[House Hearing, 118 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]





                               

2023


 
    H.R. ____, ``TRANSPARENCY AND PRODUCTION OF AMERICAN ENERGY ACT


 OF 2023''; AND H.R. 209, ``PERMITTING FOR MINING NEEDS ACT OF 2023''

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

                          LEGISLATIVE HEARING

                               before the

                       SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND
                           MINERAL RESOURCES

                                 of the

                     COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
                     U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                    ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS

                             FIRST SESSION

                               __________

                       Tuesday, February 28, 2023

                               __________

                            Serial No. 118-5

                               __________

       Printed for the use of the Committee on Natural Resources
       
       
      [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] 


        Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.govinfo.gov
        
        
                                   or
          Committee address: http://naturalresources.house.gov
          
          
                            ______

             U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE 
 51-411 PDF          WASHINGTON : 2023       
          
      

                     COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES

                     BRUCE WESTERMAN, AR, Chairman
                    DOUG LAMBORN, CO, Vice Chairman
                  RAUL M. GRIJALVA, AZ, Ranking Member

Doug Lamborn, CO                 Grace F. Napolitano, CA
Robert J. Wittman, VA            Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan, 
Tom McClintock, CA                CNMI
Paul Gosar, AZ                    Jared Huffman, CA
Garret Graves, LA                 Ruben Gallego, AZ
Aumua Amata C. Radewagen, AS      Joe Neguse, CO
Doug LaMalfa, CA                  Mike Levin, CA
Daniel Webster, FL                Katie Porter, CA
Jenniffer Gonzalez-Colon, PR      Teresa Leger Fernandez, NM
Russ Fulcher, ID                  Melanie A. Stansbury, NM
Pete Stauber, MN                  Mary Sattler Peltola, AK
John R. Curtis, UT                Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, NY
Tom Tiffany, WI                   Kevin Mullin, CA
Jerry Carl, AL                    Val T. Hoyle, OR
Matt Rosendale, MT                Sydney Kamlager-Dove, CA
Lauren Boebert, CO                Seth Magaziner, RI
Cliff Bentz, OR                   Nydia M. Velazquez, NY
Jen Kiggans, VA                   Ed Case, HI
Jim Moylan, GU                    Debbie Dingell, MI
Wesley P. Hunt, TX                Susie Lee, NV
Mike Collins, GA
Anna Paulina Luna, FL
John Duarte, CA
Harriet M. Hageman, WY

                                     

                                     
                                     
                                     
                                     

                    Vivian Moeglein, Staff Director
                      Tom Connally, Chief Counsel
                 Lora Snyder, Democratic Staff Director
                   http://naturalresources.house.gov
                                 ------                                

              SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES

                       PETE STAUBER, MN, Chairman
                     WESLEY P. HUNT, TX, Vice Chair
              ALEXANDRIA OCASIO-CORTEZ, NY, Ranking Member

Doug Lamborn, CO                     Jared Huffman, CA
Robert J. Wittman, VA                Kevin Mullin, CA
Paul Gosar, AZ                       Sydney Kamlager-Dove, CA
Garret Graves, LA                    Seth Magaziner, RI
Daniel Webster, FL                   Nydia M. Velazquez, NY
Russ Fulcher, ID                     Debbie Dingell, MI
John R. Curtis, UT                   Raul M. Grijalva, AZ
Tom Tiffany, WI                      Grace F. Napolitano, CA
Matt Rosendale, MT                   Susie Lee, NV
Lauren Boebert, CO                   Vacancy
Wesley P. Hunt, TX                   Vacancy
Mike Collins, GA
John Duarte, CA
Bruce Westerman, AR, ex officio

                                 ------                                
                                CONTENTS

                              ----------                              
                                                                   Page

Hearing held on Tuesday, February 28, 2023.......................     1

Statement of Members:
    Stauber, Hon. Pete, a Representative in Congress from the 
      State of Minnesota.........................................     1
    Ocasio-Cortez, Hon. Alexandria, a Representative in Congress 
      from the State of New York.................................     3
    Westerman, Hon. Bruce, a Representative in Congress from the 
      State of Arkansas..........................................     5
    Grijalva, Hon. Raul M., a Representative in Congress from the 
      State of Arizona...........................................     6

Statement of Witnesses:
    Naatz, Dan, Chief Operating Officer, Independent Petroleum 
      Association of America, Washington, DC.....................     8
        Prepared statement of....................................    10
        Questions submitted for the record.......................    12
    Nolan, Rich, President and CEO, National Mining Association, 
      Washington, DC.............................................    13
        Prepared statement of....................................    15
    Squillace, Mark, Professor of Law, University of Colorado, 
      Boulder, Colorado..........................................    27
        Prepared statement of....................................    29
        Questions submitted for the record.......................    36
    Thomsen, Paul, Vice President of Business Development, 
      Americas, Ormat Technologies, Reno, Nevada.................    38
        Prepared statement of....................................    40
        Questions submitted for the record.......................    44

Additional Materials Submitted for the Record:

    Submissions for the Record by Representative Westerman

        USGS/Department of Commerce: Fig. 1--The Role of Nonfuel 
          Mineral Commodities in the U.S. Economy (Est. values in 
          2022)..................................................    79

    Submissions for the Record by Representative Stauber

        American Petroleum Institute, Letter of support for H.R. 
          209....................................................    95
        Essential Minerals Association, Letter of support for 
          H.R. 209...............................................    96
        American Exploration & Mining Association, Letter of 
          support for H.R. 209...................................    98
        Women's Mining Coalition, Letter of support for H.R. 209.   105
        Louisiana Mid-Continent Oil & Gas Association (LMOGA), 
          Letter of support for H.R. 209.........................   107
        List of organizations supporting H.R. 209................   108

    Submissions for the Record by Representative Grijalva

        National Parks Conservation Assoc., Letter dated February 
          27, 2023...............................................   109
        Letter from green groups in opposition to H.R. 209.......   111

    Submissions for the Record by Representative Ocasio-Cortez

        BOEM Oil and Gas Leasing Report (as of Feb. 1, 2023).....    84
        GAO Report--National Environmental Policy Act: Little 
          Information Exists on NEPA Analyses (GAO-14-369; April 
          2014)..................................................    85
        GAO Report--Hardrock Mining: BLM and Forest Service Have 
          Taken Some Actions to Expedite the Mine Plan Review 
          Process but Could Do More (GAO-16-165; January 2016)...    86
        GAO Report--Abandoned Hardrock Mines: Information on 
          Number of Mines, Expenditures, and Factors That Limit 
          Efforts to Address Hazards (GAO-20-238; March 2020)....    87
        E&E article titled, ``House Republican fires opening 
          salvo on energy permitting'' (January 10, 2023)........    88
        AP news article titled, ``US official: Research finds 
          uranium in Navajo women, babies'' (Oct 2019)...........    90
        National Mining Association Fact Sheet: Support Reform of 
          the Mining Law to Keep U.S. Mining Competitive.........    92
        Outdoor Alliance, Letter dated March 6, 2023.............    93

    Submissions for the Record by Representative Dingell

        Open Letter to the Biden Administration on the Rice's 
          whale in the Gulf of Mexico (Oct. 2022)................    51
        NOAA Technical Memorandum--Status Review of Bryde's 
          Whales (Balaenoptera Edeni) in the Gulf of Mexico Under 
          the Endangered Species Act (Dec. 2016).................    58
    .............................................................
                                     



LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON H.R. ____, TO RESTART ONSHORE AND OFFSHORE OIL, 
GAS, AND COAL LEASING, STREAMLINE PERMITTING FOR ENERGY INFRASTRUCTURE, 
  ENSURE TRANSPARENCY IN ENERGY DEVELOPMENT ON FEDERAL LANDS, AND FOR 
OTHER PURPOSES, ``TRANSPARENCY AND PRODUCTION OF AMERICAN ENERGY ACT OF 
 2023''; AND H.R. 209, TO IMPROVE THE PERMITTING PROCESS FOR MINING ON 
FEDERAL LAND, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES, ``PERMITTING FOR MINING NEEDS ACT 
                               OF 2023''

                              ----------                              


                       Tuesday, February 28, 2023

                     U.S. House of Representatives

              Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources

                     Committee on Natural Resources

                             Washington, DC

                              ----------                              

    The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:17 a.m., in 
Room 1324, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Pete Stauber 
[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.

    Present: Representatives Stauber, Lamborn, Gosar, Graves, 
Webster, Fulcher, Curtis, Tiffany, Rosendale, Boebert, 
Westerman; Ocasio-Cortez, Kamlager-Dove, Magaziner, Dingell, 
and Grijalva.

    Mr. Stauber. The Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral 
Resources will come to order.
    Without objection, the Chair is authorized to declare 
recess of the Subcommittee at any time.
    Under Committee Rule 4, subdivision F, any oral opening 
statements at hearings are limited to the Chairman and the 
Ranking Minority Member.
    I now recognize myself for an opening statement.

    STATEMENT OF THE HON. PETE STAUBER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 
              CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MINNESOTA

    Mr. Stauber. Welcome, everyone, to the Energy and Mineral 
Resources Subcommittee's first legislative hearing of this 
118th Congress.
    First, I would like to acknowledge our new Ranking Member, 
Representative Ocasio-Cortez. Our Subcommittee is poised to 
tackle issues of great importance, and I am eager to work with 
you, your staff, and the rest of this Committee. Although we 
may disagree at times, our Subcommittee leadership has always 
operated in a bipartisan fashion, and I look forward to 
continuing that tradition.
    America needs permitting reform, whether it be for the 
burgeoning offshore wind industry, building transmission lines 
to upgrade our energy grid, solar fields on Federal lands, 
geothermal steam projects, mining proposals, or oil and gas 
development. All of these projects need permitting reform to 
ensure timeliness, transparency, and certainty.
    To that end, we are here this morning considering two 
proposals: the TAP American Energy Act, introduced by my friend 
and colleague, and our full Committee Chair, Bruce Westerman; 
and the Permitting for Mining Needs Act, which I introduced 
last month and now has 33 co-sponsors.
    To quote a witness at our February 8 Full Committee 
oversight hearing on permitting, ``Without reforms to ensure 
reasonable timeliness, crucial investments in American 
infrastructure will be delayed and in some cases diverted. 
Various provisions outlined in the TAP Act and other thoughtful 
permitting proposals will help encourage the timely development 
of clean energy infrastructure across this country.''
    This is from the American Clean Power Association, the 
largest trade association representing wind, solar, and more 
clean energy technologies: ``Every megawatt of wind capacity 
requires tens of thousands of pounds of copper, according to 
the International Energy Agency. The Biden-Harris plan for 
offshore wind alone is 30,000 megawatts by 2030. The IEA 
estimates that offshore wind requires 17,600 pounds of copper 
for every megawatt.''
    We need hundreds of millions of pounds of copper to only 
construct the turbines for meeting this Administration's 
offshore wind goals. This does not account for the materials 
needed for electric vehicles, charging stations, distribution, 
transmission, storage, health care, tech, or more. It is only 
turbine construction.
    The answer for this Administration is to import and 
recycle, but that is not based in reality. If the COVID-19 
pandemic has taught us anything, it is that we must be self-
reliant on our own supply chains, and there are simply not 
enough materials in existence now to recycle our way out of 
this mess, and recycling centers also require permits.
    It takes an absolutely unreasonable amount of time to mine 
here in the United States. In my district alone, we have a mine 
project in its second decade of permitting and litigation. We 
have another that has its lease arbitrarily canceled and a 
mining ban put in place over some of the best mineral reserves 
in the world.
    At a recent Oversight Subcommittee hearing, my Democrat 
colleague from New Mexico discussed the need for a multi-
pronged effort to address our supply chains. I agree, but right 
now it is not multi-pronged. Right now, the only plan is to 
import from abroad and some vague references to recycling.
    Minnesota, like Arizona, Alaska, Utah, or other states has 
the resources, the workforce, and the political willpower to 
mine. We just have to have an Administration not turn its back 
on us.
    Meanwhile, the Energy Information Administration predicts 
50 percent increase in global energy consumption by 2050, with 
petroleum and liquid fuels remaining the largest energy source.
    American resources are the cleanest produced in the world. 
Chairman Westerman, Federal Lands Chairman Tiffany, and myself 
toured Federal land operations near Hobbs, New Mexico earlier 
this month. We saw how clean operations are firsthand, from 
construction to remediation. They are not hiding. They will 
provide a tour to anyone who asks. Yet, the Administration 
continues to kneecap American workers and American production.
    On the first days in office, President Biden froze new oil 
and gas leasing. Although sued and forced to comply with the 
Mineral Leasing Act, it has been nothing but delay after delay 
with this Administration.
    Remember, it takes more than one permit to approve a 
project on Federal lands. Operators must comply with various 
statutes, including NEPA. However, approval times skyrocketed 
from an average of 400 days under Trump to 650 days under Joe 
Biden, with total approvals plummeting well below 50 percent.
    The TAP Act fixes these issues and then some. It also 
explicitly improves upgrades to NEPA that make it easier to 
deploy transmission lines so we can supplement our energy grid, 
building on coal, gas, and nuclear to include solar, wind, and 
more. I am proud to support this legislation, and I am eager to 
move it alongside my Permit MN Act.
    America's energy future is in question. We remain beholden, 
even after learning the lessons of COVID-19, to our foreign 
adversaries for hardrock minerals and our energy fuels.
    I look forward today to the witness testimonies, and I am 
eager to move America forward with the TAP Act and the Permit 
MN Act.
    Thank you, and I yield to my colleague from New York, 
Ranking Member Ocasio-Cortez.

       STATEMENT OF THE HON. ALEXANDRIA OCASIO-CORTEZ, A 
     REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK

    Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. Thank you so much, Chairman Stauber. And 
I, too, am looking forward to working with you this Congress. 
And it is agreed, while our policy difference may be very stark 
at times, I think conducting this Committee in a professional 
and courteous manner is what the American people deserve, and I 
look forward in working with you on that.
    I also want to extend a special thank you to all of our 
witnesses that are here today, and for taking the time and 
resources necessary to be here.
    This Committee has a profound responsibility and role in 
mitigating the impacts of the climate crisis. We have a 
timeline that is simply inescapable in decarbonization, and our 
actions and decisions that we make today will have profound 
implications for our future. And as overwhelming as it may all 
feel with the climate crisis, the very select few of us in this 
very room can do something about it.
    This Committee has the unique privilege of overseeing our 
nation's public lands. As it stands now, nearly a quarter of 
the United States' current carbon pollution comes from fossil 
fuel production on public lands. I will say that again: A 
quarter of U.S. carbon emissions comes from the public lands 
that we oversee right here in this room. And failing to do 
something about it would be a profound lost opportunity on a 
timeline that we simply cannot get back.
    So, with that, I want to dig into today's hearing. I want 
to first address an argument that I am sure we may hear today, 
that we need to open our public lands further to drilling and 
mining in order to achieve ``energy independence,'' despite the 
fact that fossil fuel companies are already using large 
portions of U.S. public lands.
    And it is in our view that the problem is not a shortage of 
leases or land; the problem is a fossil fuel industry that is 
more interested in keeping supply artificially low so that 
prices stay artificially high. And I believe there is almost no 
greater illustration of this point than the profiteering and 
artificial surge in gas prices that we all experienced last 
year and over the last several years at the height of the 
pandemic and after the war in Ukraine.
    The truth is that these companies are not necessarily 
primarily motivated by energy independence. They are 
corporations primarily interested in profit.
    But let's dig in to the two pieces of legislation that have 
been introduced today.
    The first, the TAP American Energy Act, is a fossil fuel 
industry wish list. It would eviscerate the authority and 
discretion of land and ocean energy management agencies to make 
smart, informed, and prudent decisions about the best uses of 
our shared public lands and offshore areas. It would force the 
DOI to hold lease sales quarterly in every state with oil and 
gas reserves, despite the fact that the fossil fuel industry 
already holds leases covering nearly 26 million acres, half of 
which are not being used at all. And it would also allow oil 
and gas operators to drill on up to 57 million acres of split 
estate resources without Federal oversight. This is shocking.
    The second, Permit MN, would loosen our mining regulations 
for the most toxic industry in America. It would allow mining 
companies to stake a claim to public lands without even having 
to prove that the earth beneath them contains valuable 
minerals. It would limit environmental reviews and, 
egregiously, it would allow mining companies to conduct their 
own environmental reviews.
    This bill also attacks the rights of tribal communities. It 
allows the mining industry itself to fast-track tribal 
consultation processes, despite the fact that the vast majority 
of minerals needed for clean energy are within 35 miles of 
tribal land, and that nearly 40 percent of western headwaters 
have already been polluted by hardrock mining.
    At stake is the need to decarbonize rapidly while 
prioritizing justice for the traditionally most impacted 
communities in America. It is for our ecosystems and for our 
planet. And because of this urgency, I look forward to today's 
discussion and hearing from our witnesses.
    Thank you, Chairman, and I yield back.

    Mr. Stauber. Thank you very much.
    And now I would like to allow the Chairman of the Full 
Committee, Mr. Westerman, for his opening statement.

