal, we have
    the deposits. We have the ability to clean up the environment.
        Would you all be supportive of doing everything that we can
    to utilize this to try to produce our own minerals, our own
    rare earth minerals?
        Mr. Mintzes. Thank you for that question, Mr. Manchin.
        So I want to be agnostic about any particular kind of--on a
    case-by-case analysis.
        Senator Manchin. Sure.
        Mr. Mintzes. But the principle that you talk about,
    absolutely.
        I'd like to just make a quick distinction because in the
    coal context the statute of the government's coal, this SMCRA,
    has a dedicated funding stream that provides resources for
    Reclamation.
        We don't have that in the hard rock mining industry. The
    1872 mining law has no Reclamation fee.
        And so, we in principle without----
        Senator Manchin. Western states were better at lobbying
    than we were.
        [Laughter.]
        Mr. Mintzes. I can imagine that.
        So my point is that we, in principle and on a case-by-case
    basis, the idea that we could use, for example, SMCRA funds in
    partnership with DOE and come up with these public-private
    partnerships that we've been discussing in order to reclaim
    some of the rare earth minerals or critical minerals from the
    coal is----
        Senator Manchin. The environmental community would be open
    to trying to work in collaboration?
        Mr. Mintzes. I want to be very careful, and it's possible,
    yes. We can work together on this.
        Senator Manchin. That is a positive.
        Thank you, sir.
        The Chairman. I think you have a possible there. There you
    go.
        Senator Lee.
        Senator Lee. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Thanks to
    all of you for being here.
        Mr. Gregory, it is good to see you. I want to thank you for
    all you do in Delta, Utah, where you provide the only domestic
    source of beryllium which is important for so many different
    reasons and so many different applications.
        It seems to me that there are so many minerals on the list,
    not just beryllium but including beryllium, that happen to be
    found disproportionately in rural areas of the country. But we
    have seen intense regulation from Washington suffocating many
    of these same rural communities where a lot of these minerals
    are found. And we have seen a lot of industries, including
    mining, including logging, that depend on federal land, being
    hurt.
        Can you explain the impact of your operation in Delta and
    on the surrounding communities and how they have come to depend
    on you?
        Mr. Gregory. Thank you.
        The leverage of mining and job creation in small rural
    communities is truly amazing.
        Our mine in Delta is a small mine. It provides 80 full-time
    jobs, good-paying jobs with good benefits, that are very
    important to a rural community such as those found in Millard
    and Judd Counties where we operate.
        On top of that, depending on the development effort going
    on at the mine, we may have as many as 100 additional
    contractors working. So you're talking 180 contractors.
        The material we mine is shipped to our plant in Ohio,
    another plant with 600 employees that converts that to
    additional materials. Materials from that plant support plants
    in Arizona, in Pennsylvania, California and multiple other
    locations, eventually supporting 2,500 jobs within our company.
        We have partners that we work with that have capabilities
    or help us to expand our capacity which easily doubles that
    number to, now you're talking 5,000 people. We have our
    customers, and our customers take that material, convert them
    to parts. We're third tier suppliers, so our material goes to
    an additional customer who makes a part. Again, you're doubling
    that number. And then, that number goes to a final manufacturer
    who is going to assemble that. If a person, if a company, is
    going to buy material sourced outside of the United States,
    they're not going to import that mineral and produce it in the
    United States. They're going to buy the finished product from
    overseas. And so all those jobs would be outside the United
    States.
        Thank you.
        Senator Lee. Right.
        So there may be more than meets the eye, a lot more than
    meets the eye, in this case and so many like it.
        Mr. Gregory. Yeah, right.
        Senator Lee. Is there a type of regulatory reform that you
    would like to see that would help to facilitate the
    exploration, development, and mining of things like beryllium
    to provide sustainable economic opportunities for communities
    like yours?
        Mr. Gregory. Yeah, we are very fortunate in Materion that
    we own our own property. We were able to obtain that property
    through a mutually beneficial land swap with the Federal
    Government, the state and we own our surface rights.
        We also, the state maintains the mineral rights. We pay
    royalties that go to the state investment land trust which
    basically ends up in the school systems and education in Utah.
    Married to a teacher, that's very important to me.
        A fair and stable permitting process is all the mining
    industry really asks for. The difficulty we have as an industry
    is when the rules keep changing. And so, that would be my main
    request is a fair, stable process.
        Senator Lee. So you don't have a moving target. That
    doesn't seem like too much to ask.
        Dr. Fortier, at a hearing before this Committee in March of
    last year, Dr. Murray Hitzman from USGS testified that much of
    the United States has not been mapped to a scale that is useful