  STATEMENT OF THE HON. BRUCE WESTERMAN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 
              CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ARKANSAS

    Mr. Westerman. Thank you, Chairman Stauber, and thank you 
to the witnesses for coming today.
    Robert Frost, in his famous poem, he talked about two roads 
diverging. And I think our country is at a point where we have 
two roads diverging. And it is very important that we choose 
the correct path. If we continue down the path that we are on, 
we are going to go down a path where we lose. Quite frankly, we 
are going to lose. And the only way that we can lose is if we 
beat ourselves. And that is what current policies are doing. 
They are causing us to beat ourselves.
    We can do better than this. We can choose a path that 
allows America to be energy independent, allows us to have more 
national security, and allows us to protect the environment 
more than we could ever hope to protect it down the path that 
we are on right now.
    When we talk about--I heard it mentioned that supplies and 
prices are artificial. They are not artificial, they are real. 
Our constituents are paying the price of bad policies that 
result in high energy prices that translates throughout our 
whole economy. As energy is so important as a foundation of the 
economy, when we raise those prices it raises prices 
everywhere.
    We can have clean energy. We produce energy cleaner in 
America than anyplace else in the world. That doesn't mean we 
should stop innovating, but our innovators can't innovate 
because of the barriers put in place by bureaucrats and by 
policies that are antiquated, that need updated.
    And I am for all-of-the-above energy, all-of-the-above 
energy. But as my friends across the aisle are finding out, 
even though they appropriated huge sums of money in the 
Infrastructure and Jobs Act, huge sums of money in the 
Inflation Reduction Act, those projects can't be built for the 
same reason that fossil fuel projects can't be built. It is 
because of the paralysis through the permitting system.
    And I hope people will look at the facts, because I think 
it starts in this Committee, if we want to take the right road. 
And I want to work across the aisle with my colleagues, because 
I want to do what is best for our country, what is best, 
really, for the entire planet.
    [Chart.]
    Mr. Westerman. And this chart behind me that I have used 
several times, it shows what is happening with global energy 
consumption. It is not a slight increase. It is an exponential 
increase. And if you look at, globally, 80 to 90 percent of 
energy use globally is from fossil fuels, from carbon-emitting 
sources. Do you think we can change that by cutting off the 
quarter of the greenhouse gas pollutions that come from Federal 
lands in the United States? It is only going to make it go up 
higher, because developing countries, quite frankly, don't give 
a rip about what is happening to the environment.
    We produce energy with less emissions, cleaner, and safer 
on our facilities than we do anywhere else. We were just out in 
New Mexico, and the methane emissions off of the wells in New 
Mexico are down to a fraction of a percent because we innovated 
and used the right technology. But it doesn't matter how much 
we innovate if we can't do the projects once the technology is 
developed.
    And it is not just oil and gas production, it is mining. 
All this money for ``green energy,'' ``carbon-free energy,'' we 
don't have enough copper, we don't have enough steel, we don't 
have the rare earth elements to build what we need to build. We 
have those, they are just in the ground. We have to get them 
out, we have to process them.
    And in the meantime, we can be creating great jobs here in 
America, instead of exporting our wealth, quite literally, to 
China, because they are the ones that are dominating the world 
in mineral supplies. And every time we refuse to permit a mine 
here in America, we are depending more on mines that are 
controlled by Chinese.
    And you all heard the story: cobalt is mined with child 
slave labor in Chinese mines. That is not something we are 
making up. That is what is happening in the world today, and we 
are driving that kind of policy, we are driving that kind of 
process because we refuse to do what we all know needs to be 
done--is to streamline the permitting, to make it where we can 
actually build stuff in America, because we can do it better 
than any place else in the world.
    I look forward to hearing the testimony today, and I look 
forward to marking up and passing bills, and I really hope we 
can do this in a bipartisan manner for the betterment of 
America.
    I yield back.

    Mr. Stauber. Thank you, Chair Westerman.
    Now I would like to yield 5 minutes to the Ranking Member 
of the Full Committee, Mr. Grijalva.

  STATEMENT OF THE HON. RAUL M. GRIJALVA, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 
               CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ARIZONA

    Mr. Grijalva. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the 
courtesy, and a special thanks to the Ranking Member for adding 
her leadership and her perspective to this Subcommittee.
    I associate myself with the Ranking Member's opening 
comments. And while my colleagues across the aisle are finally 
beginning to admit climate change does exist, and that it is 
real, the bills they are putting forward up for discussion 
today show that it is, unfortunately, not being taken 
seriously.
    Climate crisis fundamentally changed our lives. And with 
that, just with that fact alone, the issue should be a high 
priority for this Congress and for this Committee. Yet, we have 
here, I think, two bills that really represent industry wish 
lists, a wish list that has been promoted and pushed for many, 
many years.
    At a time when we need environmental review, a strong 
environmental review process more than ever, these bills seek 
to gut those processes just so dirty energy projects that can 
start producing profits a lot faster with weak scrutiny and 
oversight and limited to no accountability. These bills have 
always been a gift to the polluters, but with the context of 
climate crisis that we all know is real, we are living in that 
right now. These bills now become reckless and, to some extent, 
dangerous.
    So, before we start the whole marketed, branded phrases 
that we are going to hear, ``permitting reform,'' 
``streamlining NEPA,'' let's look more closely at what some of 
these bills do.
    To start with, the Chair's bill explicitly says, and I 
quote, ``Environmental reviews shall not require consideration 
of downstream indirect effects of oil and gas consumption.'' To 
make sure that there is no confusion, those downstream effects 
are indeed climate change. So, when we are considering the 
environmental impacts of more oil and gas drilling, we have to 
leave climate change out of that equation. Check a box.
    Next, these bills remove requirements to look at a project 
alternative during environmental review. If there is another 
proposal that is more sustainable, more equitable for a 
project, we ignore them, and fast-track the original project 
itself. Check a box.
    These bills can strip cumulative impact language out of 
environmental reviews. Check a box.
    So, if a foreign-owned company wants to set up shop near a 
tribal community whose water is already contaminated by mining 
waste, they can do it. Check a box.
    The Subcommittee Chair's bill even lets mining companies 
conduct their own environmental reviews. Check a box. That is 
trust but no requirement to verify.
    And in a really bizarre turn of events, that same bill also 
moves our outdated mining claims systems back even further by 
letting anyone stake a claim wherever mining is allowed, pay 
less than $10 an acre, and do whatever mining-related activity 
they want on those lands, including dumping toxic mining waste. 
So, what do you do with the waste? Check a box.
    And my colleagues and I are not against industry or mining, 
but we believe it needs to be done right. Given all the needs 
for transition on the climate crisis, they need to be done 
right. And these bills don't do that.
    We believe that environmental review is a critical part of 
that process. That is why we listen to what the experts said 
would actually improve environmental review, and fought for $1 
billion in the Inflation Reduction Act to do just that.
    [Chart.]
    Mr. Grijalva. And as we deftly move toward a visual along 
with our comments, that is what that bill is about, and it is 
about expediting those resources out there, and making sure 
that, if the issue was the lack of staff, those areas have 
become a self-fulfilling prophecy. Republicans cut and cut 
those programs, those reviews, staff programs that are so 
vital, the personnel and the resources to them, and then they 
complain that it takes very long. This is an effort to begin to 
balance those scales and provide the professional staffing so 
that we can expedite the review process.
    And we believe that tribes deserve to be meaningfully 
consulted before development happens on their ancestral lands. 
Those are issues that are important. We believe in protecting 
Americans and their communities from industry exploitation and 
climate change. We believe that we can get to a cleaner, safer 
future, and it is not only possible, but it is necessary.
    These bills, on the other hand, are a checklist for 
industry. The boxes are checked, but the reality of what we 
need to deal with in the long term for this country, that box 
continues to be left empty.
    With that, I yield back, Mr. Chairman, and appreciate the 
time.

    Mr. Stauber. Thank you very much. Now I will introduce our 
other witnesses.
    The Honorable Dan Naatz is the Chief Operating Officer of 
the Independent Petroleum Association of America; Mr. Rich 
Nolan is the President and CEO of the National Mining 
Association; Mr. Squillace is a Professor of Law from the 
University of Colorado; and Mr. Paul Thomsen serves as the Vice 
President of Business Development in the Americas for Ormat 
Technologies.
    The Chair now recognizes Mr. Naatz for 5 minutes.

 STATEMENT OF DAN NAATZ, CHIEF OPERATING OFFICER, INDEPENDENT 
        PETROLEUM ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA, WASHINGTON, DC

    Mr. Naatz. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member, my name is Dan 
Naatz, and I am the Chief Operating Officer of the Independent 
Petroleum Association of America.
    IPAA is a national trade association representing thousands 
of American independent oil and natural gas producers. IPAA 
members operate in 33 states, as well as offshore, and are the 
primary producers of the nation's oil and natural gas, and 
account for 83 percent of America's oil production and 90 
percent of its natural gas output. The average IPAA member 
company employs 20 people.
    American oil and natural gas companies vary in size, and 
the characterization that the industry is only Big Oil is a big 
myth. IPAA and our members understand the challenges facing the 
world regarding climate change, environmental protection, and 
addressing energy security. These are all issues that must be 
addressed worldwide on a global scale.
    The good news is the United States is a clear leader in 
reducing greenhouse gas emissions, something that is directly 
attributable to the increased production and use of American 
natural gas.
    We thank Chairman Westerman, Chairman Stauber, and 
Representative Graves for the thoughtful reforms outlined in 
the Transparency and Production of American Energy Act. Many of 
the reforms outlined in the TAP Act will help to revitalize oil 
and natural gas producers operating on Federal lands and waters 
to the benefit of the nation.
    The multiple-use mandate provided in the Federal Lands 
Policy and Management Act, FLPMA, requires the Bureau of Land 
Management to balance the resources and uses of public lands to 
the benefit of the American people. While this mandate includes 
a variety of uses beyond oil and natural gas production, it 
clearly is not intended to prevent the production of American 
oil and natural gas on Federal lands. IPAA believes that safe 
and responsible development of the nation's natural resources 
needs to remain an integral part of the equation.
    The revenue generated from the production on Federal lands 
helps fund critical investments and communities across the 
United States, and supports jobs, schools, conservation 
efforts, and infrastructure projects. The amount of annual 
revenue that Federal mineral development provides to the U.S. 
Treasury is second only to that provided by the Internal 
Revenue Service.
    There are several common-sense reforms in the TAP Act that 
will increase certainty for American producers, and will 
ultimately lead to a more streamlined process for Federal oil 
and natural gas development. While IPAA is supportive of the 
bill in its entirety, there are a few key provisions that I 
would like to highlight in my testimony this morning.
    IPAA supports language in the TAP Act requiring the 
Secretary of the Interior to resume quarterly onshore oil and 
natural gas lease sales. Quarterly, these sales are mandated as 
part of the Mineral Leasing Act that governs proper stewardship 
and handling of mineral extraction. The Biden administration's 
efforts to hinder quarterly onshore lease sales will be felt 
for years to come, as companies typically plan their next 
stages of development many years in advance.
    IPAA also represents many independent producers operating 
in Federal waters. As such, we support the revisions to the 
offshore oil and gas leasing program found in section 107 of 
the TAP Act. Operating offshore is a capital-intensive 
endeavor. Unlike the major oil companies, independent producers 
often work together in a consortium, with more than one company 
involved in a project. Federal offshore production makes up 
about 15 percent of total U.S. oil production, which is a 
significant component to America's energy security.
    Last year, the Secretary of the Interior failed to act in a 
timely manner on the 5-year plan offshore leasing program, and 
let it expire without another plan in place. The proposed 
program that closed for comment in October 2022 offered between 
0 and 10 potential lease sales in the Gulf of Mexico. A leasing 
program that has the potential to offer no lease sales is not a 
leasing program. It is a Federal mandate to end offshore oil 
and natural gas production in the United States.
    Oil and natural gas projects on Federal lands also face 
months of delay due to regulatory obstacles with the National 
Environmental Policy Act. For example, in 2020, it took an 
average of 142 days to complete an APD to drill on Federal 
lands. By comparison, in the state of Texas, in 2019, it took 
an average of 2 days to process a standard drilling permit. 
IPAA supports the Committee's efforts to develop workable 
reforms to NEPA that will bring the law closer to its original 
intent of analyzing projects that require major Federal action, 
rather than the current process, which is simply being used to 
delay and disrupt activities on Federal lands by a determined 
Minority.
    The current program governing oil and natural gas 
activities on onshore and offshore Federal lands needs a 
significant overhaul. The TAP Act provides important solutions 
to many of the problems hampering the safe, continued 
development of mineral resources on Federal lands and waters.
    Oil and natural gas will remain a key component of energy 
supply in the world for the foreseeable future. No modern 
economy can function without them. Growth in other energy 
sectors, such as wind, solar, and nuclear will also need to 
occur. Clearly, more energy and from many sources will be 
needed to maintain a robust American economy.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for giving me the opportunity 
today.

    [The prepared statement of Mr. Naatz follows:]
   Prepared Statement of Daniel T. Naatz, Chief Operating Officer and
  Executive Vice President, the Independent Petroleum Association of 
                                America
    These comments are submitted by the Independent Petroleum 
Association of America (IPAA). IPAA appreciates the Committee holding 
this legislative hearing.
    IPAA is a national trade association representing thousands of 
American independent oil and natural gas producers. Its members operate 
in 33 states as well as offshore and are the primary producers of the 
nation's oil and natural gas and account for 83 percent of America's 
oil production and 90 percent of its natural gas output. These 
independent producers are a driving force in the American economy and 
support roughly 4.5 million jobs in the United States. IPAA member 
companies are innovative leaders that broke the code to usher in the 
shale oil and natural gas revolution in the United States. Furthermore, 
the average member company employs 20 people. These small businesses 
are unique and are best served by having a cooperative regulatory 
system with input from the states and the federal government rather 
than a one-size-fits-all structure coming from Washington.
    IPAA thanks Chairman Westerman, Chairman Stauber, and 
Representative Graves for the thoughtful reforms outlined in the 
Transparency and Production of American Energy Act of 2023 (TAP Act). 
Many of the reforms outlined in the TAP Act will help to revitalize oil 
and natural gas producers operating on federal lands and waters to the 
benefit of the nation. The ``multiple-use mandate'' provided in the 
Federal Lands Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) requires the Bureau of 
Land Management (BLM) to balance the resources and uses of public lands 
to the benefit of the American people. While this mandate includes a 
variety of uses beyond oil and natural gas production, it clearly is 
not intended to prevent the production of American oil and natural gas. 
IPAA believes that safe and responsible development of the nation's 
natural resources needs to remain an integral part of the equation.
    Currently, of the 640 million acres of land that are federally 
owned in the United States, roughly 4 percent are leased for oil and 
natural gas development. Yet, even with this small percentage, oil and 
natural gas still have an enormous monetary impact for the federal 
treasury. All federal oil and gas royalty, rental fee, and bonus bid 
revenue is split roughly half between the U.S. Treasury and the states 
where development occurs. That revenue helps fund critical investments 
in communities across the United States and supports jobs, schools, 
conservation efforts and infrastructure projects. The amount of annual 
revenue that Federal mineral development provides to the U.S. Treasury 
is second only to that provided by the Internal Revenue Service. 
(Bureau of Land Management)
    There are several commonsense reforms in the TAP Act that will 
increase certainty for American producers and will ultimately lead to a 
more streamlined process for federal oil and natural gas development. 
While IPAA is supportive of the bill in its entirety, there are a few 
key provisions that I would like to highlight in my testimony this 
morning.
    IPAA supports language in the TAP Act requiring the Secretary of 
the Interior to resume quarterly onshore oil and natural gas lease 
sales. Quarterly lease sales are mandated as part of the Mineral 
Leasing Act (MLA) that governs proper stewardship and handling of 
mineral extraction. The Biden administration's program to halt 
quarterly onshore lease sales will be felt for years to come as 
companies typically plan their next stages of development many years in 
advance. IPAA also believes it is important to include in a sale all 
parcels that were nominated and eligible for lease under the resource 
management plan (RMP) of each state. Many times, a company's plans for 
development are put on hold while they are forced to wait on a specific 
parcel to tie a swath of land together whether for the purposes of a 
right of way, communization agreements, or simply for economic reasons. 
Producers must make sure that all the pieces are in place before they 
can pursue an Application for Permit to Drill (APD) and be able to 
contract for a drilling rig and crew. For these reasons, IPAA also 
supports the additional language in the TAP Act on suspension of 
operations permits.
    Another issue that IPAA would like to highlight is the language in 
the bill returning the federal royalty rate for onshore oil and natural 
gas to ``not less than 12.5 percent.'' Sponsors of the Inflation 
Reduction Act (IRA) argued that the historic royalty rate was too low 
and significantly increased the royalty rate last year. However, as 
discussed earlier, there are many factors that play into a company's 
decision on whether and where to bid and lease for mineral extraction 
on federal lands. These include the location of a specific area with 
relation to other properties, transportation costs, operational costs, 
taxes and rents. However, the most impactful are the regulatory costs 
associated with a project. Operating on federal land triggers a variety 
of regulatory actions that must be taken in order for a company to 
receive a permit to drill. Satisfying the suite of federal regulations 
can take many months as a company pays overhead costs while awaiting 
specific federal approvals. Raising the royalty rate in isolation 
without taking other critical factors into account will have an impact 
on a company's decisions to develop federal resources or not. As such, 
IPAA supports returning the royalty rate to 12.5 percent for oil and 
natural gas on onshore federal lands.
    Transparency in the permitting and leasing process is of the utmost 
importance. It is not unreasonable to ask the BLM, the Bureau of Ocean 
Energy Management (BOEM), and other federal agencies identified in 
section 106 of the TAP Act to collate and submit information that they 
already have on file to the authorizing congressional committees of 
jurisdiction. This oversight function will help bring the leasing 
practice in line with the original intent of the MLA by increasing 
transparency and including timelines for how the Secretary of the 
Interior plans to address issues to prevent unnecessary delays in the 
process.
    IPAA also represents many independent producers operating in 
federal waters. As such, IPAA supports the revisions to the offshore 
oil and gas leasing program found in section 107 of the TAP Act. 
Operating offshore is a capital-intensive endeavor. Unlike the major 
oil companies, independent producers often work together in consortium 
with more than one company involved in a project. Federal offshore 
production makes up about 15 percent of total US oil production, which 
is a significant component to America's energy security. That said, 
IPAA supports language in the legislation mandating two region-wide 
annual lease sales in the prescribed offshore areas. Last year, the 
Secretary of the Interior failed to act in a timely manner on the Five-
Year Plan and let it expire without another plan in place. The proposed 
program that closed for comment in October 2022, offered between zero 
and ten potential lease sales in the Gulf of Mexico and the option for 
only one potential lease sale in the northern portion of the Cook Inlet 
in Alaska. A ``leasing program'' that has the potential to offer no 
lease sales is not a leasing program; it is a federal mandate to end 
offshore oil and natural gas production in the United States. It is 
also not in the best interest of Americans who benefit from the 
increased revenue to the federal treasury and significantly harms 
American national security.
    Oil and natural gas projects on federal lands also face months of 
delay due to regulatory obstacles with National Environmental Policy 
Act (NEPA) analysis. For example, in 2020, it took an average of 142 
days to complete an APD to drill on Federal lands. By comparison, in 
the state of Texas, in 2018 and 2019, it took an average of two days to 
process a standard drilling permit. IPAA believes legislative language 
is needed to define specific agency actions where a lower threshold of 
environmental analysis could be used. IPAA supports the committee's 
efforts to develop workable reforms to NEPA that will bring the law 
closer to its original intent of analyzing projects that require 
``major federal actions'' rather than the current process, which is 
simply being used to delay and disrupt activities on federal lands by a 
determined minority. While not being discussed in this hearing, IPAA 
also supports the BUILDER Act, introduced by Representative Graves, 
which enacts additional reforms to NEPA.
    IPAA endorses section 213 of the TAP Act dealing with split 
estates. BLM currently triggers NEPA analysis for wells on state or 
private lands if any of the oil and natural gas resources being drilled 
are federally owned. This occurs even when the federal government has a 
small/minority mineral interest. For too long, the BLM has used this 
federal nexus as a way for the agency to become involved in state and 
private mineral development decisions. In addition, once the federal 
interconnection is established, the full cavalcade of Washington's 
regulatory agencies can become involved in projects. Even when there is 
the smallest percentage of federal ownership, an operator must go 
through an entire NEPA review that would not otherwise be required. 
While adding time to the project, it is also a burden on federal 
resources at the regional BLM level. Simply because the federal 
government holds a minority mineral interest in a drilling project 
should not allow it to impose burdensome restrictions or delay projects 
where it has a limited role.
    The current program governing oil and natural gas activities on 
onshore and offshore federal lands needs a significant overhaul. The 
TAP Act provides important solutions to many of the problems hampering 
the safe, continued development of mineral resources on federal lands 
and waters. Unfortunately, the Biden administration is ignoring both 
the MLA and the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA) requiring 
reasonable development of the nation's mineral resources on federal 
lands and waters. Instead, the Administration is focused on land 
conservation to the detriment of other activities from which all 
American taxpayers benefit. Rather than working with stakeholders at 
the local level, the land managers now make decisions based on edicts 
from the national office. IPAA supports efforts to require the 
Department of the Interior and its leadership to better engage the 
states when taking actions that impact development in their areas.
    Oil and natural gas will remain a key component of energy supply in 
the world for the foreseeable future. No modern economy can function 
without them. This is clearly true in the United States where oil and 
natural gas contributes approximately 70 percent of the energy consumed 
in the country. Growth in other energy sectors, such as wind, solar and 
nuclear will also occur, clearly more energy from many sources will be 
needed to maintain a robust American economy.
    Artificial political efforts to suppress American oil and natural 
gas supply will not reduce demand; they will only lead to a return to 
an import dependent energy structure with attendant energy security 
risks. False attacks targeting American oil and natural gas producers 
will reduce supply while hurting independent producers, particularly 
small businesses, and royalty owners. These policies will not reduce 
greenhouse gas emissions. The ultimate beneficiaries of these actions 
would be foreign national oil companies that produce with fewer 
environmental and safety controls than those in the United States.
    IPAA applauds the House Natural Resources Committee for holding 
this hearing today and looks forward to the Committee acting on the TAP 
Act that will protect and enhance American energy security.