    for potential mineral development. The President's Executive
    Order specifically tasks agencies to develop a plan to improve
    geologic mapping of the U.S. to support mineral exploration.
    Can you give us a progress report on that?
        Dr. Fortier. Yes, the Mineral Resources Program at USGS has
    written a report for Secretary Zinke and submitted that to the
    Department.
        That plan would detail the process by which we would
    implement the plan to improve our topographic, geologic, and
    geophysical survey of the United States at the appropriate
    scale that would support the exploration for critical minerals
    as well as the development of other important natural resources
    such as groundwater and energy and other societal needs.
        So that plan is well advanced and has gotten interagency
    input from the agencies involved in offshore resources and is
    also part of the report that will be submitted in response to
    the Executive Order of which it is an important piece.
        Senator Lee. Thank you.
        I see my time has expired. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Lee.
        Senator King.
        Senator King. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        Mr. Fortier, how did we get here?
        In 1978, we had 7 critical minerals that we were totally
    dependent upon other sources and now we are at 21. What forces
    made that change over the last 40 years-50 years? 40 years?
        Dr. Fortier. I'm not sure I can comment directly on the
    societal forces that resulted in this. Our role at USGS is
    simply to document this process, and we have been doing that
    for more than 100 years.
        USGS----
        Senator King. Perhaps I should direct the question to Dr.
    Eggert then.
        What made us triple the number of 100 percent dependent
    minerals? Do you have any ideas?
        Dr. Eggert. Well clearly, multiple forces are at work.
    There's no single explanation.
        A significant factor is simply globalization and increase
    in demand for many of these materials, often significant
    increases in demand and significant demand in many parts of the
    world and opportunities outside of the United States that would
    have been off limits previously, became attractive because of
    changing political circumstances----
        Senator King. So there is no single factor.
        It is interesting you haven't mentioned regulation in the
    United States as one of the factors.
        Let me follow up. Your testimony said something, and I
    think it is very important--and I apologize for missing the
    beginning of the meeting. I don't know if it has come up. You
    make a distinction between imports from any source and risky
    sources. Expand on that.
        In other words, it is not imports that are necessarily the
    problem. It is imports from places that are at some risk of
    either price gouging or cutting off our supply. Is that
    correct?
        Dr. Eggert. That's absolutely correct.
        And I didn't talk about it in my oral remarks, but in my
    written comments I make the statement, something like, import
    dependence by itself is an incomplete, and many times,
    misleading or sometimes misleading indicator of vulnerability.
        Senator King. So if we are talking about legislative
    solutions to this problem, we should really narrow the focus to
    those minerals, not all import dependent materials, minerals,
    but those minerals that come from a source that is at risk for
    some reason. Is that correct?
        Dr. Eggert. If I were able to dictate policy, yes, I'd have
    a narrower focus and import dependence would be one of several
    factors I would consider.
        Senator King. Thank you.
        Mr. Mintzes, we have not talked about mining recyclables.
    Isn't that an opportunity here? All these materials that we are
    talking about are in objects that end up in the waste stream at
    some point. Is this an opportunity to, in effect, mine the
    materials that were already here in the country?
        Mr. Mintzes. Thank you, Mr. King for that question.
        Yes, we believe that one of the main solutions to this is
    not necessarily more mining, but really is reusing or recycling
    or substituting for many of the materials we already have.
        Senator King. So that is an opportunity that also has to be
    considered as we are looking for options here.
        Ms. Sayer, you were talking about regulatory impediments
    like time and money. I agree with that, having been a developer
    myself in a former life. On the other hand, if we are going to
    relieve regulatory burdens in the case of particular minerals,
    it should be narrowly focused, should it not?
        In other words, I think that what some folks are concerned
    about is that this will be, kind of, a Trojan horse for opening
    up regulation of mining, generally, of any mineral, not
    necessarily a critical mineral. I just see from your testimony
    a way to narrow this (a) from risky sources--that eliminates a
    significant portion--and then (b) those that are truly
    critical, that we can't get from other sources. Your thoughts
    on that?
        Ms. Sayer. You know, I can only speak to what we do on our
    project here in Idaho.
        I think, I mentioned several times in my testimony that we
    are not seeking to change any regulatory reform and in the NEPA
    process than what it is today.
        I think the biggest concern is that the interpretation and
    the inefficiencies with federal agencies and their
    inconsistencies on how they interpret NEPA and how they allow,
    as they go through the process, are entirely different from
    forest to forest, from project to project and to have a