                                 ______
                                 

   Questions Submitted for the Record to Dan Naatz, Chief Operating 
         Officer, Independent Petroleum Association of America
            Questions Submitted by Representative Westerman
    Question 1. How much Federal revenue did onshore and offshore oil 
and gas production send to the Treasury last year?

    Answer. Oil and gas revenues from production on federal land for 
FY2022 totaled $7.6 Billion for onshore and $6.3 billion for the 
offshore Gulf of Mexico.

    Question 2. Last year our Democrat counterparts decided to raise 
the royalty rate for production on federal lands and waters.

    2a) If you had to choose between developing a project on federal 
land versus private or state land what would be your preference and 
why?

    Answer. The question is more complex than federal land vs. non-
federal land. Many of our producers are involved in complicated, multi-
stage and multi-year projects on federal land which would result in a 
huge financial blow to walk away from. Furthermore, oil and natural gas 
are not manufactured. Companies must go where the resource exists and, 
particularly in the West, that tends to be on federal land. That said, 
I believe most companies would gladly pay the royalty premium to deal 
with the regulatory certainty of a state like Texas where the average 
permit is processed and awarded in 2 days rather than the federal 
process as BLM permitting times are averaging over 170 days.

    2b) Would you argue that the measures in the so-called Inflation 
Reduction Act make federal land much less appealing than state and 
private lands and in turn, result in less revenues for taxpayers?

    Answer. Absolutely. I believe we are already starting to see trends 
of new production being shifted away from federal lands and increased 
regulatory burden, red tape, and costs are going to contribute as well.

    Question 3. As we know, the Biden administration has held only one 
onshore lease sale in 26 months. We also know that this is illegal as 
the Mineral Leasing Act requires quarterly lease sales in all eligible 
states. What impact will this decision have on production and revenues 
over time and when will the impacts of this illegal lack of action be 
felt?

    Answer. The impact will be devastating, particularly to state and 
local economies who count on oil and natural gas revenue as a crucial 
part of their budgets to make ends meet. But the true effect will not 
be felt for a few years as production that is coming online right now 
was scoped a number of years ago. After a company wins a lease, the 
exploration phase can take years of seismic testing and data analysis 
before a company determines potential discovery. Independent producers 
rely on certainty in the leasing process to make business decisions for 
years in the future.

    Question 4. As you know, the Biden administration canceled the 
remaining offshore lease sales in the 2017-2023 5-year-plan and the 
Inflation Reduction Act requires the administration to hold those sales 
this year. The Biden administration has not yet published a new 5-year-
plan, even though the previous one expired in June 2022. Can you 
discuss the importance of having a 5-year-plan in place and how this 
delay is impacting planning and investment in offshore development?

    Answer. Having a 5-year-plan in place in vitally important to the 
health of the offshore oil and natural gas industry. Furthermore, the 
proposed plan that the Administration closed for comments last year 
gave the option for zero to ten leases in the Gulf of Mexico and one in 
the Cook Inlet in Alaska. With all due respect, a leasing plan with the 
possibility of zero lease sales is not a leasing plan. It's a clear 
signal from the Administration of their priorities and sends a strong 
message that offshore producers are not valuable.

    Question 5. If producing on oil and gas federal lands and waters 
ceases in the U.S., will demand decrease or will it instead be met from 
other countries, like Russia?

    Answer. Studies and trends all conclude that the demand for oil and 
natural gas is going to stay strong for many years to come. The U.S. 
produces the lowest carbon barrels of oil in the world, not to mention 
our environmental and safety record that far exceed some other nations 
such as Russia and Venezuela. For every policy that restricts American 
oil and natural gas, those barrels will be made up for by dirtier 
foreign sources.

    Question 6. On February 14, the Institute for Energy Research 
published a report titled ``The Environmental Quality Index: 
Environmental Quality Weighted Oil and Gas Production'' that quantifies 
the environmental impact of oil and natural gas produced in different 
countries around the world. The report shows what many of us already 
knew, that domestic production is much more environmentally friendly 
than countries like Russia, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq, and many others.

    6a) Would the provisions of this bill help the U.S. take more 
global market share from these other countries?

    Answer. IPAA represents independent American oil and natural gas 
producers with one goal--to produce American oil and natural gas 
supplies to the advancement of the American economy. While oil is 
valued on a global market and OPEC nations often play games to 
artificially inflate or deflate prices, additional US supplies will 
help stabilize the oil and natural gas.

    6b) Will this bill reduce global emissions?

    Answer. As I've said before, America produces the cleanest barrels 
of oil in the world. In fact, oil produced from the Gulf of Mexico has 
the carbon intensity of one-half that of other producing regions. In 
short, this bill will reduce global emissions as it aims to unencumber 
industry.

                                 ______
                                 

    Mr. Stauber. I thank the witness for his testimony.
    The Chair now recognizes Mr. Nolan for 5 minutes.

  STATEMENT OF RICH NOLAN, PRESIDENT AND CEO, NATIONAL MINING 
                  ASSOCIATION, WASHINGTON, DC

    Mr. Nolan. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member, and 
members of the Subcommittee. I appreciate representing the 
National Mining Association today to discuss the need to 
strengthen our domestic supply chains, to secure American 
energy resources, and to lower electricity cost.
    Domestic mining conducted under world-leading environmental 
safety and labor standards is essential to virtually every key 
supply chain, and the right policies are needed to unlock U.S. 
mining's full potential.
    Mined materials are an integral part of all current forms 
of energy. Uranium and coal, which provide 40 percent of the 
nation's electricity, are key sources of baseload power 
generation that is available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. 
Nickel and titanium are needed for geothermal power. Copper, 
cobalt, lithium, and silver are essential components to EV 
batteries, solar panels, and the electrification of the 
transportation sector. Barite keeps oil and gas producing. 
Seventy percent of the world's steel requires metallurgical 
coal for its production, as it takes 100 tons of met coal to 
build the steel for one wind turbine.
    In short, a strong domestic mining industry makes domestic 
energy security possible.
    The mining industry is also the source of high-paying, 
stable U.S. jobs that provide generous benefits. Across the 
industry, we directly employ more than 475,000 people who make 
an average of $85,000 a year, well over the national average of 
$68,000. Those direct jobs support more than 800 additional 
jobs. Each year our industry generates more than $119 billion 
in revenues for the U.S. economy, paying more than $18 billion 
in federal, state, and local taxes. Last year alone, Federal 
coal production amounted to over $525 million in royalties for 
the Federal Government.
    Mining meets the demands of the manufacturing supply chain 
with the raw materials needed to begin production of virtually 
any product, while keeping the lights on and prices affordable. 
Now, demand for mined materials is expanding exponentially, but 
we have not seen a corresponding urgency and action to make 
those mined materials available here in the United States.
    Despite all the rhetoric around securing our domestic 
supply chains, we are now at a crisis point. In 2022, the 
United States reached its highest record level of mineral 
import reliance. Imports made up more than one-half of U.S. 
consumption of 51 mineral commodities. We are more dependent 
than ever on China and other foreign sources of materials we 
could be sourcing right here at home.
    And with each new announcement of a blocked mine, such as 
the Twin Metals Project in Minnesota or the 16 foreign source 
agreements through the OPEC State Department's Mineral Security 
Partnership with countries that have documented problematic 
labor practices, this just locks in our position of competitive 
weakness in the world.
    Without permitting reform, the United States will be 
watching the global competition for energy and mineral 
dominance from the sidelines. Providing additional Federal 
funds for incentives for projects that will never be approved 
does nothing. As the International Energy Agency reported, 
``Governments must leverage private investment and sustainable 
mining, but also ensure clear and rapid permitting procedures 
to avoid potential supply bottlenecks.''
    Opening or expanding U.S. mines typically involves multiple 
agencies and tens or even hundreds of permitting processes that 
are at the federal and state level. Delays arise from 
duplication among agencies, absence of firm timelines, and 
failures in agency coordination. Necessary authorizations for 
hardrock mines take an average of 7 to 10 years or longer, one 
of the longest permitting processes in the world. Valid 
environmental concerns should be fully addressed, but 
permitting process should not serve as an excuse to trap vital 
mining projects in limbo of duplicative and unpredictable, 
endless, and costly review.
    The legislation proposed by Congressman Westerman, Chairman 
Stauber, and Congressman Graves offered common-sense solutions 
to establish a strong domestic mineral supply chain and ensure 
continued Federal coal production. These bills prioritize 
responsible development and certainty to mining companies, 
investors, and manufacturers by establishing lead agencies, 
coordinating state and federal processes, improving timelines 
of decisions, and maintain access to mineralized Federal lands.

    We have abundant mineral and coal resources right here at 
home. Yet, we are stumbling when it comes to meeting the demand 
of the world markets. The U.S. mining industry stands ready to 
support and supply our country with a full range of materials 
needed to power our nation into the future, and we look forward 
to working with the Committee.

    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    [The prepared statement of Mr. Nolan follows:]

  Prepared Statement of Rich Nolan, President & CEO, National Mining 
                              Association
    Good morning members of the subcommittee. I am Rich Nolan, 
President and Chief Executive Officer of the National Mining 
Association (NMA). America's mining industry supplies the essential 
materials necessary for nearly every sector of our economy--electricity 
generation, new technologies, healthcare, transportation, steel making 
and critical infrastructure, and national security. The NMA is the only 
national trade organization that serves as the voice of the U.S. mining 
industry and the hundreds of thousands of American workers it employs 
before Congress, the federal agencies, the judiciary and the media, 
advocating for public policies that will help America fully and 
responsibly utilize its vast natural resources. We work to ensure 
America has secure and reliable supply chains, abundant and affordable 
energy, and the American-sourced materials necessary for U.S. 
manufacturing, national security and economic security, all delivered 
under world-leading environmental, safety and labor standards. The NMA 
has a membership of more than 275 companies and organizations involved 
in every aspect of mining, from producers and equipment manufacturers 
to service providers.

Ever-increasing Demand for Minerals

    There is widespread recognition that we are entering the most 
mineral and metal intensive era in human history.\1\ Consequently, the 
right policies to secure new domestic mineral production and our supply 
chains are more important than ever.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Google results for the term ``critical minerals'' return nearly 
24,000 responses (7,000 news specific) for the last month alone.

    The international competition for minerals will be fierce. The 
European Union (EU) has unveiled its ``REPowerEU Plan.'' \2\ The United 
Kingdom (UK) released its ``Resilience for the future: The UK's 
critical minerals strategy.'' \3\ In December, Canada released its 
``Canadian Critical Minerals Strategy,'' a generational ``plan to 
position Canada as the global supplier of choice for critical minerals 
and the clean technologies they enable.'' \4\ Of course, China, with 
its much longer planning horizon, moved earlier and more quickly to 
address the risks to its mineral supply chains. In 1999, the Chinese 
government announced its aggressive ``go global'' campaign to secure 
raw materials. The policy, which was fully implemented around 2002-
2003, articulated three main objectives: (1) to support national 
exports and expand into international markets; (2) to push domestic 
firms to internationalize their activities as a means of acquiring 
advanced technologies; and (3) to invest in the acquisition of 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
strategic resources.\5\

    \2\ Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, 
The European Council, The Council, The European Economic and Social 
Committee and the Committee of the Regions: REPowerEU Plan, (SWD(2022) 
230 final), May 18, 2022. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/
resource.html?uri=cellar:fc930f14-d7ae-11ec-a95f-01aa75ed71a1.0001.02/
DOC_1&format=PDF.

    \3\ Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, 
``Resilience for the future: The UK's critical minerals strategy, 22 
July 2022. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/uk-critical-
mineral-strategy/resilience-for-the-future-the-uks-critical-minerals-
strategy

    \4\ Natural Resources Canada News Release, ``Countries Commit to 
the Sustainable Development and Sourcing of Critical Minerals,'' Dec. 
12, 2022. https://www.canada.ca/en/natural-resources-canada/news/2022/
12/countries-commit-to-the-sustainable-development-and-sourcing-of-
critical-minerals.html
    \5\ CRS, ``China's Mineral Industry and U.S. Access to Strategic 
and Critical Minerals: Issues for Congress,'' R43864, March 20, 2015, 
p. 2. https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R43864/6

    Many public analyses evaluate the demand for minerals for new 
technologies and especially energy generation. Last year the 
International Energy Agency (IEA) issued a cautionary report about 
risks related to the mineral supply chains required for energy 
generation transitions.\6\ IEA estimates and others show that demand 
for some minerals could grow by more than 40 times by 2040. According 
to IEA:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \6\ International Energy Agency, ``The Role of Critical World 
Energy Outlook Special Report Minerals in Clean Energy Transitions,'' 
May 2021.

     Lithium demand is anticipated to grow by more than 40 
            times by 2040, followed by graphite, cobalt and nickel at 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
            around 20-25 times;

     Copper demand for grid infrastructure and electrification 
            more than doubles by 2040;

     Demand for cobalt is expected to be anywhere from 6 to 30 
            times higher than today's levels; and

     Rare earth elements may see three to seven times higher 
            demand in 2040 than today.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \7\ Id at pp. 8-10

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]    
    

    Notes: kg = kilogramme; MW = megawatt. Steel and aluminum not 
included. See Chapter 1 and Annex for details on the assumptions and 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
methodologies.