    consistency in how the interpretation is and how to implement
    it would be valuable.
        Senator King. I think that is a very important point.
        I used to say, when I was Governor of Maine, I wanted Maine
    to have the most stringent environmental laws in the country
    and the most predictable and timely environmental process. And
    I think that is what you're saying.
        Ms. Sayer. Exactly.
        Senator King. It is not the rules you are talking about, it
    is the process.
        Ms. Sayer. Yes. And there's an extremely, a very large
    problem of interpretation.
        Senator King. That would vary--if you had a different mine
    in a different area of the country, you would have different--
    --
        Ms. Sayer. Absolutely, in a different forest.
        Senator King. Fine.
        Ms. Sayer. And management that way.
        I could be in the same State of Idaho, and it could be in a
    different forest and it would be looked at differently.
        Senator King. Thank you.
        Thank you, Madam Chair.
        The Chairman. We hear that a lot. Thank you.
        Senator Capito.
        Senator Capito. Thank you.
        I would like to thank the Chair for this panel, and I want
    to thank the panel. It has been very interesting.
        I, too, am from the State of West Virginia so I am going to
    pivot off a little bit of what Senator Manchin was talking
    about in terms of coal waste and coal slag and the potential
    for this capturing of rare earth minerals from our acid mine
    drainage.
        We have Dr. ``Z'' at WVU. He has already been mentioned. He
    is opening, they are having a ribbon cutting tomorrow, as
    Senator Manchin mentioned, for its rare earth extraction
    facility.
        You can imagine in the State of West Virginia who has done
    a lot of coal mining in our time, we have a lot of refuse left
    over, a lot has been done with AML, but there is still work to
    be done and the potential to have something of value and have
    the added benefit of an environmental cleanup is very
    attractive to us.
        So, Dr. Eggert and Dr. Fortier, I would like to ask you if
    you could share your views on the opportunities and challenges
    of extracting rare earth elements from something like acid mine
    drainage as opposed to, you know, free out mining where you are
    actually getting the element directly.
        Dr. Fortier. Certainly there is a lot of potential for
    mining waste streams and then, I think, part of the directive
    in the Executive Order does require us to focus on that issue.
        Senator Capito. Right.
        Dr. Fortier. It's one of a number of solutions that we
    should, can and should be pursuing.
        Any individual opportunity that way always comes down to
    economics.
        Senator Capito. Right.
        Dr. Fortier. That's the nature of mining.
        I really can't comment on whether the process to extract
    from coal would be more economic than at some other process but
    certainly it is something we need to look at.
        Senator Capito. Thank you.
        Dr. Eggert, do you have thoughts on that?
        Dr. Eggert. I would simply echo the sentiment of your
    question and Dr. Fortier's comment, namely that there are
    significant unexploited opportunities for recovering minor
    metals from the production waste streams and leftover waste
    streams from not just coal, but phosphates, rock and fertilizer
    production, metallic mining in the western United States, even
    produced water from oil and gas production.
        Senator Capito. Do you see these processes as complementary
    or competitive in the future or is it still hard to predict
    because we do not really know the economic model?
        Dr. Fortier. I think it's quite likely that the answer to
    these issues is going to require some combination of
    approaches. Domestic mining, recycling, substitution, mining
    legacy streams, all of these things are part of the Executive
    Order and we are now required to respond with a whole of
    government approach to suggest strategies with each of these in
    mind.
        Senator Capito. Did you have an additional comment?
        Ms. Sayer, let me ask you this.
        The way I am understanding your particular mine site, you
    have a legacy mine, correct?
        Ms. Sayer. Correct.
        Senator Capito. That was unused for several years.
        Are you looking at the recyclable or are you or not
    recyclable but retaining it from some of the waste or are you
    doing the original mining for these rare earth minerals?
        Ms. Sayer. In every one of our areas that we will go in and
    mine. First of all, we will take ten million tons of
    unrestrained tailings and we're going to reprocess those and
    reuse them and we will get minerals and metals from those.
        We also will, each of the other two areas that we will be
    mining, we will be going into areas that have already been
    mined before. We'll just be doing it with modern mining. And
    that's what is so unique about modern mining today is today we
    are able to with, using modern mining, we're able to go in to
    areas that we've already mined before, go deeper, be able to
    re-mine those areas.
        Senator Capito. Good. Good.
        You know, it is interesting. I first heard of this topic at
    a Rotary Club. A professor from West Virginia University came
    down. I happened to be at the local Rotary Club. And he had
    this very same chart that was included in our briefing
    materials which is from USGS which shows the amount of the
    mineral and how much of it is imported.
        [The information referred to follows:]
        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0983.002