    Other major reports echo the findings of the IEA. Wood Mackenzie, 
the World Bank,\8\ the Wilson Center \9\ and others outline staggering 
demand increases that are likely to outplace the available minerals 
supply.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \8\ World Bank Group, ``Minerals for Climate Action: The Mineral 
Intensity of the Clean Energy Transition,'' 2020. https://
pubdocs.worldbank.org/en/961711588875536384/Minerals-for-Climate-
Action-The-Mineral-Intensity-of-the-Clean-Energy-Transition.pdf
    \9\ D. Wood, A. Helfgott, M. D'Amico, and E. Romanin, Woodrow 
Wilson International Center for Scholars, ``The Mosaic Approach: a 
Multidimensional Strategy for Strengthening America's Critical Minerals 
Supply Chain,'' Oct. 12, 2021, https://www.wilsoncenter.org/sites/
default/files/media/uploads/documents/
critical_minerals_supply_report.pdf.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    According to Wood Mackenzie:

     Demand for copper and aluminum is anticipated to increase 
            by a third by 2040.

     Nickel demand grows by two-thirds and cobalt and lithium 
            by 200 percent and 600 percent, respectively.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \10\ Gavin Montgomery, Wood Mackenzie, ``COP26: Why battery raw 
materials are a highly-charged topic--Aggressive EV uptake is needed to 
meet a 2+ C target, but metals supply will struggle to meet demand.'' 
13 October 2021, https://www.woodmac.com/news/opinion/cop26-why-
battery-raw-materials-are-a-highly-charged-topic/

    Matching the speed and scale of this rising demand requires a 
permitting regime that enables the mining sector to respond to market 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
signals. Current U.S. permitting timelines do not.

    As the IEA recently concluded in a July 2022 battery supply chain 
report:

        Electrifying road transport requires a wide range of raw 
        materials. While all stages of the supply chain must scale up, 
        extraction and processing are particularly critical due to long 
        lead times. Governments must leverage private investment in 
        sustainable mining and ensure clear and rapid permitting 
        procedures to avoid potential supply bottlenecks.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \11\ IEA, ``Global Supply Chains of EV Batteries,'' July 2022. 
https://www.iea.org/reports/global-supply-chains-of-ev-batteries.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Impacts Down the Supply Chain

    End users of minerals have awoken to the challenge of securing 
mineral supply chains, a development perhaps most pronounced by the 
automotive sector as it advertises a transition to electric vehicles 
(EVs). Over the last few years, many of the major U.S. car makers have 
made ambitious announcements about their EV plans. General Motors has 
announced it will invest $35 billion in electric and autonomous vehicle 
product development until 2025 and that it will phase out petrol and 
diesel cars by 2035. Volkswagen wants half of its vehicle sales to be 
electric by 2030 and nearly 100 percent electric sales by 2040. Audi 
will launch fully electric models only from 2026 and aims for all car 
sales to be electric by 2030.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \12\ van Halm, I. and Mullan, C., Feb. 14, 2022, ``Booming EV sales 
challenge critical mineral supply chains,'' Energy Monitor https://
www.energymonitor.ai/sectors/transport/booming-ev-sales-challenge-
mineral-supply-chains
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    At the same time, automakers are warning with ever greater 
frequency that the coming battery material shortfall could stop the EV 
revolution in its tracks. As recently noted by RJ Scaringe, CEO of EV 
start-up Rivian, the auto industry's current semiconductor problems 
``are a small appetizer to what we are about to feel on battery cells 
over the next two decades.'' \13\ No wonder, as the battery supply 
chain is already facing the pinch of rising material prices as the gap 
between demand and supply widens. Battery pack costs--which had been on 
a long downward trend--are now rising. Metals accounted for 40 percent 
of battery costs in 2015. Today, they account for 80 percent. Where the 
price of these metals goes, so does the cost of batteries and EVs. 
According to EV automaker Stellantis CEO Carlos Tavares, there will be 
a shortage of EV batteries by 2024-2025, followed by a lack of raw 
materials for the vehicles that will slow availability and adoption of 
EVs by 2027-2028 as the global automotive industry pivots to EVs to 
meet an expected increase in consumer demand and government 
regulations. He recently cautioned that the ``speed at which we are 
trying to move all together for the right reason, which is fixing the 
global warming issue, is so high that the supply chain and the 
production capacities have no time to adjust.'' \14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \13\ Wall Street Journal,'' Rivian CEO Warns of Looming Electric-
Vehicle Battery Shortage,'' April 2022. https://www.wsj.com/articles/
rivian-ceo-warns-of-looming-electric-vehicle-battery-shortage-
11650276000
    \14\ Media interview, May 24, 2022, https://www.cnbc.com/2022/05/
24/stellantis-ceo-warns-of-ev-battery-shortage-lack-of-raw-
materials.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Automakers have been seeking solutions, including inking deals 
directly with mining companies. For example, last year Tesla addressed 
its concern about obtaining the nickel for its EVs by entering into an 
agreement with BHP to obtain nickel from Australia and more recently 
with Talon Metals to buy quantities of nickel directly from a mine the 
company is building in Minnesota. Ioneer has signed a binding offtake 
agreement with the Ford Motor Company to supply lithium from its 
Rhyolite Ridge lithium-boron project in Nevada.\15\ General Motors 
announced it was investing $650 million in Lithium Americas to secure 
access to production from its Nevada operations, which it estimates 
will contribute to one million EVs annually.\16\ For this deal, GM was 
one of more than 50 automakers and companies competing for a secure 
supply of minerals from Lithium Americas.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \15\ PR Newswire,'' Ioneer Signs Binding Lithium Offtake Agreement 
with Ford,'' July 21, 2022
    \16\ Lithium Americas General Motors Transaction Announcement, 
January 31, 2023, https://www.lithiumamericas.com/news/lithium-
americas-provides-general-motors-transaction-details-and-update-on-
construction-plan-for-thacker-pass. Cecilia Jamasmie, January 31, 2023, 
``GM invests $650m in Lithium Americas to develop Thacker Pass mine'' 
www.mining.com, https://www.mining.com/gm-lithium-americas-to-jointly-
develop-thacker-pass-mine-in-nevada/
    \17\ The Electric, ``The New `Elephants'--GM Grabs the Biggest 
Lithium Deposit in the U.S., Feb. 2, 2023. https://
subscriptions.theinformation.com/newsletters/the-electric/archive/the-
electric-the-new-elephants-gm-grabs-the-biggest-lithium-deposit-in-the-
u-s

    At the same time, automakers are urging the ramp up of domestic 
mining. Last year, the Alliance for Automotive Innovation wrote 
President Biden expressing concerns that ``neither the current 
trajectory of consumer adoption of EVs, nor existing levels of federal 
support for supply- and demand-side policies, is sufficient to meet our 
goal of a net-zero carbon transportation future.'' \18\ One of the 
specific policy recommendations offered by the Alliance is to promote 
national security and economic security enhancements through the 
development of U.S.-based supplies of critical minerals (extraction, 
processing and recycling), battery and fuel cell manufacturing, and 
other critical components, including semiconductors.\19\ And as 
succinctly stated recently by Jim Farley, President and CEO of Ford 
Motor Co.:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \18\ Alliance for Automotive Innovation letter to President Biden, 
March 29, 2021. https://www.autosinnovate.org/posts/communications/
Auto%20Industry%20EV%20Policy%20Letter%20 
to%20President%20Biden%20March%2029%202021.pdf
    \19\ Id. at 4.

        We have to bring battery production here, but the supply chain 
        has to go all the way to the mines . . . So are we going to 
        import lithium and pull cobalt from nation-states that have 
        child labor and all sorts of corruption or all we going to get 
        serious about mining?'' . . . We have to solve these things and 
        we don't have much time.'' \20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \20\ Jim Farley remarks, Detroit Homecoming VIII, Live-streamed 
interview with Mary Kramer (director of the annual event). Sept. 25, 
2021. https://detroithomecoming.com/livestream-events/

    We have our work cut out for us to build our domestic mineral 
supply chains quickly. As recently reported by The New York Times, how 
automakers will obtain enough materials for an all-electric lineup 
remains unclear. Last year, Farley told analysts that only 50 percent 
of the raw materials needed to meet the auto industry's announced EV 
targets were actually available.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \21\ Boudette, Neal E. 2022. ``California E.V. Mandate Finds a 
Receptive Auto Industry.'' The New York Times, August 25, 2022, sec. 
Business. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/08/25/business/energy-
environment/electric-vehicles-automakers.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Demand Cannot Be Met Without New Mining

    The automakers are just one stakeholder group that acknowledges the 
role of domestic mining in securing our supply chains. Certainly, the 
federal government has repeatedly noted that boosting sustainable 
domestic mining must be part of the solution. For example, in May 2021, 
the White House rebutted reporting from Reuters claiming that President 
Biden will primarily rely on ally countries to supply the bulk of the 
metals needed to build EVs. In its clarification, the White House noted 
that the reporting incorrectly characterizes the Biden-Harris 
administration's approach:

        President Biden is focused on seizing the electric vehicle (EV) 
        market, sourcing and manufacturing the supply chain here in 
        America, and creating good-paying, union jobs. Building 
        American-made EVs and shipping them around the world will 
        include leveraging American-made parts and resources. This 
        includes responsibly pursuing, developing, and mining critical 
        minerals and materials used for EV batteries. As we strengthen 
        our supply chains, we will pursue strong environmental 
        standards and broad, rigorous consultations with local and 
        indigenous communities to support a responsible, fair, and 
        sustainable EV industry.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \22\ Statement from Ali Zaidi, Deputy National Climate Advisor, 
Reuters, Epoch Times etc.: https://www.theepochtimes.com/white-house-
denies-report-that-biden-looks-overseas-for-electric-vehicle-
metals_3832373.html?welcomeuser=1

    Working with our allies, like Canada, to build these supply chains 
is smart. But that must complement the essential work of standing up 
production and these supply chains at home. It cannot come in place of 
it. The State Department's Mineral Security Partnership reportedly 
funding 16 solely international mining projects while we continue to 
debate needed permitting improvements domestic production is not a 
balanced mineral production policy.
    Recent withdrawal decisions locking up more than 225,000 acres in 
federal Forest Service lands in Minnesota from mining for two decades 
after also withdrawing federal leases nearly sixty years old from 
projects in the same areas known for some of the nation's largest 
reserves of nickel, cobalt, copper, platinum, and palladium could only 
be described at best as short sighted and at worst self-sabotage.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \23\ Wall Street Journal, ``Biden's Green-Energy Mineral Lockup. 
The feds block mining that is essential for making EV batteries'' 
January 29, 2023, https://www.wsj.com/articles/biden-administration-
mining-duluth-complex-minnesota-superior-national-forest-deb-haaland-
electric-vehicles-11674860178.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Current Permitting Process Discourages Investment in U.S. Mining

    With over $6 trillion worth of mineral resources here in the United 
States, a highly trained and highly compensated workforce, and world-
class environmental and safety standards, the U.S. mining industry is 
essential to helping the nation meet ever-increasing demand for 
minerals for electrification, infrastructure and manufacturing needs.

    However, there is real room for improvement. To improve supply 
chain security, we must also have a robust domestic mineral supply 
chain. That includes more smelting, processing and refining 
capabilities in the U.S. necessary to claw back these essential 
processes from geopolitical adversaries like China, which controls more 
than 80 percent of global rare earth element production, nearly 90 
percent of global mineral processing capabilities as well as the market 
prices for rare earth elements at each step of the process.

    Permitting delays have been, and continue to be, one of the most 
significant risks to meeting domestic mineral production goals. As the 
permitting process for important projects across the U.S. drags on, 
geopolitical rivals are taking advantage of our bureaucratic inertia. 
Opening or expanding a mine in the U.S. typically involves multiple 
agencies and the navigation of tens or even hundreds of permitting 
processes at the local, state and federal levels, with little 
transparency into status, delays arising from duplication among federal 
and state agencies, an absence of firm timelines for completing 
environmental assessments, and failures in coordination of 
responsibilities between various agencies. Necessary government 
authorizations now take an average of seven to 10 years to secure--one 
of the longest permitting processes in the world for mining projects--a 
time period that is completely out of step with the dramatic increases 
in minerals production that will be needed in the coming decades to 
keep up new technologies, infrastructure, manufacturing and even with 
the administration's goals.

    In the U.S., necessary government authorizations place the U.S. at 
a competitive disadvantage in attracting investment for mineral 
development. By comparison, permitting in Australia and Canada, which 
have similar environmental standards and practices as the U.S., take 
between two and three years. The NMA believes that valid concerns about 
environmental protection should be fully considered and addressed but 
permitting processes should not serve as an excuse to trap mining 
projects in a limbo of duplicative, unpredictable, endless and costly 
review without a decision point. Moreover, there is little evidence 
that such delays yield commensurate environmental benefits. The length 
of the permit process should not be confused with the rigor of review. 
Ironically, it takes about two years to build a new battery 
gigafactory, but it takes at least eight years (sometimes more than 10 
years) to build a new lithium mine.\24\

    \24\ Comments of Dr. Qichao Hu, founder and CEO of Massachusetts-
based battery maker SES, in an interview with Charged, https://
chargedevs.com/features/the-raw-materials-crunch-how-bad-how-long-how-
to-solve-it/#:?:text=Qichao%20Hu%2C%20founder%20and%20CEO,build%20a 
%20new%20lithium%20mine.%E2%80%9D, Spring 2022.

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


    Nearly two decades ago, the U.S. attracted almost 20 percent of 
the world's total mining investment. Unfortunately, in the time since, 
there has been a sharp decline in U.S. exploration investment. This is 
not due to lack of resources, but rather a lack of confidence in the 
U.S. as a viable mining jurisdiction in which to invest hundreds of 
millions of dollars in upfront costs due to duplicative, inefficient 
and costly permitting timeframes, making the U.S. more dependent on 
other countries for metals. In its most recent report of global 
investment in mining exploration and production, S&P Global 
consistently rank Canada and Australia as by far the most favored 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
regions for mining investment.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    .epsAlthough investment in some parts of the U.S. remains high, the 
Fraser Institute releases an annual investment survey among mining 
companies throughout the world on the areas of the world in which those 
companies look to invest. The latest survey relayed the following 
results about the United States under its Policy Perception Index (PPI) 
meaning the perceptions of mining companies concerning the certainty of 
the U.S. regulatory environment for mining:

        The United States' median investment attractiveness score 
        declined . . . The median PPI score for the United States, 
        however, declined significantly--by almost 13 points--and is no 
        longer the top-ranked region based on policy alone. This year, 
        all US states saw a deterioration in their PPI scores. 
        Minnesota (-19.9 points), Idaho (-16.4 points), and New Mexico 
        (-15.0 points) saw the largest PPI score declines.\25\ 
        (Emphasis added.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \25\ Fraser Institute, Annual Survey of Mining Companies 2021, 
https://www.fraserinstitute.org/sites/default/files/annual-survey-of-
mining-companies-2021.pdf, pp. 29-31.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Current Permitting Process Encourages Foreign Dependence

    The U.S. is increasingly vulnerable to supply chain disruptions and 
retaliation from geopolitical adversaries due to our ever-increasing 
reliance on imports for these essential resources. Less than half of 
the mineral needs of U.S. manufacturing are met by domestically 
produced minerals, which leaves our economy and national -security at a 
strategic disadvantage. The U.S. Geological Survey's (USGS) annual 
commodity summary released only last month makes some key findings:

     Last year, imports made up more than one-half of the U.S. 
            apparent -consumption for 51 nonfuel mineral commodities, 
            and the United States was 100 percent net import reliant 
            for 15 of those.

     Of the 50 mineral commodities identified in the ``2022 
            Final List of Critical Minerals,'' the United States was 
            100 percent net import reliant for 12, and an additional 31 
            critical mineral commodities (including 14 lanthanides, 
            which are listed under rare earths) had a net import 
            reliance greater than 50 percent of apparent consumption.

     Underscoring the vulnerability of U.S. mineral supply 
            chains, China was the leading source of mineral commodities 
            with a greater than 50 percent import reliance providing 
            26, with significant imports of other essential commodities 
            also coming from Russia.

     The estimated value of U.S. metal mine production in 2022 
            was $34.7 billion, 6 percent lower than the revised value 
            in 2021. In 2022, the capacity utilization for the metals 
            mining industry was 61 percent, less than the 63 percent 
            capacity utilization in 2021.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \26\ U.S. Geological Survey, 2023 Commodity Summary, https://
pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/mcs2023

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Source: USGS Mineral Commodity Summaries 1900-2023 editions.

    While alarming, these findings are the latest in a 20-year trend of 
net imports that cost our country roughly $90 billion last year alone. 
Though the warning signs about our import reliance have been 
highlighted by a few key legislators for years, overall political 
concern about minerals supply chains has waxed and waned--with periods 
of frenzy following unexpected shortages, especially for military 
applications such as China's exercise of its dominance over the rare 
earths' minerals supply chain--followed by periods of complacency.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \27\ See e.g., The Domestic Minerals Program Extension Act of 1953; 
the Mining and Mineral Policy of 1970; the Federal Land Policy and 
Management Act; the National Materials and Minerals Policy, Research 
and Development Act of 1980; and the 1984 National Critical Materials 
Act.