        Senator Capito. And you go down about the first 20 and 100
    percent of these minerals are imported and it says the major
    importer, and in most cases it is China in the top one or two
    or three.
        I think it was, sort of, jaw-dropping to all of us as we
    sit here with all of our devices and the different things that
    we realize are essential to our lives, to realize how dependent
    we are.
        So I guess my question would be along the lines of looking
    historically where we mined these materials before, did the
    economic model just drop out from under us to where it was no
    longer profitable for us and it was less expensive for us to
    import? I mean, how did we lose this buoyancy to our market and
    begin to turn into 100 percent of this imported of the 20 top
    minerals? Does anybody have an insight on to that?
        Dr. Fortier. I would say one thing about that.
        A lot of the materials we are most concerned about now that
    are on the critical minerals list, really weren't being used in
    the same amounts or in the same ways. It really, advances in
    technology and material science have opened up an entirely new
    realm of applications for these things.
        Senator Capito. Right. That makes sense.
        Dr. Fortier. So the mining of those has developed in fairly
    recent history.
        Senator Capito. Anybody else have perspective?
        Ms. Sayer. In the Stibnite Gold project, antimony, we get
    76 percent of the antimony we get is from China, 7 percent from
    Russia, 6 percent from Kazakhstan and I, we, were mining that.
        We use it in strategic. We use it in military grade
    munitions. It's being used. We're just getting it somewhere
    else. And one of the reasons I think is because, to be honest,
    how difficult it is for permitting and investment in the states
    because of permitting.
        Senator Capito. Thank you.
        Thank you, Madam Chair.
        The Chairman. Thank you.
        Senator Risch.
        Senator Risch. Thank you, Madam Chairman. Thank you for
    holding this hearing.
        Anybody who thinks this is not important just needs to look
    back some years ago when the Chinese and the Japanese had a
    spat and the Chinese just flat cut off Japan's access to this
    material. It just flat shut things down there and particularly
    in some very critical industries for them. So it is important
    that we do focus on this and see what we can do about it.
        Mr. Mintzes, I noticed you, kind of, smirked when you
    talked about the westward expansion development of America. You
    know, in Idaho we take this very seriously. We do not smirk
    about it. Mining is an extremely important industry for Idaho.
        Let me tell you about the Great Seal of the State of Idaho.
    There are two people on it. Depicted on the left is a woman who
    represents agriculture and justice and education and a number
    of other things. Featured prominently in the middle are our
    mountains and our streams which we cherish deeply. And on the
    right-hand side is a man who is featured, the same stature as
    those others, he carries a shovel and a pick. That tells you
    how important this is to the great State of Idaho.
        Our development was closely tied to mining. Indeed, we had
    one governor assassinated and it was a result of a mining
    dispute. Mining has played a prominent role in this.
        I hope you listened carefully to what Ms. Sayer talked
    about trying to permit this mine at Stibnite. She is ably
    supported by Michael Bogart who is sitting behind her. Michael
    is General Counsel to one of the best governors that Idaho ever
    had.
        [Laughter.]
        And he had a distinguished career here in Washington, DC,
    also.
        Thank you for what you do. I think probably one thing that
    really ought to come to everyone's, the front of everyone's,
    mind here after listening to what Ms. Sayer said is this is not
    a poor people's sport. Trying to do this in America today takes
    tremendous amount of capital assets and not only does it take
    that, it takes a board of directors and officers who will stick
    with something like this because it is demoralizing.
        Those of us who practiced law represented a lot of people
    trying to do this in Idaho. We have legacy sites. We have new
    sites. And to try to do it, you lose a lot of sleep at night.
        Ms. Sayer, how much has your company recognized in revenue
    as a result of all your expenditures so far?
        Ms. Sayer. Well the total amount we spent, $20 million
    doing this. We've already gone over and above on $11 million
    additional into what we have paid the Forest Service which
    the--and the third-party contractor which was over $5 million.
    So in total, I think we're around, I think the number was $86
    million we will have invested, plus this is a billion-dollar
    project to build. We will invest $1 billion once we get the
    record of decision to build this project. So, it's a very
    large----
        Senator Risch. What does the other side of the ledger look
    like? How much have you taken in so far?
        Ms. Sayer. Oh, I'm, probably----
        Senator Risch. Probably close to zero isn't it?
        Ms. Sayer. Oh, for the production. Oh, yeah, this has all
    been investor money. We have not had, I hear where you're going
    with that question.
        Senator Risch. Yes, that is my point exactly.
        Ms. Sayer. Yes, we have not----
        Senator Risch. What kind of stamina it takes to get this
    done.
        Ms. Sayer. We don't have any profit at all, exactly.
        Senator Risch. I want to assure Mr. Mintzes that although
    all of us who have worked in this recognize and desperately
    need streamlining, there is nobody trying to degrade the
    environment. There is nobody more committed to the environment
    than the people in Valley County who are promoting this. The
    legislature that has passed a memorial in this session
    promoting this, all of us, value our mountains and our streams
    greatly. Valley County is probably one of the prettiest places
    in America, and those people that live there really value that
    tremendously.
        I can also assure you that in Idaho we have an umbrella
    organization called the Idaho Conservation League, and the
    Idaho Conservation League is going to look over these people's
    shoulder very, very carefully.
        I know this is going to be hard for you to believe coming
    from Washington, DC, but they actually know Idaho better than
    you do and they are going to very, very carefully monitor this.
    They have been so far. I think the project is to be commended
    for keeping them in the loop as much as they have.
        So, with that, I wanted to go into a little bit about how
    important this is, but I think there is plenty of literature
    and most people are well aware of it.
        Madam Chairman, thank you for holding this hearing.
        The Chairman. Thank you, Senator.
        I will just note for the record that the great State of
    Alaska has on its seal a pick and a gold pan recognizing the
    contributions that mining has brought to our state as well, so.
        Senator Hoeven from the great State of North Dakota.
        Senator Hoeven. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
        We don't do a whole lot of mining other than for lignite
    coal, although we do a lot as you know of drilling for oil and
    gas, as do you.
        But this is a very timely hearing. Thank you for doing it.
        I want to start with--do you pronounce it Dr. Fortier or--
    --
        Dr. Fortier. Fortier.
        Senator Hoeven. Okay.
        I understand there are 21 rare earth minerals where we
    import 100 percent of what we use. Why? Is that because we just
    don't have them or we just don't produce them?
        Dr. Fortier. I think for----
        Senator Hoeven. I know we get a lot of them from China.
        Dr. Fortier. Most of the minerals that are on our import
    reliance chart which Senator Capito had earlier, which we
    publish every year, are available and are in the U.S. We have
    reserves or resources in the U.S. They are not mined typically
    for economic reasons in the U.S.
        Senator Hoeven. Alright.
        Are there things then that we should be doing from a policy
    standpoint to promote mining those minerals here rather than
    importing our entire use, you know, recycling the materials
    they are in, encouraging mining? What would make sense in your
    opinion?
        Dr. Fortier. I think there are a number of things that are
    outlined in the Executive Order that the President issued in
    December that are part of the response to the report responding
    to that order, they are exactly the kinds of things that you
    just mentioned.
        USGS' role is to identify and inform those policy
    decisions, not make them ourselves. So we are contributing to
    that report by ensuring that the information that people are
    using to make policy recommendations is, in fact,
    scientifically accurate and sound.
        Senator Hoeven. For example, mapping is helpful, those
    kinds of things?
        Dr. Fortier. Mapping is an important part of the response
    to the Executive Order.
        Senator Hoeven. Regulatory burden?
        Dr. Fortier. The USGS is not a regulatory agency, so I
    can't address that.
        Senator Hoeven. I know, but we are asking for your
    recommendations.
        Dr. Fortier. I really can't speak to that as a
    representative of an agency that does not do permitting.
        Senator Hoeven. Alright then, Dr. Eggert, how do we develop
    more public-private support for development of some of these,
    production of some of these minerals? Should we and how should
    we?
        Dr. Eggert. I think the Federal Government plays an
    important role even though we rely primarily on the private
    sector to develop the commercial activities throughout the
    material supply chain. There are a range of policies, many of
    which have been contained in legislation that the Chairman has
    worked with other members on in the past, and they include more
    efficient permitting that has appropriate environmental
    protections. They include information and strategic analysis in
    places like the USGS. Clearly geologic mapping that underpins
    precompetitive types of research and development, as well as
    education, the workforce and professionals necessary for a
    minerals and materials industry. All of these are important
    roles for the Federal Government.
        Senator Hoeven. Mr. Sims, you have a big project going, or
    you are working on a big project, I understand, in Nebraska and
    Elk Creek. What are the minerals? This could be as much as a
    billion-dollar capital investment. What is it you are after?
    Why there? And how is it going in terms of local, state and
    Federal Government as far as permitting that type of
    enterprise?
        Mr. Sims. Thank you, Senator.
        We're looking to produce three critical minerals, niobium,
    scandium and titanium, all of them have uses in a variety of
    commercial----
        Senator Hoeven. Titanium, of course, I know about. What are
    the other two for?
        Mr. Sims. The two, they're on your periodic table and I
    know you remember these from your high school chemistry class.
        Senator Hoeven. That's good. I look at it all the time.
        Mr. Sims. But they're both metals and niobium goes into
    steel, predominately. It makes a high strength steel, so it's
    used increasingly in bridges and infrastructure projects. It
    lets bridges last in excess of 100 years instead of, say, 30 to
    50. It's used in virtually all steel chassis automobiles today
    on the planet. You put a little bit of niobium, very small
    amount in steel and it creates a really, really strong steel.
    It also then lightens the applications. So, it makes cars
    lighter in mass, therefore, more fuel efficient. Therefore,
    they have less emissions.
        Scandium is also a metal that does for aluminum what
    niobium does for steel.
        Senator Hoeven. Okay.