    Before the more recent exposure of supply chain vulnerabilities 
from the pandemic and geopolitical developments of the last few years, 
the most recent panic occurred in 2010, when China threatened global 
rare earth supplies. As the Congressional Research Service (CRS) 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
explained:

        Chinese export quotas on a type of critical minerals referred 
        to as rare earth elements (REEs) and China's curtailment of 
        rare earth shipments to Japan over a maritime dispute in 2010 
        represented a wakeup call for the United States on China's 
        near-monopoly control over global REE supply. The actions of 
        the Chinese led to record high prices for REEs and, as a 
        result, began to shine a light on the potential supply risks 
        and supply chain vulnerability for rare earths and other raw 
        materials and metals needed for national defense, energy 
        technologies, and the electronics industry, among other end 
        uses. U.S. legislators have introduced and deliberated on bills 
        that would address the potential supply risk and vulnerability 
        with respect to rare earth supply and bills that would promote 
        domestic rare earth mine development.\28\ (Emphasis added.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \28\ Humphries, Marc. Congressional Research Service, ``Critical 
Minerals and U.S. Public Policy.'' R45810, June 28, 2019, p. 5. https:/
/www.everycrsreport.com/files/20190628_R45810_ 
b3112ce909b130b5d525d2265a62ce8236464664.pdf

    Unfortunately, none of these past efforts or policies have reversed 
the U.S. overreliance on foreign sources of minerals despite widespread 
acknowledgement that this overreliance weakens our economy and 
endangers our national security. China's mineral dominance remains a 
major threat. Currently, China is the leading producer and/or supplier 
of 66 percent of mineral commodities listed as essential to U.S. 
economic and national security including lithium, rare earths and other 
battery metals.\29\ According to USGS, production concentration has 
increased markedly over the past few decades for many mineral 
commodities with the most notable global shift has being the increasing 
production of mineral commodities in China.\30\ China's share of global 
mineral production and processing has grown markedly since 1990 for 
many mineral commodities, including aluminum, bismuth, refined cobalt, 
gallium, lead, magnesite, magnesium metal, mercury, REEs, silicon, 
steel (raw), titanium, vanadium and zinc.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \29\ Notably this reliance comes despite existing U.S. resources. 
In the 2022 Mineral Commodity Summaries, the USGS indicated the U.S. 
had an estimated 48 million metric tons (mt) of copper that can be 
mined and processed economically, 69 million mt of cobalt, 340 million 
mt of nickel and 750 million mt of lithium. Regardless, in 2021, the 
U.S. imported 48 percent of U.S. consumption of nickel, 76 percent of 
cobalt, 45percent of copper, and more than 25 percent of lithium.
    \30\ Nassar, N.T., Alonso, E., and Brainard, J.L., 2020, 
Investigation of U.S. Foreign Reliance on Critical Minerals--U.S. 
Geological Survey Technical Input Document in Response to Executive 
Order No. 13953 Signed September 30, 2020 (Ver. 1.1, December 7, 2020): 
U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2020--1127, p. 4. https://
pubs.usgs.gov/of/2020/1127/ofr2020 1127.pdf

    China's strong supply chain position stems, in large part, from 
state investment in processing and manufacturing, rather than an 
inherent advantage in reserves for most materials. China's ``go 
global'' strategy included $390 billion in outbound direct investments 
in the mining sector.\31\ For example, as discussed in a recent White 
House report on supply chains:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \31\ Humphries, Marc. Congressional Research Service, ``China's 
Mineral Industry and U.S. Access to Strategic and Critical Minerals: 
Issues for Congress,'' March 20, 2015. http://fas.org/sgp/crs/row/
R43864.pdf).

     China is the primary global supplier of cobalt for 
            batteries, despite having very limited reserves, through 
            its aggressive investment in processing capacity coupled 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
            with foreign direct investment for ores and concentrates.

     China has a dominant position over the Democratic Republic 
            of Congo cobalt reserves, which constitute half of the 
            known global cobalt reserves.

     China has billions invested in nickel projects in 
            Indonesia, home to one-quarter of overall global reserves.

     Mexican-based Sonora clay lithium deposit, operated by 
            China-based Gangfeng Lithium, is currently under 
            development, and would increase total lithium production by 
            roughly half of today's production.\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \32\ White House, ``Building Resilient Supply Chains, Revitalizing 
American Manufacturing, and Fostering Broad-based Growth, 100-Day 
Reviews under Executive Order 14017,'' June 2021, p. 94.

     Chinese firms have also made multiple and large 
            investments in mining operations around the world to ensure 
            their supply of critical materials like cobalt, nickel and 
            lithium.\33\ Last month, China based CATL, the world's 
            largest EV battery manufacturer, beat out U.S. and Russian 
            companies to develop the world's largest lithium deposit in 
            Bolivia.\34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \33\ See also, USGS 2020 Investigation of U.S. Foreign Reliance on 
Critical Minerals (There are instances where the mineral deposit or 
mining and mineral processing operation of a commodity is partially or 
completely owned and (or) controlled by foreign companies with strong 
ties to their governments. For example, Chinese firms have purchased 
equity stake in lithium deposits and operations in Australia and Chile, 
niobium operations in Brazil, a rare earth deposit in Greenland, and 
cobalt operations in the D.R. Congo, Papua New Guinea, and Zambia (S&P 
Global Market Intelligence, 2020). Investigating China's investment in 
cobalt assets worldwide, Gulley and others (2019) found that when 
taking into account Chinese companies' ownership in foreign assets on 
an equity-share basis, China's share of global cobalt production 
increases from 2 to 14 percent for cobalt mine materials and from 11 to 
33 percent for cobalt intermediate materials (figure 6). Furthermore, 
if the Chinese companies' equity shares of the production from these 
assets are assumed to be as secure as its domestic production, then 
these acquisitions have the effect of reducing China's NIR from 97 
percent to an adjusted 68 percent, thereby reducing China's exposure to 
supply disruptions (Gulley and others, 2019).) p. 8.
    \34\ Reuters, ``Bolivia taps Chinese battery giant CATL to help 
develop lithium riches,'' Jan. 20, 2023. https://www.reuters.com/
technology/bolivia-taps-chinese-battery-giant-catl-help-develop-
lithium-riches-2023-01-20/

    As a result of these tactics, China controls significant portions 
of the global mineral supply chain. The IEA reported in May 2021 that 
China was responsible for 60 percent of global rare earth elements 
production and nearly 90 percent of global processing for rare earth 
elements in 2019.\35\ And this threat is not limited to rare earths. As 
noted in USGS criticality methodology, ``of the 54 mineral commodities 
evaluated, China was the leading producer of at least one stage of the 
supply chain for 35 commodities.'' \36\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \35\ International Energy Agency. ``The Role of Critical Minerals 
in Clean Energy Transitions,'' 2021. https://iea.blob.core.windows.net/
assets/24d5dfbb-a77a-4647-abcc-667867207f74/TheRoleof 
CriticalMineralsinCleanEnergyTransitions.pdf
    \36\ 2021 Methodology, p. 7.

    It did not used to be this way and it does not have to be our 
future. At every turn, our import dependence is both outsized and 
unnecessary. As explained in a recent opinion piece published in The 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hill:

        In the 1980s, the U.S. was the mineral capital of the world. 
        Since then, China has developed a juggernaut battery supply 
        chain industry. The industry is centered around chemical 
        processing of battery materials, backed by substantial 
        government funding and coordination. These subsidies led to a 
        wave of outsourcing by American companies across industries 
        from semiconductors to steel. In addition, China has spent the 
        last two decades investing in the mining industry abroad, 
        including major investments and mineral rights in Australia, 
        Africa, Asia and South America. This has led to an overreliance 
        on China--and in turn vulnerable supply chains and a lost 
        economic opportunity at home.\37\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \37\ Ellen Hughes-Cromwick, Ph D. 2022. ``How the U.S. Can Secure a 
Resilient Electric Vehicle Battery Supply Chain.'' The Hill. June 8, 
2022. https://thehill.com/opinion/energy-environment/3516265-how-the-
us-can-secure-a-resilient-electric-vehicle-battery-supply-chain/.

    Our mineral import dependence will be our next Achille's heel. The 
U.S. must focus on supplying these metals at home as part of the 
solution ``to diversify supply chains away from adversarial nations and 
sources with unacceptable environmental and labor standards.'' \38\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \38\ ``FACT SHEET: Biden-Harris Administration Announces Supply 
Chain Disruptions Task Force to Address Short-Term Supply Chain 
Discontinuities.'' 2021. The White House. June 8, 2021. https://
www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2021/06/08/fact-
sheet-biden-harris-administration-announces-supply-chain-disruptions-
task-force-to-address-short-term-supply-chain-discontinuities/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In order to support new domestic production, a robust domestic 
supply chain that includes minerals and metals sourced, refined, 
processed and smelted within our borders, we need to build on the 
important work done by this committee.
    The following data from the mining program at the University of 
Missouri of Science and Technology is an important snapshot which 
allows us to better understand the domestic supply chain issues 
impacting production of some of the most widely used industrial metals:

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]





    Source: Testimony of Dr. M Moats, University of Missouri of 
Science and Technology, Feb. 2023 \39\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \39\ Committee on Natural Resources Subcommittee on Oversight and 
Investigations, ``Dependence on Foreign Adversaries: America's Critical 
Minerals Crisis,'' Testimony Dr. M. Moats, Professor and Department 
Chair of Materials Science and Engineering, Missouri University of 
Science and Technology, https://naturalresources.house.gov/
uploadedfiles/testimony_moats.pdf, February, 9, 2023.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal Coal Leasing Program

    The Federal Coal Leasing Program has been a national energy and 
economic success story. Over the last decade, the program produced 
approximately 3.7 billion tons of coal and resulted in $9.2 billion in 
revenue collections by the federal government alone. It has provided 
hundreds of millions of dollars of state and local revenue per year, 
while also providing a low cost, reliable source of energy for all 
Americans and material for steel manufacturing. In 2020 alone, the 
royalties, bonus payments, and rent payments from coal produced on 
federal land provided over $525.5 million to the federal government. It 
simply needs no explanation that delays in awarding leases under the 
program deprives economic development, job creation and retention, 
federal revenues, and threatens electricity reliability and U.S. 
competitiveness in building critical infrastructure.
    Total coal production through the Federal Coal Leasing Program is 
significant. The Department of Interior's Office of Natural Resources 
Revenue and the Department of Energy's Energy Information 
Administration reported that of 577.4 million short tons of total coal 
production in the United States in 2021, 266.9 million short tons was 
produced on federal lands amounting to 46 percent of total production 
of both thermal and metallurgical coal.\40\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \40\ See, U.S. Department of Interior Natural Resources Revenue 
Data at https://revenuedata.doi.gov/query-data/?dataType=Production, 
and U.S. Department of Energy Monthly Energy Review, https://
www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/monthly/pdf/mer.pdf, February 2023, p. 
119.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The following data is an important snapshot from the three largest 
producing states under the Federal Coal Leasing Program showing the 
total tax and royalty liability to federal, state, and local 
governments from each dollar of coal production: \41\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \41\ Energy Information Administration, Annual Coal Report, https:/
/www.eia.gov/coal/annual/, October 2022, taken from Table 28.

Wyoming
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

Montana
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


Utah
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    .epsCertain coal production on federal land has been caught in a 
back and forth on policy depending on the occupant of the White House. 
In 2016, former U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI), Secretary Sally 
Jewell issued Secretarial Order 3388 imposing a three-year moratorium, 
with exceptions for metallurgical coal production and certain 
exceptions for thermal coal production, on further coal lease sales 
pending completion of a programmatic environmental impact statement 
(PEIS). After a change in presidential administrations, former DOI 
Secretary Ryan Zinke issued Secretarial Order 3348, that revoked the 
Order 3388, terminated the ongoing PEIS, and directed Bureau of Land 
Management (BLM) to simply resume issuing coal leases. Litigation 
immediately challenged Order 3348, and after another change in 
presidential administrations, DOI Secretary Deb Haaland issued 
Secretarial Order 3398 to revoke Order 3348 and update the policies of 
the Department concerning the Federal Coal Leasing Program.
    Finally, in August 2022, the U.S. District Court for the District 
of Montana issued an order reinstating the Federal Coal Leasing Program 
moratorium established by former Secretary Sally Jewell in Order 
3388.\42\ The order imposes an indefinite nationwide injunction against 
federal coal leasing with some exceptions until the BLM completes an 
analysis under the National Environmental Policy Act of the 2017 
revocation of the moratorium. Clarification to simply withdraw the 
original Order 3388 and allow the Department of the Interior to perform 
its lawful functions to implement the Federal Coal Leasing Program is 
critically important.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \42\ See, U.S. District Court of Montana Order in 4:17-cv-00030-
BMM, August 12, 2022
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
What are the Solutions?

    Chairman Westerman's Transparency and Production of American Energy 
Act and Energy and Mineral Resources Chairman Stauber's Permitting for 
Mining Needs Act support a new robust domestic mineral supply chain 
that prioritizes responsible resource development through policies that 
provide certainty to all mining operations and manufacturers. The bills 
set lead agencies to coordinate the permitting process; improve the 
timeliness of the permitting process through deadlines or simply 
allowing project applicants to complete environment impact statements 
with federal agency review similar to processes in Canada and 
Australia; maintains access to mineralized federal lands unless 
specifically withdrawn by Congress and unless the U.S. Geological 
Survey can assure that a withdrawal does not threaten supply chains; 
maintains decades of essential mining regulatory practice to not only 
ensure U.S. competitiveness but to prevent impediments to domestic 
production; provides more certainty to timing of legal reviews; 
supports a domestic uranium industry for critical nuclear energy 
production; provides new needed regulatory certainty to the Federal 
Coal Leasing Program allowing new leasing, lease renewals, and 
eliminating confusing exceptions; and unlocks innovation by not 
supporting prescriptive policies.
    These policy recommendations are commonsense changes that would 
provide regulatory certainty to investors that the U.S. seeks to once 
again compete on a global scale in the mineral supply chain. Instead of 
only seeking to secure mineral supplies from foreign sources or 
exporting domestically extracted materials for further refinement, 
processing and smelting, the NMA supports improvements in the 
permitting process would demonstrate that the U.S. intends to secure 
the entirety of its supply chain, lessening vulnerabilities from 
outside sources, including geopolitical impacts. These policy 
recommendations would also provide the needed regulatory certainty to 
support critical electricity reliability.
Conclusion

    The U.S. is at a mining crossroads. Mineral demand is soaring, but 
our policies are both lagging and impeding production. We must 
encourage more domestic mining and processing to meet future demand and 
ensure that the materials required for everything from infrastructure 
to electrification are readily available from inside our own borders.

                                 ______
                                 

    Mr. Stauber. I thank the witness for his testimony, and the 
Chair now recognizes Mr. Squillace for his 5 minutes.

 STATEMENT OF MARK SQUILLACE, PROFESSOR OF LAW, UNIVERSITY OF 
                  COLORADO, BOULDER, COLORADO

    Mr. Squillace. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and good morning to 
you, to the Ranking Member, and to the entire Committee. I want 
to begin with a discussion about H.R. 209.
    Now, I understand that we must acquire the minerals that we 
need to make a smooth transition away from fossil fuels and 
toward renewable energy. And I agree that we ought to find ways 
to streamline the permitting process for mines and related 
infrastructure. Some of the streamlining strategies that are 
laid out in the FAST Act, for example, I think could be helpful 
here. But let's be clear. We can accommodate a rapid transition 
to renewable energy without sacrificing our public lands. And 
the need for streamlining cannot be used as an excuse to allow 
non-compliance with our environmental laws.
    I want to focus on two particular problems with H.R. 209.
    First, it allows the mine applicant, who has a built-in 
conflict of interest, to prepare the environmental impact 
statement. Aside from the fact that this violates NEPA, it 
makes a mockery of the required alternatives analysis. The 
alternatives analysis is the heart of the EIS. It is supposed 
to present the proposal and alternatives in comparative form, 
thus sharply defining the issues and providing a clear basis 
for choice for the agency and the public.
    An alternatives analysis prepared by an applicant is only 
going to focus on the applicant's proposal. But NEPA requires 
agencies to consider all reasonable alternatives. In the case 
of a proposed mine, for example, the agency should consider the 
very promising alternative of facilitating metals recycling. A 
recent study found that we can meet 55 percent of our copper 
needs, 25 percent of our lithium needs, and 35 percent of our 
cobalt and nickel needs just from robust battery recycling. As 
this study further shows, a serious metals recycling program 
could obviate the need for many new mines.
    Unlike an applicant, agencies must also consider 
alternative mining methods. So, for example, an EIS on a 
proposal for a conventional lithium mine should address the 
prospects for direct lithium extraction, or DLE, from the 
massive Salton Sea deposits. DLE promises to be cheaper and to 
produce far more environmentally friendly lithium than 
conventional mining. The state of California, for example, 
estimates that the Salton Sea deposit could annually meet 40 
percent of global lithium needs.
    Only by insisting that an alternatives analysis be prepared 
by the agency can we assure that things like recycling and 
different mining methods are fairly considered.
    Let me now turn to the provisions that would effectively 
make mining the dominant use of our public lands. H.R. 209 
essentially gives a mining company carte blanche to claim 
mining rights without ever having to even make a discovery of 
minerals.
    In addition, mining companies will have an unfettered right 
to use whatever public lands they need for ancillary 
facilities. This would include, for example, the massive mine 
waste piles that they generate from their mining operations. 
And mine operators, most of which are foreign-owned, by the 
way, can take the public's minerals without paying a dime to 
the U.S. Treasury.
    Most worrisome, the proposal is not limited to critical 
minerals. It would also open our public lands to potentially 
thousands of mines for certain types of common minerals like 
limestone, gravel, and clay.
    Before we give away our public lands to foreign mining 
companies, we should step back and consider real mining reform. 
A leasing program with market-based acquisition fees and 
royalties should be our top priority.
    Finally, let me briefly touch on the proposed TAP American 
Energy Act. In my written comments to the Committee, I address 
some specific concerns. In the short time I have left, I would 
like to address an overarching concern.
    To put it bluntly, the TAP American Energy Act's focus on 
promoting oil and gas development on our public lands and 
waters aims to fix a problem that doesn't exist.
    In the short term, an unprovoked war in Ukraine and OPEC's 
efforts to constrain oil and gas supplies have caused a spike 
in oil and gas prices. Those pressures on prices may continue 
for the next couple of years. But over the next decade, we are 
going to witness a rapid global transition to electric vehicles 
and renewable energy, and this will erode the demand for oil 
and gas significantly. Oil companies see this, and that is why 
they are largely indifferent to public land leasing, and why 
they are not developing what they have.
    During the Trump administration, the government offered 25 
million acres of onshore oil and gas leases and 78 million 
offshore acres. Only about 10 percent of these lands were 
actually leased. Oil and gas companies now sit on almost 14 
million acres of unused public land leases, despite having 
received more than 9,600 drilling permits for these leases. 
Encouraging more leasing at below-market prices, as proposed in 
the TAP American Energy Act, will further enrich already 
bloated oil company revenues, while making these public lands 
unavailable for other important uses. That strikes me as a very 
bad deal for the American people.
    Thank you for the opportunity to offer these comments. I 
welcome your questions.