        Mr. Sims. Add in a very small amount, it makes aluminum
    extremely strong, much more corrosion resistant. It's also
    used, interestingly, not in its metal form, in a, I would say,
    a higher efficiency, clean energy technology called solid oxide
    fuel cells. It's a natural gas fuel technology but it's very,
    very highly efficient, much lower emissions profile and very
    highly dependent electricity.
        So those are the two, in addition to titanium, those are
    the two we're looking to produce.
        Senator Hoeven. So are you advancing this project and how
    is it going and what are the regulatory barriers or is it going
    well?
        Mr. Sims. We're going well. We're going great.
        We have a feasibility study done which is about a $35
    million plus effort over the last four years. We're now in the
    process of focusing 24/7/365 on raising that up-front capital
    required to go to construction. That's going well.
        And as I mentioned in my testimony, we have been fortunate
    in that we were able to make some changes on the front end at
    the design stage of this process to avoid and, in some cases,
    eliminate what we anticipated were environmental impacts on the
    front end. We've engineered a lot of those out so our
    permitting process, we still have dozens and dozens of permits
    to get to go forward. Most of those now, virtually all of
    those, are governed by the state and in terms of a federal
    permitting burden or risk, as you would look at it, it's very,
    very low now. So we're moving ahead.
        Senator Hoeven. Very good.
        Thank you.
        The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Hoeven.
        Senator Cantwell, we have had a great hearing this morning.
    It is now your turn.
        Senator Cantwell. Thank you so much, Madam Chair, and I
    appreciate my colleague, Senator Wyden, being here earlier.
        One of the questions that my colleague was getting at: When
    you think about how we protect ourselves writ large, the
    Strategic Petroleum Reserve is a good example. We make sure
    that we don't have a short supply.
        In the global market, tight supplies can sometimes push the
    innovation we were just discussing.
        And so, what, I think Mr. Eggert--and I apologize, your
    name plate there, it doesn't quite show your name as forcefully
    there.
        Anyway, the point is, on global supply chains and
    shortages, the notion is that recycling can help us,
    particularly with alternative minerals. What should we be doing
    to fortify that for the future?
        Dr. Eggert. Recycling, to me at least, obviously is part of
    the solution. It's not the entire solution.
        There's already significant recycling of many of the major
    metals, aluminum, copper, iron and steel. There's much less
    recycling of the specialty metals, the rare earths, the
    lithiums, the niobiums of the world.
        It will be some time before recycling can be an important
    meeter of demand because many of the products into which these
    materials are going have only recently been purchased and have
    lifetimes of 5, 10, 15, 20 years. A period of time in which
    demand will be growing.
        But now's the time to put the, to be thinking about
    collection systems, sorting systems and processing technologies
    that will be then available when the quantities of materials
    are sufficiently large that recycling can play a larger role.
        Senator Cantwell. As I mentioned, the Strategic Petroleum
    Reserve is our interest in making sure that we don't get caught
    short. Why not take the same approach?
        For example, we are working on recycling of carbon fiber.
    Obviously it made a big play in aerospace, carbon fiber, but is
    still very expensive for smaller entities to make those kinds
    of investments. We are going to have a lot of carbon fiber, so
    we are recycling it so that smaller entities can use it in a
    cost-effective way.
        This is a DOE program. Why not have a similar DOE program
    on some critical minerals? So instead of waiting for the market
    to play that role, let us get started in playing that role. I
    think, what we are trying to evaluate as it relates to carbon
    fiber is, what are all those other small businesses that are
    going to develop once they see that you can successfully do the
    recycling of carbon fiber?
        It is just so new, right? But the one thing that we have as
    a nation, the strength of the United States from a competitive
    perspective, is our R&D and our ability to take that R&D and
    show a scalable solution.
        I see a bunch of people nodding. If somebody else wants to
    jump on this point?
        Dr. Eggert. Let me just say, I agree absolutely.
        The consortium that I'm involved with, the Critical
    Materials Institute, is in fact this DOE, a DOE consortium of
    public-private partnership, if you will, where we helped
    develop a process for recycling yttrium and thermal barrier
    coatings. And so, yes, there is activity in that area that
    potentially could be more important, more broadly than within
    DOE and it's----
        Senator Cantwell. Are there several other minerals that you
    would recommend right now for that same kind of recycling?
        Dr. Eggert. I don't have specific recommendations, really
    any of the minor metals that have important uses in military
    applications.
        Senator Cantwell. Okay.
        Anybody else? Just a bunch--yes, go ahead.
        Mr. Sims. Senator, obviously we're going to be producing
    scandium in Nebraska when we're up and running. We're going to
    produce 100 tons per year of scandium which, by the way, sounds
    like a lot. It's not.
        There is a market for scandium, certainly in the U.S. and
    globally of, at a minimum, several hundred tons per year. So
    even when we're up and running, we're going to be the largest
    producer, the U.S. will be the largest producer by far of
    scandium. But it's not going to be enough. We'll be able to
    sell our scandium, we believe, but perhaps other development
    and potentially someday, some recycling may be necessary to
    meet that growing demand. You need both, I think.
        Senator Cantwell. I am a big fan of reforming the 1872
    Mining Law and getting a fair deal for taxpayers and making
    sure that we update the reclamation standards. What about that?
    Getting product from the mining waste that we are not doing
    today?
        Mr. Mintzes. Thank you, Senator.
        So one of the great features in reforming the 1872 Mining
    Law is that it would help create that dedicated funding source
    for Reclamation that we already see in the context for coal.
        And so, as the West Virginia senators were mentioning
    earlier, the notion that you could, in principle, carefully, on
    a case-by-case basis, look at projects whereby that Reclamation
    Fund pays for these kinds of activities that the researchers
    and the private-
    public--the DOE is doing right now is possible.
        Senator Cantwell. Thank you.
        Thank you, Madam Chair.
        The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Cantwell.
        Just a few final questions here. We have a vote that has
    just been called, so it is good timing here.
        Ms. Sayer, you have indicated that you are operating on
    Forest Service land. I detected a fair amount of frustration
    from you in saying that if it was a different Forest Service
    you might be subject to different interpretation or different
    issues that might be presented.
        Explain to me--it seems that almost without exception we
    have issues that are brought before this Committee and whether
    it is mining or whether it is grazing or whether it is
    harvesting trees, whether it is oil and gas permitting, it
    seems invariably it is harder and more complicated to do it on
    federal land.
        So your comments about what you are dealing with is, again,
    consistent with everything that we have heard. The fact that we
    are seeking to access these minerals that have been identified
    by our own Federal Government as important. They are critical.
    They are important for us to have. Does that give you, as a
    company that is looking to develop on public land, on our
    Forest Service land, does that give you any advantages?
        I will ask Mr. Gregory the same question. You have noted
    that beryllium provides significant advantages to the
    Department of Defense. It has been identified as not only
    strategic but also critical. Because it has been designated so
    and the Department of Defense needs this, are there any
    advantages?
        We are going to a lot of trouble to put minerals on a list.
    But if it is just put on a list and we are still making it just
    as complicated and difficult to gain access to it in this
    country, I guess I am asking a somewhat rhetorical question is
    why do we put it on the list? Your comments? And Mr. Sims, you
    can join us in this discussion.
        Ms. Sayer. So my first thoughts of that would be the
    advantages for the business model and the investment of it
    attracting investors and help with the business model to have,
    to be listed on there.
        It would, it also provides, it's benefited us in a social
    license aspect with our communities. We have committed citizens
    of Idaho that want to contribute to supporting the critical
    minerals and this particularly antimony basically because there
    is a history. It's surprising to see the grandfathers of the
    people that still live in the community who used to work at the
    mine during the war years. So, social license, business
    investment, those are all real and that is, that does attract.
        The Chairman. Those are both very, very key.
        Ms. Sayer. Yes.
        But the--it would be, what would be the most helpful as the
    tax reforms have been put into place and how that has been
    attractive. If we could have the permitting to match that tax
    reform and those other benefits that have come. We need to get
    the expertise in the permitting across the board that is
    efficient and that is consistent and the rules are there, the
    regs are there. There is just the interpretations are
    inconsistent across the board.
        The Chairman. Mr. Gregory.
        Mr. Gregory. Materion is--there ought to be a long-term
    reliable partner and supplier to both the Department of Defense
    and the Department of Energy, starting with the Manhattan
    Project and we have always supplied in a competitive
    environment.
        The area where being a strategic and critical mineral comes
    into play though is both departments frequently issue requests
    for proposals on ways to improve technology, to reduce cost, to
    secure supply and, you know, we respond to those requests. It
    gives us a seat at the table and our ideas are judged based on
    merit and where we have a good idea, you know, maybe we get a
    hearing that we might have not otherwise.
        So to me, that is an advantage is getting a seat at the
    table when we're looking at improving these resources.
        The Chairman. Mr. Sims.
        Mr. Sims. Madam Chair, I think one of the biggest outcomes
    of this process, besides what may happen with government
    relation permitting is just helping Americans understand the
    extraordinarily number, large number and complexity of the
    supply chains that make this iPhone and everything else.
        I'm still trying to get my three kids, Noah, Ella, and
    Hannah, to understand just how hard it is to make one of these.
    In the 1960s it took about 12 elements on the periodic table to
    make a computer chip. It now takes more than 60.
        So helping Americans understand that we need these and we
    need more than we used to will help them, I think, bring to the
    table more support for developing these minerals whether
    they're mined or whether they're recycled or in the cases where
    we have to import them.
        The Chairman. I appreciate that.
        Dr. Eggert, I asked about the role of the Critical Minerals