    [The prepared statement of Mr. Squillace follows:]
Prepared Statement of Mark Squillace, University of Colorado Law School
    Thank you for the opportunity to appear before the House 
Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources to offer my views on the 
proposed ``Permitting for Mining Needs Act of 2023,'' and the proposed 
``Transparency and Protection of American Energy Act of 2023.'' I am 
the Raphael J. Moses Professor of Natural Resources Law at the 
University of Colorado Law School. I teach and work primarily in the 
fields of environmental, natural resources, and water law and I have 
written extensively on all of these subjects. My professional 
experience with public lands issues runs deep. As a law student at the 
University of Utah College of Law, I worked in the Utah State Office of 
the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) as a land law examiner--a position 
that allowed me to review all manner of public lands activities and 
gain first-hand knowledge about the operation of our public land laws. 
Following law school, and before entering law teaching, I was hired 
into the Solicitor's Honor's Program at the U.S. Department of the 
Interior where I gained significant additional experience on public 
lands and mineral law issues. I took a leave from teaching and returned 
to the Solicitor's Office in 2000 as a Special Assistant to the 
Solicitor where I worked on a wide range of special projects involving 
public lands. All of this experience both inside and outside of 
government has helped to inform my understanding of public lands 
management and the issues surrounding mining and oil and gas 
development on public lands. Because the two bills currently before the 
Subcommittee address very different issues, I will take them up 
separately, beginning with the Permitting for Mining Needs Act.
I. The Permitting for Mining Needs Act: H.R. 209

    H.R. 209 has some laudable goals. The transition away from fossil 
fuels and toward renewable energy requires an adequate supply of the 
critical minerals needed to produce the batteries, solar panels, and 
wind turbines that this transition demands. And manufacturers will need 
to gain access to those minerals in a timely manner. Proposed H.R. 209 
appears to be designed, at least in part, to meet those important 
goals. Unfortunately, it does so in ways that unnecessarily undermine 
environmental values and the protection of our public lands.
    Most worrisome, H.R. 209 proposes to change federal mining law for 
every kind of ``locatable'' mineral; i.e., those minerals not subject 
to lease or sale under current law. This would extend the streamlining 
provisions afforded ``critical'' minerals under the Infrastructure 
Investment and Jobs Act to essentially all minerals that fall under the 
General Mining Law.\1\ But only a very few locatable minerals, like 
cobalt, lithium, copper or rare earths, are important enough to warrant 
these advantages. According to the Government Accountability Office 
(GAO), the vast majority of approved mining plans for locatable 
minerals on public lands are for minerals that are in no way 
``critical'' to the emerging economy.\2\ More than half of the acreage 
is devoted to mining gold, which is primarily used for jewelry. Some 
114 approved plans mine so-called ``uncommon varieties'' of widely 
occurring substances like stone, gravel, and clay. Surely the Congress 
has no need to streamline the process for approving mining plans for 
these minerals, especially when these operators take publicly-owned 
minerals off public lands for free. Yet that is exactly what H.R. 209 
proposes to do.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ 30 U.S. Sec. 1607.
    \2\ See Mining on Federal Lands, GAO-20-461R (2020), available at, 
https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-20-461r; see also, Federal Land 
Management, GAO21299, available at, https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-21-
299.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Before addressing my more specific concerns with proposed H.R. 209, 
I want to acknowledge the potential benefits of promoting timely 
preparation of environmental documents. The NEPA process often drags 
out over a period of three years or more. When it takes too long, the 
staff overseeing the work are more likely to lose focus and some will 
likely leave for other jobs. This often triggers further delays. To be 
sure, delays can result, not only from agency failures, but also from 
the failure of the applicant to provide the agency with important 
information about their proposal. But agencies should adopt 
streamlining practices that help keep official on task and on schedule. 
Streamlining need not and should not mean avoiding or compromising 
compliance with environmental and other applicable laws. But 
streamlining strategies, such as those set out in the FAST Act, can 
help to ensure timely decisionmaking, especially if they are carried 
out in a flexible way that takes account for the complexity of the 
proposed action.
    Nonetheless, while I support efforts to streamline the NEPA process 
I cannot support those aspects of the proposed legislation that 
undermine compliance with important federal laws and policies. As set 
forth below, several provisions in H.R. 209 would do just that.
A. Allowing Applicants to Prepare Environmental Documents Makes a 
        Mockery of the Required Alternatives Analysis

    Section 3(h)(3) of H.R. 209 authorizes the lead agency to adopt an 
environmental impact statement or environmental assessment that is 
prepared by or for a project applicant. That provision stands in direct 
conflict with Section 102(2)(C) of NEPA, which requires ``a detailed 
statement [to be prepared] by the responsible official . . ..'' \3\ 
Requiring agency officials to prepare environmental documents is 
critical to the success of the law. In particular, it helps to ensure a 
fair and robust consideration of all reasonable alternatives to the 
proposed action as required by Section 102(2)(C)(iii) of NEPA.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\ Emphasis added. 42 U.S.C. Sec. 4332(2)(C). To be fair, the 
proposed law requires the document to fulfill the requirements of 
Section 102(2)(C) of NEPA but that provision seems to be intended to 
encompass the contents of the environmental document and not who 
prepares it. If it does indeed include the latter then it has no force 
and effect.
    \4\ See e.g., Natural Resources Defense Council v. Morton, 458 F.2d 
827 (D.C. Cir. 1972).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Consider, for example, a proposal to open a new copper mine. The 
project applicant is not likely interested in considering alternatives 
to mining such as recycling, or alternative locations for a proposed 
mine, or alternative mining methods. Yet NEPA requires agency officials 
to consider these and other reasonable options. Recycling in particular 
warrants careful consideration before new mining is approved, 
especially where such mining encroaches on our public lands. A recent 
study from the Institute for Sustainable Futures at the University of 
Technology Sydney found that ``[e]ffective recycling of end of life 
batteries has the potential to reduce global demand by 2040 by 55% for 
copper . . ..'' \5\ As the study further found, this creates ``an 
opportunity to significantly reduce the demand for new mining.'' \6\ 
Beyond battery recycling, recycling copper wire and electronics 
equipment could help further reduce the demand for virgin copper.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \5\ Dominish, E., Florin, N., Wakefield-Rann, R., Reducing New 
Mining for Electric Vehicle Battery Metals: Responsible Sourcing 
through Demand Reduction Strategies and Recycling (2021). The study 
also found that recycling could reduce the demand for lithium by 25% 
and for cobalt and nickel by 35%.
    \6\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The European Union is a leader in the field of recycling. Its 
``Waste from Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE)'' program,\7\ 
follows an Extended Producer Principle (EPR) that holds producers 
responsible for the collection, treatment, and monitoring of such 
equipment, including solar panels.\8\ Adopting something akin to the 
WEEE program here in the United States could greatly increase metals 
recycling and go a long way toward providing manufacturers with the 
metals they need without new mining. To be sure, we may need some new 
mining to produce the minerals needed for a successful energy 
transition. But the smart move would be to focus first on recycling 
because it is likely a viable alternative to at least some mining 
proposals. Legislation that adopts an ``extended producer principle'' 
for American manufacturers, together with policies to maximize metals 
recycling should be our first priority. That would help minimize the 
loss of public lands to large-scale mining operations, while saving 
money and the environment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \7\ Waste from Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE) 
(europa.eu).
    \8\ Reducing New Mining report at 47.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Lithium mining offers another excellent example as to why agency 
officials must be tasked with preparing the alternatives analysis 
required by NEPA. Lithium has traditionally been produced in two 
fundamentally different ways--solar evaporation and hard rock mining. 
Solar evaporation requires pumping mineralized groundwater into large 
storage ponds. The water in these ponds evaporates, sometimes over the 
course of an entire year, creating lithium carbonate. This process 
requires substantial pumping and adversely impacts the water supply of 
local communities. It also results in substantial waste piles that are 
typically left untreated, thereby contaminating the land surface and 
limiting opportunities for future land uses. Lithium recovery rates 
using this method are also low--somewhere between 20 and 40%.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \9\    
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    A second lithium production method involves hard rock mining for 
spodumene, the mineral associated with lithium deposits. Lithium mines 
use traditional open-pit and underground mining methods, with all of 
their concomitant costs and environmental problems. Processing 
spodumene also requires large quantities of chemicals, and results in 
substantial waste rock that is typically disposed of in tailings ponds. 
This obviously poses additional risks to land, water resources, and 
local communities, and results in the further destruction of our public 
lands for private gain.
    A promising alternative to these two traditional methods currently 
under development is called ``direct lithium extraction (DLE).'' \10\ 
DLE is a brine extraction method that extracts lithium from geothermal 
waters, processes the brine to remove the lithium, and then returns 
more than 98% of the brine back to the groundwater reservoir, thereby 
avoiding water resource conflicts. The DLE method has many significant 
environmental and economic advantages over solar evaporation and 
traditional mining. Geothermal energy can be used to extract the brine, 
it can recover up to 99% of the lithium, and it has the potential to 
produce a higher grade of lithium that will sell at a premium. DLE is 
also a much faster process for producing lithium, is not dependent on 
weather, and has a much smaller environmental footprint.\11\ The 
California Energy Commission recently estimated that the Salton Sea 
Known Geothermal Resource Area could produce as much 600,000 tons per 
year of lithium carbonate using the DLE method.\12\ That is far more 
than is currently used in the United States. DLE is quite obviously a 
promising and reasonable alternative to the traditional methods of 
lithium extraction. Yet, only by insisting that the responsible agency 
prepare the EIS is this promising alternative likely to even be 
considered as an alternative to opening a conventional lithium mine.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \10\ Id. See also, Using Direct Lithium Extraction To Secure U.S. 
Supplies / News / NREL.
    \11\ A Look At Direct Lithium Extraction (``DLE'') And Some Of The 
DLE Lithium Companies / Seeking Alpha; see also, Direct Lithium 
Extraction / Cornish Lithium Ltd. available at, As Lithium Drilling 
Advances at the Salton Sea, Researchers Work Out the Details / News & 
Community / KCET. An animated diagram can be found here. Direct Lithium 
Extraction / Cornish Lithium Ltd. See also, https://www.nrcan.gc.ca/
our-natural-resources/minerals-mining/minerals-metals-facts/nickel-
facts/20519.
    \12\ Ventura, S. et al., Selective Recovery of Lithium from 
Geothermal Brines. California Energy Commission. Publication Number: 
CEC500-2020-020. https://www.energy.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2021-05/
CEC-500-2020-020.pdf; see also Dave Goodman, et al., Salton Sea 
Geothermal Development Nontechnical Barriers to Entry--Analysis and 
Perspectives (June 2022) available at, https://www.pnnl.gov/main/
publications/external/technical--reports/PNNL-32717.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    For decades, the Council on Environmental Quality described the 
alternatives analysis as the ``heart of the EIS.'' It is supposed to 
``present the environmental impacts of the proposal and the 
alternatives in comparative form, thus sharply defining the issues and 
providing a clear basis for choice among options by the decisionmaker 
and the public.'' \13\ By allowing the project applicant to prepare the 
EIS for a major mining project, the proposed bill would cut the heart 
out of any NEPA document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \13\ 40 CFR Sec. 1502.14 (2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Allowing Operators to Develop Mining Claims without Any Discovery of 
        Minerals Upends the General Mining Law and Unduly Threatens 
        Public Lands

    Calls to reform the General Mining Law of 1872 go back more than 
100 years. To say that reforms are long overdue is a gross 
understatement. Most egregiously, mine operators on our public lands, 
most of which are based in foreign countries, are allowed to take these 
valuable public resources while paying nothing to the U.S. Treasury--no 
initial payment to acquire the rights, no royalties and no rental fees. 
Thus, if changes to the General Mining Law are going to be made, 
Congress should start by shifting public land mineral development to a 
leasing program that requires an upfront payment for the fair value of 
the minerals, with appropriate royalties for the minerals produced, and 
a performance bond that guarantees safe mining practices and proper 
reclamation once mining is completed. Even with such reforms, the 
historic practice of dumping massive quantities of mine tailings on our 
public lands is likely to continue, but the reform process would at 
least provide a vehicle for examining alternatives to this problematic 
practice.
    A leasing program could also introduce an abandoned mined land fee, 
as was established under the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation 
Act,\14\ to help pay for the cost of cleaning up the thousands of 
abandoned mines left behind by mine operators. These abandoned mines 
litter our western public lands and cleaning them up will be 
costly.\15\ The mining industry is responsible for this problem and 
Congress should call upon them to help fix it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \14\ 30 U.S.C. Sec. 1232.
    \15\ See, e.g., Land Management Agencies Should Improve Reporting 
of Total Cleanup Costs, GAO-23-105408 (2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Unfortunately, H.R. 209 fails to make even the tiniest effort to 
address these serious problems with the existing law. On the contrary, 
it exacerbates them.
    First, Section 8 of H.R. 209 gives mining companies the legal 
``right to use, occupy, and conduct operations on public land'' on 
payment of a small fee, and goes on to define operations to include 
``any'' activity on public land that has any connection with mineral 
prospecting or development, including waste dumps, roads, and 
transmission lines. This eliminates the long-standing requirement of 
the Mining Law that such activities must be supported by a discovery of 
valuable minerals.
    A ``discovery'' has been the hallmark of a valid mineral location 
since the General Mining Law was adopted in 1872. Under the traditional 
test for determining the validity of a mining claim, the government 
must find that ``a person of ordinary prudence would be justified in 
the further expenditure of his labor and means, with a reasonable 
prospect of success, in developing a valuable mine.'' \16\ In United 
States v. Coleman,\17\ the U.S. Supreme Court upheld what it described 
as a ``logical complement'' to the prudent person test by insisting 
that claimants show that the minerals they discovered could be marketed 
at a reasonable profit. The problem is that neither Interior nor the 
operator can know whether the located minerals can be marketed at a 
profit without knowing the costs of developing those minerals. As the 
Department subsequently found, those costs may include, among other 
things, the cost of acquiring an adequate water supply and any 
additional land that might be needed for the mining operations, the 
costs to finance the operation, labor costs, and the cost of complying 
with relevant federal, state, and local environmental laws, including, 
for example, the Clean Water Act, the Endangered Species Act, the 
National Historic Preservation Act.\18\ Furthermore, FLPMA requires the 
BLM to ``take any action necessary to prevent unnecessary and undue 
degradation of [our public] lands'' \19\ and this allows the agency to 
impose additional measures that may be appropriate for protecting our 
public lands. All of these legal requirements must be analyzed during 
the environmental impact assessment process, and until that is done, 
and the costs of compliance are determined, neither the government nor 
the operator can know whether the propped mining operation can be 
developed at a reasonable profit, and thus whether a valid discovery 
has been made.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \16\ Castle v. Womble, 19 Land Dec. 455 (1894).
    \17\ 390 U.S. 599 (1968).
    \18\ United States v. Pittsburgh Pacific Co, 84 Int. Dec. 282 
(1977).
    \19\ 43 U.S.C. Sec. 1732(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The sponsors of H.R. 209 suggest that when an operator proposes to 
expend their resources to develop a mine they must have determined that 
they can make a sufficient profit to justify the operation, and thus 
can meet the test for a discovery. But that puts the cart before the 
horse. As suggested above, identifying the constraints that will be 
imposed on a mining operation should only happen after a robust 
environmental impact assessment process followed by a government 
decision as to whether to allow mining, and if so, under what 
conditions. In other words, developing a mineral property that might 
appear to valuable in the abstract may actually be unprofitable or only 
marginally profitable and insufficient to justify a discovery, after 
accounting for the true cost of developing the mine. Absent a 
discovery, the operator has no valid property interest and no right to 
mine.
    A second massive problem with section 8 of H.R. 209 is that it 
appears to allow mining companies to use, free of charge, as much 
public land as they might claim to need to dispose of their waste rock 
and carry on all other activities that are ancillary to mining.. For 
all of its problems, even the General Mining Law does not give a 
mineral locator carte blanche to use whatever public lands they might 
desire to facilitate mining. These are, after all, public lands that 
should be protected, to the fullest extent possible, for public use. 
H.R. 209 would make private mining of a vast array of substances the 
dominant use, capable of trumping all other uses, especially those uses 
enjoyed by the general public.
    The consequences of this proposal are potentially alarming. While 
the mining industry focuses on critical minerals, the proposed language 
would allow operators who might claim any of the myriad minerals 
subject to the mining law, including, for example, uncommon varieties 
of limestone or building stone, and take as much public land for their 
mining operations as suits them. Our public lands would be overrun with 
people seeking to take advantage of this opportunity. Those of us who 
cherish public lands for their recreational, ecological, and aesthetic 
values would end up paying a huge price of this short-sighted policy.
    By explicitly doing away with the bedrock discovery requirement of 
the General Mining Law, H.R. 209 would effectively gift our public 
lands to private, often foreign-owned, mining companies.\20\ It would 
allow them to take as much of our public lands as they want for mineral 
development and for dumping their vast quantities of mine waste without 
any prospect that this land will ever be restored, and without paying a 
dime to the federal treasury. Anyone who cares about protecting our 
public lands for future generations should oppose this gift to the 
mining industry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \20\ See Multinational Mining Corporations Are Exploiting U.S. 
Taxpayers--Center for American Progress.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
II H.R. ____: The Transparency and Production of American Energy Act 
        (TAP American Energy Act)