    Institute and all that they do. Your testimony describes the
    advanced materials and the chemical separation technologies.
        Are you familiar with the molecular recognition technology
    that Ucore is looking at? It is an effort to do the rare earth
    separation. This is up in Alaska. This is something that we
    have been in discussion with them on for some time. I am
    wondering if you are familiar with it and if this is something
    that CMI is perhaps involved with or reviewing?
        Dr. Eggert. I am familiar with, know of the molecular
    recognition technology that Ucore is developing. It's one of
    several potentially very revolutionary techniques in terms of
    rare earth separations, one of the key challenges in rare
    earths. CMI is aware of this. We are not actively engaged with
    Ucore, but that certainly is a possibility in the future.
        The Chairman. Yes.
        And one of the things that we have not discussed here this
    morning, we have been talking about the resources themselves,
    but our reality is that we are not doing any of the processing.
    That is all going to China too. That is another level of
    vulnerability.
        When we talk about this full supply chain and what it is
    really going to mean in terms of vulnerability, if we are able
    to extract it safely here, good for us, but if the next step is
    always going to be China for the processing, guess what, we are
    back in the same opportunity for more strangleholds here. So I
    put that out there.
        I know you all think about it, but particularly when we are
    talking about the role that China plays with these critical
    minerals, we have to be thinking about it full stream.
        The other issue that really didn't come up. I think, Dr.
    Eggert, you mentioned it somewhat briefly and maybe Dr. Fortier
    in your written testimony, and that is the issue of developing
    a workforce here.
        I know that in Alaska we have great mines, great mining
    opportunity, but to develop the men and women to go into this
    industry, these critical industries that supply this whole
    supply chain. I am worried about that end of it as well.
        It is one thing to have the resource. It is another thing
    to be able to extract it efficiently and in a manner that
    allows for a process that is fair, that is environmentally
    sound, but you have to have the men and women and it is more
    than just the extraction.
        So I feel like, again, this is yet one more year that we
    focus on this as an issue. We are shining a spotlight that is
    important.
        I appreciate, again, what the Administration has done with
    the focus with the Executive Order. I think that was necessary,
    but there is so much, much more that needs to be done and it
    takes everybody here.
        I see some folks from the mining industry that are part of
    this discussion. They know that it is more than just about
    taking it out of the ground. It is how we do it and making sure
    that we are attractive from a regulatory perspective, but also
    from that investment perspective.
        Mr. Mintzes, I think you mentioned in your written
    testimony that you felt that this country was a pretty good
    place for investment among one of the world's most attractive
    destinations for mining investments. I am sure not hearing that
    from folks.
        That is another aspect of what it is that we need to do to
    address that. And unfortunately, until you have some regulatory
    certainty, until you have some clear policies here, it is tough
    to get investors because what you do out there is not cheap. It
    is not easy and it is not quick.
        And that social license that you talk about, Ms. Sayer, I
    think we all recognize that there is a responsibility. We take
    that very seriously. I know the industry takes it very, very
    seriously. All these pieces working together will allow us to
    move forward.
        But we are not moving fast enough in my book, and I am
    going to continue to sound the alarm, continue to press on the
    urgency because as we saw from that chart that Senator Capito
    shared with us, that is part of our binders here this morning.
    Our situation is not getting better. It is progressively
    getting worse and vulnerability is not a place where I want to
    be today.
        I thank you for your time and thank you for the expertise
    that you have shared with the Committee.
        With that, we stand adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 12:00 p.m. the hearing was adjourned.]

                          APPENDIX MATERIAL SUBMITTED

                                  ----------

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0983.053

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0983.054

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0983.055

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0983.056

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0983.057

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0983.058

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0983.059

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0983.060

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0983.061

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0983.062

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0983.063

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0983.064

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0983.065

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0983.066

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0983.067

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0983.068

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0983.069

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0983.070

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0983.071

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0983.072

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0983.073

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0983.074

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0983.075