A. The TAP American Energy Act's Goals Are Incompatible with the Long-
        term Outlook for Oil and Gas

    The war in Ukraine and the surge in demand for oil and gas that 
followed our recovery from the COVID-19 pandemic caused energy prices 
to spike and created an understandable effort to control oil and gas 
prices by increasing oil and gas supplies. OPEC's decision to take 
advantage of this situation and curtail production exacerbated this 
problem. The TAP American Energy Act is apparently intended to respond 
to the supply side of the problem by increasing domestic oil and gas 
production. Almost everything about this proposed legislation, however, 
would be counter-productive, especially when one considers the long-
term outlook for oil and gas.
    Like it or not the shift away from oil and gas will accelerate in 
future years. Within a decade or two, we will witness a rapid 
transformation of the transportation sector toward electrification. As 
a result, the demand for oil will plummet. Similarly, renewable energy 
will become an increasing staple of our domestic electricity supply 
putting downward pressure on natural gas prices. In the short term, the 
market will likely remain volatile, rising and falling in response to 
major events like war. But as time goes on and the pace of the 
transition accelerates, oil and supplies will likely outstrip demand 
and lead to price declines. Most of the players in the oil and gas 
industry understand this and have shied away from major new commitments 
to oil and gas development, especially those that will take years to 
develop. Government policy should reflect this understanding.
    About a decade ago, some of us were urging the government to manage 
coal's decline in a responsible way so as to minimize the economic 
dislocations for workers and coal dependent communities.\21\ Our pleas 
fell on deaf ears. What followed was a wave of bankruptcies from every 
major coal company that richly rewarded coal company executives for 
their mismanagement even as their employees and communities suffered 
severe losses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \21\ See e.g., Managing coal's decline--WyoFile.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    While the parallels between coal and oil and gas development are 
not perfect the two industries are quite similar. Large companies with 
significant oil and gas assets face a serious risk of bankruptcy if 
they fail to anticipate and plan for the inevitable decline of that 
sector. Congress and the federal government could play an important 
role in managing the decline of the oil and gas industry in ways that 
will minimize economic dislocations, especially for workers and 
dependent communities. What Congress should be asking is how they can 
facilitate a just and orderly transition away from oil and gas and 
toward electric vehicles and renewable energy. By promoting more 
leasing and more oil and gas production at below market rates, the TAP 
American Energy Act seeks to do just the opposite and will lead us down 
the same path that faced the coal industry just a few short years ago.
B. Existing Federal Oil and Leases and Permits Far Exceed Current 
        Demand

    Currently, 37,496 federal oil and gas leases cover 26.6 million 
Federal onshore acres. Of that, 12.8 million acres are producing oil 
and gas from 96,100 wells. That leaves 53% or 13.8 million acres of 
public land under lease and not producing. The lack of production is 
not because the BLM has failed to issue drilling permits. More than 
9,600 drilling permits have been issued for these lands and are not 
being used.\22\ Leases that are not producing, some of which manage to 
go on for years, due to various extensions beyond the 10-year primary 
term, tie up our public lands, preventing their use for other purposes, 
including, for example, renewable energy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \22\ About Oil and Gas / Bureau of Land Management (blm.gov); 
Report on the Federal Oil and Gas Leasing Program (doi.gov).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Offshore leasing tells a similar story. Currently 12 million 
offshore acres are under lease but 55% of these leased lands are not 
currently producing oil and gas. To be sure, offshore leases can take 
longer to go from lease to production and the capital costs for 
developing these leases can be quite high. But it is not as if the 
industry is begging for new leases Indeed, just because the government 
``offers'' more federal leases does not guarantee that this will lead 
to new leases being issued or more oil and gas being produced. The 
federal government ``offers'' many leases that receive no bids. During 
the four years of the Trump Administration, for example, Interior 
``offered'' to lease 25 million acres onshore and 78 million acres 
offshore. Yet only about 10% of these lands ended up under lease.\23\ 
The TAP American Energy Act also ignores the significant administrative 
burden on the BLM that results from having to offer too many leases 
that no one wants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \23\ How much oil and gas comes from federal territory?--USAFacts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The recently enacted Inflation Reduction Act requires the federal 
government to offer at least 2 million acres of onshore acreage for 
lease and 60 million acres of offshore acreage before it can proceed 
with renewable energy development. It seems prudent to wait to see how 
these offers play out before insisting that even more acreage be 
offered for lease. Indeed, the rush to offer new leases and to issue 
more drilling permits seems wholly unnecessary in light of all of the 
existing acreage that is currently under lease and for which drilling 
permits have already been approved but that are not being 
developed.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \24\ About Oil and Gas / Bureau of Land Management (blm.gov); How 
much oil and gas comes from federal territory?--USAFacts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. The TAP American Energy Act Would Deny the American Taxpayer a Fair 
        Return Even as Oil Giants Post Record Profits

    In 2022, Exxon post record profits of $55.7 billion. Shockingly, 
that is $6.3 million an hour! \25\ All of the majors posted similar 
record profits. These oil giants didn't ``earn'' these record profits 
because of clever management or good decisions. Their profits are due 
almost entirely to a rise in oil prices brought on by an unprovoked war 
by a Russian strongman and an oil cartel that decided to take advantage 
of this war. A reasonable congressional response to this situation 
might be to try to claw back some of these profits. Instead, the 
sponsors of the TAP American Energy Act appear to believe that it is 
better to add to the already overflowing oil company coffers while 
short-changing the American people through below market royalties and 
rental fees, and by reviving the much-criticized noncompetitive leasing 
program.\26\ In a November, 2020 report, the GAO found that 98.8 
percent of noncompetitive BLM oil and gas leases sold between 2003 and 
2009 did not enter production during their 10-year primary term.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \25\ https://www.gov.ca.gov/2023/01/31/big-oil-made-record-2022-
profits-while-fleecing-california-families/.
    \26\ See Oil and Gas: Onshore Competitive and Noncompetitive Lease 
Revenues, GAO-21-138; see also, On Heels of BLM Oil and Gas Lease Sale, 
Chair Grijalva and Rep. Lowenthal Release GAO Report Showing Extent of 
Outdated Industry Giveaways, House Natural Resources Committee, 
December 14, 2020, describing the GAO report.
    \27\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The oil and gas industry already sits on almost 14 million acres of 
public land leases that are not being developed and that could be made 
available for other uses, including renewable energy development. 
Offering additional leases that are not likely to be developed, 
especially under the noncompetitive leasing program, is irresponsible 
and contrary to the public interest.
    The oil and gas provisions of the TAP American Energy Act are 
trying to solve a problem that doesn't exist, and it would do so in 
ways that unnecessarily compromise our public lands. For all of the 
reasons set forth above, Congress should reject the provisions that 
seek to increase oil and gas leasing as provided in this proposed 
legislation.
D. The Automatic Suspension of Leases Following an Expression of 
        Interest in an Adjacent Tract by a Lessee Invites Abuse

    The Mineral Leasing Act allows the BLM to suspend an oil and gas 
lease ``in the interest of conservation.'' \28\ In a 2018 report, the 
GAO found that the BLM had suspended 2,750 oil and gas leases in 16 
states, covering about 3.4 million acres of federally managed land.\29\ 
Suspensions for 650 of those leases had lasted for more than 30 years. 
For 320 more, they lasted between 10 and 30 years. During lease 
suspensions, no revenues are collected. While there may have been good 
reasons for some of these suspensions, the GAO was rightly critical of 
the BLM for failing to set out the reasons for the suspensions. 
Moreover, the BLM has no process for periodically reviewing these 
suspensions and they likely go on for years without any review.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \28\ 30 U.S.C. Sec. 209; see also 43 CFR Sec. 3103.4-4.
    \29\ Oil and Gas Lease Management: BLM Could Improve Oversight of 
Lease Suspensions with Better Data and Monitoring Procedures, GAO-18-
411 (2018), available at, https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-18-411.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Lease suspensions have a significant potential for abuse, and the 
TAP Energy Act would exacerbate the problem by requiring the Secretary 
to approve a suspension within 15 days after receiving a request, 
whether or not that request has merit. Apparently, all the lessee must 
show is that it has an interest in leasing an adjacent tract. As the 
GAO found, lease suspensions can last for years and during the 
suspension period the government receives no revenue--no rental 
payments nor royalties. Furthermore, the law makes no provision for 
periodically reviewing suspensions and for canceling them when 
appropriate.
    If the government wants to allow suspensions it should do so 
transparently. A request should be made public, should be subject to 
public comment, and should be approved only after the BLM provides a 
written statement of reasons that explains why, through no fault of its 
own, the lessee is unable to develop the lease. Moreover, once granted, 
lease suspensions should be reviewed no less than every two years 
through a public process that ensures that the reasons for the 
suspension still hold true.
    Lease suspensions allow the lessee to hold onto leases and tie up 
public lands for decades without paying rentals or royalties. 
Historically, these suspensions have been granted without public notice 
or review, and without any explanation of the reasons for the 
suspension. The TAP American Energy Act should fix these problems. 
Instead it proposes to make them worse.
E. The Proposed Changes to NEPA would Undermine the Law

    NEPA has proved a useful scapegoat for those who complain about 
delays in decisionmaking. Yet the basic idea behind NEPA--that we 
should take a careful look at the potential consequences of a proposed 
action before moving forward--is hard to criticize. It is for that 
reason, that NEPA might very well be the most emulated American law 
ever written. Most developed countries follow a NEPA-like process and 
many state and local governments do so as well. To be sure, the NEPA 
process can bog down and lead to unnecessary delays, but the answer to 
this problem is not to gut the law, but to make smarter use of it. 
Unfortunately, the TAP American Energy Act proposes a number of changes 
to NEPA that would greatly undermine its effectiveness in promoting 
smarter and better government decisions.
    First, Section 202 of the proposed law would codify the Trump era 
CEQ rules. Those rules have already been partially revised by the Biden 
Administration and further revisions are expected soon. But what ever 
one thinks about the merits of the competing versions of these rules, 
freezing them in place makes no sense. Climate change requires that the 
CEQ be nimble in responding to new circumstances as they arise. For 
example, the CEQ likely needs to consider building into its rules 
adaptive management criteria so that decisions that are impacted over 
time by changes on the ground can be adapted to reflect the new 
information. This will also require more careful monitoring so that 
changes can be detected in a timely fashion. Somewhat relatedly, the 
revised rules should include stronger mitigation language. 
Historically, agencies have had discretion as to whether to require 
mitigation measures as part of their decision. But when reasonable 
mitigation measures are available as determined by the agency during 
the NEPA process, those mitigation measures should be mandated. 
Finally, the Trump era rules make the same mistake as H.R. 209 in 
allowing a project applicant to prepare an environmental impact 
statement. For the reasons set forth in my comments on that proposal, 
such a provision should not be codified as proposed in this bill.
    This review of the Trump era CEQ rules is in no way comprehensive 
and many other concerns might fairly be raised. But the broader point 
is that the CEQ needs flexibility to decide how best to implement 
NEPA's important mandates and it should not be subjected to the 
straight-jacket that would result from codification of the Trump era 
rules.
    Section 205 of the proposed TAP American Energy Act raises a 
different problem. It provides for the reuse of previous EAs and EISs 
if the new proposed action is substantially the same as what was 
previously analyzed, and if the effects of the proposed action are 
substantially the same. But, at a bare minimum, a new proposal will 
occur at a different location and it is almost inconceivable that the 
effects of an action at an entirely different location are going to be 
the same. Agencies would be wise to reuse the prior analysis of 
technologies and other information that is not dependent on a 
particular site, but it seems highly unlikely that they would ever be 
able to adopt wholesale a previous EA or EIS for a new project that was 
not the subject of an earlier analysis. Construing this language to 
allow the adoption of a previous assessment as proposed in Section 205 
would violate the spirit if not the letter of NEPA.
    Finally, Section 208 of the proposed TAP American Energy Act 
authorizes the Secretaries of Agriculture and Interior to accept and 
expend funds to expedite the processing of various energy-related 
actions and facilities. The law should make clear, however, that these 
funds should not be accepted from parties with an interest in the 
agency's decision. Rather, parties who are seeking permits should be 
charged reasonable fees for processing their permits as authorized by 
Section 304(a) of FLPMA.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \30\ 30 U.S.C. Sec. 1734(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
F The Provisions Addressing Public Land Withdrawals in the TAP 
        American Energy Act Handcuff the Land Use Planning Process

    Proposed section 301 of the TAP American Energy Act imposes a 
significant burden on the Secretary of the Interior by denying him the 
authority to withdraw public lands, as authorized by Section 204 of 
FLPMA, until she has carried out various assessments and reported on 
those assessments to various House committees. Withdrawals are an 
important tool for ensuring that the certain public land values are 
protected from uses that would compromise them. Yet, section 301 would 
hobble the Secretary from using protective withdrawals when they might 
be needed.
    Section 301 further burdens the already cumbersome land use 
planning process by demanding a singular focus on minerals and seeking 
to skew planning in the direction of more mineral development, even if 
the agency has previously decided that certain lands are better suited 
to other uses. This arguably violates the multiple use, sustained yield 
mandates that both Interior and the Forest Service are required to 
follow, but it also handcuffs the ability of these agencies to make the 
critical choices about the appropriate uses that should allowed and 
should not allowed on particular tracts of public lands.
    Finally, section 302(a) prohibits the President from ``taking any 
action that would pause, restrict, or delay'' the issuance of various 
leases, permits or approvals unless the land has been withdrawn. 
Similarly, section 302(b) broadly prohibits, with very limited 
exceptions, officials in the executive branch from rescinding leases, 
permits or claims for the extraction and production of any and all 
manner of minerals, locatable, leasable, or subject to sale under 
current law, or from taking other actions that could delay or restrict 
the issuance of new authorizations to produce such minerals. These 
limits on the executive violate a long tradition of entrusting the 
public lands agencies with the responsibility to follow a public 
process and to exercise their discretion in deciding how best to manage 
our public lands. For these reasons, the restrictions on Secretarial 
withdrawals under proposed section 301 and 302 should be rejected.
    Thank you again for the opportunity to appear before the Committee 
today. I wish the Committee well as it seeks to address the important 
issues that surround mineral development on our nation's public lands.

                                 ______
                                 

  Questions Submitted for the Record to Mark Squillace, University of 
                          Colorado Law School
          Questions Submitted by Representative Ocasio-Cortez

    Question 1. Section 214 of Rep. Westerman's H.R. ____  
``Transparency and Production of American Energy Act of 2023'' allows 
only for the environmental analysis of the areas on and immediately 
adjacent to the lease plot under analysis, and excludes consideration 
of the downstream, indirect effects of oil and gas consumption. What 
are the public health and environmental implications of this section?

    Answer. This section would preclude consideration of indirect and 
cumulative effects as currently required under the Council on 
Environmental Quality (CEQ) rules. Specifically, by limiting the 
environmental analysis to a single lease, as provided under the 
``Transparency and Production of American Energy Act of 2023'', the 
analysis will deny the public as well as the agency decisionmakers 
important information about the indirect and cumulative effects of that 
lease. The CEQ rules rightly require consideration of direct, indirect, 
and cumulative effects associated with a proposed action.\1\ As 
discussed in more detail below in response to Question 2, an analysis 
of cumulative effects is especially important in the context of oil and 
gas development. A single oil and gas well might not contribute a 
significant amount of greenhouse gases or other air pollutants, but 
hundreds or thousands of leases located in discrete areas could pose 
significant consequences to the environment and public health.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ 40 C.F.R. Sec. 1508.1(1)-(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In my home state of Colorado, the EPA recently determined that 
Front Range cities are ``severely'' out of compliance with the national 
ambient air quality standard for ozone.\2\ Atmospheric ozone poses 
serious health risks, especially to the elderly and people who have 
difficulty breathing, even at low concentrations.\3\ Ozone is formed by 
a mixture of nitrous oxides, volatile organic compounds (VOCs), and 
sunlight. Oil and gas operations release significant amounts of nitrous 
oxides and VOCs, especially methane, which is a potent greenhouse gas. 
Recent data suggests that oil and gas operations on the Front Range are 
the chief culprit for increased ozone pollution in the region.\4\ Oil 
and gas operations also release air toxics like benzene, ethylbenzene, 
and n-hexane.\5\ A single lease might produce a relatively 
insignificant amount of these pollutants. But hundreds or thousands of 
leases in a discrete area can have devastating health consequences for 
people living near these facilities.\6\ These cumulative impacts would 
simply be ignored if the TAP American Energy Act became law.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ The Clean Air Act establishes various levels of noncompliance 
with increasingly strict standards to bring the area into compliance. 
The levels are: (1) marginal; (2) moderate; (3) serious; (4) severe; 
and (5) extreme. See https://crsreports.Congress.gov/product/pdf/RL/
RL30853.
    \3\ See Health Effects of Ozone Pollution/US EPA.
    \4\ See Corrected ozone data estimate fracking and drilling produce 
more emissions than every Front Range vehicle/Colorado Public Radio 
(cpr.org). (``. . .[D]rilling and hydraulic fracturing . . . alone 
appeared likely to account for more ozone-causing emissions than all 
cars and trucks along the Front Range.'')
    \5\ See Basic Information about Oil and Natural Gas Air Pollution 
Standards/US EPA.
    \6\ See Study Explores Demographics of Communities Living Near Oil 
and Gas Wells/Environmental Defense Fund (edf.org).

    Question 2. This legislation codifies the Trump administration's 
2020 NEPA regulations that eliminate the cumulative impact analysis 
requirement. This requirement mandates that federal agencies consider 
other nearby pollution sources and the cumulative impact a proposed 
project or permit would have on a community when analyzing the 
environmental impact of said project. Why are cumulative impact 
analyses important, and what would be the consequences of eliminating 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
this requirement?

    Answer. The current Biden-era CEQ rules define ``cumulative 
effects'' as:

        effects on the environment that result from the incremental 
        effects of the action when added to the effects of other past, 
        present, and reasonably foreseeable actions regardless of what 
        agency (Federal or non-Federal) or person undertakes such other 
        actions. when measured alongside all of the past, present, and 
        reasonably foreseeable future leases and other actions.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \7\ 40 CFR 1508.1(g)(3) (2021).

    Thus, when analyzing an individual action, like a single oil and 
gas lease, the CEQ rules require the decisionmaker to assess the 
cumulative impacts of all other leases and other actions that cause 
cumulative effects. So, for example, activities on public lands like 
grazing, oil and gas development, and renewable energy projects can 
impose cumulative impacts on wildlife species, including endangered and 
threatened species and candidate species like the Greater sage grouse. 
If we don't want to push the Greater sage grouse into a formal listing, 
with all of the consequences that that entails, we should be carefully 
evaluating the cumulative effects on that species, as well as other 
impacted species, from a wide range of activities. Likewise, many 
public lands activities release greenhouse gases (GHGs) and otherwise 
contribute to or are impacted by climate change. Looking at the 
cumulative effects of these activities will be extremely helpful in 
developing measures that can avoid, minimize or mitigate the adverse 
impacts from these activities. An important tool for measuring the 
social cost of GHGs (SC-GHG) would make it relatively easy for agency 
decisionmakers to ascertain the cumulative impact on society from past, 
present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions, when considering a 
permit application or proposal for an individual project. A draft 
report recently released by the EPA estimates that cost at about $190/
ton of CO2. The public would benefit greatly from a transparent 
discussion of the cost of approving a new permit, when considered 
alongside other projects that release GHGs into the environment. That 
discussion will also will allow the decisionmaker to be better informed 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
about the consequences of their decision.

    Question 3. In your written testimony, you criticized the proposal 
to restore noncompetitive oil and gas leasing on public lands, which 
was eliminated in the Inflation Reduction Act. Can you elaborate more 
about your opposition to noncompetitive leasing?

    Answer. Noncompetitive leasing promotes speculation. Under the pre-
Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) version of the Mineral Leasing Act, a 
party could obtain a lease on a parcel that received no bids during the 
competitive auction simply by paying a small filing fee and the first 
year's rental of $1.50/acre. In a report issued in 2020, the GAO found 
that 98.8 percent of these noncompetitive BLM oil and gas leases sold 
between 2003 and 2009 never produced oil and gas during their 10-year 
primary term.\8\ Yet these leases tie up our public lands and are 
unavailable for other uses. Add to this the BLM's tendency to approve 
lease suspensions without public scrutiny and these leases can tie up 
our lands for several decades, while providing no return to the public. 
(When leases are suspended the obligation to pay rent is also 
suspended.) Most worrisome, is the fact that the TAP American Energy 
Act would apparently require the BLM to approve these suspensions 
within 15 days after they are requested just because the operator 
claims it would be in the interest of conservation. No inquiry, no 
public notice, and no periodic review of these suspension requests 
would be required.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \8\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The IRA wisely eliminated noncompetitive lease sales. It also set 
graduated rental rates that make speculation much more costly, and thus 
far less likely to happen. H.R. 209 would bring back the noncompetitive 
leasing program and restore the old, below market rental rates. That 
would be tragic.

    Question 4. This legislation would allow the Secretary to accept 
funds from third parties to expedite the processing of energy-related 
activities. Can you expand on how this section could invite abuse and 
undermine NEPA?

    Answer. When third parties provide funding to expedite processing 
for energy-related facilities, they likely want the proposed project 
approved. Even if the money is not made contingent on a particular 
outcome, the agency will face substantial pressure to approve the 
project as desired by the funder. But government decisionmakers must 
approach a proposed action with an open mind and decide on the merits 
whether the proposal should be approved, approved with changes or 
rejected. Anything but straight up approval is harder if a third party 
has paid the bill. Moreover, this is entirely unnecessary.
    Section 304 specifically authorizes the BLM to charge ``reasonable 
filing and service fees and reasonable charges, and commissions with 
respect to applications and other documents relating to the public 
lands.'' \9\ Thus, the BLM already has the authority to impose fees 
sufficient to cover the cost of processing applications. Unfortunately, 
it seems reluctant to use this authority to cover its full costs. If it 
were to do so it would not have the need to accept funding from third 
parties.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \9\ 43 U.S.C. 1734(a).

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                 ______
                                 

    Mr. Stauber. I thank you very much for your testimony.
    The Chair now recognizes Mr. Thomsen for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Thomsen.

     STATEMENT OF PAUL THOMSEN, VICE PRESIDENT OF BUSINESS 
    DEVELOPMENT, AMERICAS, ORMAT TECHNOLOGIES, RENO, NEVADA

    Mr. Thomsen. Thank you, Chairman Stauber, Ranking Member 
Ocasio-Cortez, and all the Subcommittee members for this very 
timely hearing on critical geothermal permitting reform.
    I will make brief remarks, and I am happy to answer any 
questions you may have.
    By way of introduction, Ormat Technologies is a vertically 
integrated renewable energy company focused on geothermal 
energy development. We have been in the United States, 
headquartered here, since 1965, and are headquartered in Reno, 
Nevada. And today, we own and operate 1,100 megawatts of 
generation, primarily in the United States. We also have 
projects in Kenya, Guatemala, Indonesia, Honduras, and 
Guadeloupe.
    What separates Ormat from other developers is that we not 
only own and operate geothermal projects, but we design and 
manufacture the equipment. Ormat is also responsible for 2 
gigawatts of geothermal generation around the world. So, that 
is about double what we have been able to do here in the United 
States.
    We have extensive experience on U.S. public lands. We have 
22 operating geothermal projects on almost a quarter of a 
million acres of BLM land. We have another 17 projects that are 
in NEPA review. We have paid about $2.6 million in royalties, 
and we pay about $1 million a year in rentals to the Bureau of 
Land Management. Our zero-emission binary technology is 
deployed almost 10 to 1 over other technologies today, and we 
have avoided about 4.5 million tons of CO2. And we 
think the provisions in the TAP Act will help us double that.
    We applaud the introduction of the Transparency and 
Production of American Energy Act of 2023. It provides clarity 
and consistency in three specific areas that will help meet the 
goal of deploying at least 25 gigawatts of geothermal energy on 
public lands by 2025.
    So, what does this bill do, exactly? Well, section 109 
requires geothermal leasing to occur annually. In states like 
Nevada, we see the Bureau of Land Management regularly 
conducting lease sales, which is the critical first step to 
geothermal development. In other states, we have not seen a 
lease sale since 2016, even though lands have been nominated 
for geothermal development.
    Section 203 recognizes that the drilling for exploratory 
geothermal wells, including constructing or improving structure 
pads for activities that are less than 12 inches in diameter 
and where the total surface disturbance is less than 5 acres, 
should not be required to proceed through the full NEPA review, 
which is currently taking geothermal projects 24 to 36 months.
    What does that mean? Before a geothermal developer can even 
know if there is a geothermal resource today to be able to 
drill those exploratory wells, we have to go through a full 
environmental assessment, and that is taking between 2 to 3 
years. Then we proceed to a utilization permit to build and 
construct and operate the power plant, which takes another 2 to 
3 years, currently. That is 6 years to develop state-of-the-
art, zero-emission geothermal projects that take up less than 
about a 15-acre pad.
    Section 213 of the bill really, again, clarifies that if 
the Federal Government does not have any rights to the surface 
estate and less than 50 percent to the subsurface estate, we do 
not have to go through the NEPA process, but we can work with 
the local entities in the state to permit these projects.
    Non-major Federal actions. Clarifying that temperature 
gradient holes and other geothermal exploratory wells required 
for preliminary resource confirmation are non-major Federal 
actions. This will enable the geothermal industry to deploy 
more megawatts on public lands, creating new jobs and royalty 
revenues for our Treasury, local states, and counties. This 
clarification results from extensive consultation within the 
industry, white papers, a review by the Department of Energy in 
their Geo Vision Report, and the National Renewable Energy 
Laboratory.
    I believe we have been discussing this for over a decade, 
trying to streamline the categorical exclusion so that 
geothermal is put on the same level playing field as other 
energy developers, to define where these resources are quickly. 
For years, Ormat and the Geothermal Rising, the industry's 
trade association, have requested the Department of the 
Interior or Congress to issue clarifications to the categorical 
exclusion from NEPA to reduce the permitting burden for 
geothermal resource confirmation.
    Defining geothermal resource confirmation as a non-major 
Federal action immediately unlocks new projects and their 
associated economic benefits. But, maybe, most importantly, it 
allows the BLM field staff to focus on the appropriate 
permitting priorities of permitting the actual physical power 
plants that may have an effect on our environment.
    This action also provides greater parity between geothermal 
and oil and gas, which is afforded a broad categorical 
exclusion for exploration activities, including resource 
confirmation wells under section 390 of the Energy Policy Act 
of 2005.
    Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

    [The prepared statement of Mr. Thomsen follows:]
    Prepared Statement of Paul A. Thomsen, Vice President, Business 
                Development--Americas Ormat Technologies
    Chairman Stauber, Ranking Member Ocasio-Cortez, and Members of the 
Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony on the 
``Transparency and Production of American Energy Act of 2023.''
Ormat Overview

    By way of introduction, Ormat Technologies, Inc. is a New York 
Stock Exchange registered company (symbol ``ORA''). Headquartered in 
Reno, Nevada, Ormat Technologies has more than five decades of 
experience as a global leader in geothermal power and recovered energy 
generation (REG). A vertically integrated company with 1,400 employees, 
Ormat designs, develops, manufactures, owns, and operates geothermal 
power plants all over the world, with more than 3,000 MW of gross 
capacity in over 30 countries. Ormat has extensive experience on U.S. 
public lands, with 22 operating facilities (880 acres) utilizing 
256,784 acres on Bureau of Land Management (BLM) land in California, 
Nevada, New Mexico, and Utah. In 2020, Ormat paid $2.6 M in royalties 
and $993,344 in rentals to the Bureau of Land Management.

    Ormat's state-of-the-art, air-cooled binary facilities provide 
stable and reliable renewable energy 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 
with zero carbon emissions. Its geothermal facilities utilize binary 
technology to further reduce greenhouse gas emissions and decarbonize 
the power grid. Binary plants reinject 100% of geothermal fluid and 
maintain reservoir pressures, meaning they are ideal for geothermal 
reservoirs to maximize sustainability.

    Ormat is a pioneer in Organic Rankine Cycle (ORC) technology and a 
leader in the manufacture of ORC power equipment. Using this 
technology, geothermal fluid is extracted from an underground reservoir 
and flows from the wellhead through pipelines to heat exchangers in the 
Ormat Energy Converter (OEC). Inside the heat exchangers, the 
geothermal fluid heats and vaporizes a secondary working fluid with a 
low boiling point. The organic vapors drive the turbine. They are then 
condensed in a condenser, which is cooled by either air or water. The 
turbine rotates the generator. Condensed fluid is recycled back into 
the heat exchangers by a pump, completing the cycle in a closed system.

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


    .epsIn March 2022, Ormat signed a 15-year Power Purchase Agreement 
(PPA) with Peninsula Clean Energy, a Community Choice Aggregator (CCA) 
that provides more than 3,500 GWh of electricity to San Mateo County 
and the City of Los Banos, California. Under the terms of the PPA, 
Peninsula Clean Energy will purchase 26 MW of clean, renewable energy 
from Ormat's Heber 2 geothermal facility located in Imperial Valley, 
California. This PPA marks the successful completion of Ormat's first 
ever solicitation for bids, with a request for bids (RFB) on the Heber 
2 facility issued in July 2021.

    In May 2022, we announced the execution of two PPAs with NV Energy. 
Under the first PPA, signed in 2021, NV Energy will purchase 25 MW of 
power over 25 years generated by the North Valley Geothermal Project, a 
new facility in Washoe County, Nevada, expected to come online by early 
2023. Additionally, NV Energy will purchase up to 135 MW of power 
generated by a portfolio of the company's new and existing geothermal 
power plants under a PPA signed in May 2022. The portfolio PPA is 
subject to the Public Utility Commission's approval.

    In June 2022, Ormat announced the execution of a PPA with 
California Community Power (CC Power), a Joint Powers Agency consisting 
of numerous CCAs. Energy deliveries under the portfolio PPA are 
expected to start in the second quarter of 2024, with the expectation 
that the entire portfolio covered under the new PPA will be online by 
the end of 2026. The portfolio PPA covers up to 125MW for a term of 20 
years and is comprised entirely of new projects currently under 
construction or in development in Nevada and California. Capacity is 
subject to California Independent System Operator (CAISO) connection 
approval.

    Demand for geothermal and other renewable energy is growing in the 
United States as generation costs have become more competitive. We 
believe that future demand for energy generated from geothermal and 
other renewable resources in the United States will be driven primarily 
by a further commitment to carbon-free capacity resources. For example, 
in California, the Public Utilities Commission has required Electric 
Load Service Entities (LSEs) to procure 11.5 GW of new clean 
electricity by 2028. One GW of this procurement must deliver firm power 
with an 80% capacity factor, produce zero on-site emissions, and be 
weather independent. With a high capacity factor and firm and flexible 
generation, geothermal energy addresses these requirements and is the 
natural replacement for baseload fossil fuels and nuclear generation, 
which is why the United States are seeing a massive surge in geothermal 
development.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Geothermal Power Purchase Agreements on the Rise (https://
www.geothermal-library.org/
index.php?mode=pubs&action=view&record=1040017)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
TAP American Energy Act

    Many geothermal resources that are commercially viable for energy 
production using today's technologies are located on public lands. BLM 
manages all subsurface geothermal resource on federal lands, regardless 
of the federal agency that manages the surface estate (such as the 
Forest Service). Therefore, almost all geothermal development must 
conduct a National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) review. While 
geothermal is inexpensive to operate and maintain once a project is 
complete, during the resource discovery, phase developers must drill 
resource confirmation holes to determine the true quality and quantity 
of the underground resource. This means the industry has a 
disproportionate permitting burden at the ``front end'' of a project, 
before a revenue payback is guaranteed. A heavy permitting burden means 
a slow development cycle, and a slow development cycle means developers 
pay a lot for financing.

    Regulatory reform is critical to alleviate barriers to geothermal 
development in the United States. Ormat appreciates the work of 
Congressman Bruce Westerman (R-AR), Congressman Pete Stauber (R-MN), 
and members of this Committee for introducing the ``Transparency and 
Production of American Energy Act of 2023.'' The TAP act provides 
clarity and consistency in three areas that will help meet the 
administration's goal of deploying at least 25 GW of geothermal 
resources on public land by 2025:

     Section 109, Geothermal Leasing: Amends the Geothermal 
            Steam Act to require a yearly lease sale for geothermal 
            energy.

     Section 203, Non-Major Federal Actions: Exempts from NEPA 
            review any drilling for geothermal exploratory wells, 
            including for constructing or making improvement to 
            structure pads for activities that are less than 12 inches 
            in diameter and where total surface disturbance is less 
            than 5 acres.

     Section 213, Access to Federal Energy Resources from Non-
            Federal Surface Estate: Amends the Geothermal Steam Act to 
            exempt from federal permitting any geothermal exploration 
            and production activities that occur on nonfederal surface 
            estate, provided that the U.S. owns less than 50% interest 
            in subsurface estate and the operator submits a State 
            permit to the Secretary of the Interior for the activity. 
            Nothing in this section affects royalties owed to the 
            federal government, and this same exemption does not apply 
            to resources managed in trust for tribes.

    Section 109, Geothermal Leasing: Ninety percent (90%) of 
conventional geothermal resources in the United States are located on 
federally managed lands. Access to more federal land is the critical 
first step for ensuring additional geothermal production. Lease 
provisions administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) vary by 
state in process and frequency. Nevada BLM, for example, has held a 
geothermal lease sale every year since 2016, while California BLM has 
not held a geothermal lease sale since 2016. Standardizing annual land 
quotas, nominations, and decision time frames will create more 
opportunities for geothermal exploration and utilization.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ Geothermal Rising, Letter to Secretary Debra Haaland, March 18, 
2021, https://geothermal.org/resources/geothermal-rising-letter-
addressinggeothermal-permitting-public-lands

    Section 203 and 213, Non-Major Federal Actions: Clarifying that 
temperature gradient holes and other geothermal exploratory wells 
required for preliminary resource confirmation are Non-Major Federal 
Actions will enable the geothermal industry to deploy more megawatts on 
public lands, creating new jobs and royalty revenues for our treasury, 
local states, and counties. This clarification is the result of 
extensive consultation within the industry, whitepapers, and a review 
of geothermal permitting conducted in 2013 and 2014 by the Department 
of Energy, Geo Vision Report \3\ and National Renewable Energy 
Laboratory (NREL).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\ Chapter 5: The GeoVision Roadmap: A Pathway Forward, ENERGY.GOV 
(2019), https://www.energy.gov/sites/default/files/2019/06/f63/5-
GeoVision-Chap5-opt.pdf.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    As the GeoVision Analysis Supporting Task Force Report concluded:

        ``Reducing the overall project time directly attributable to 
        NEPA, whether by reducing the time of individual NEPA processes 
        or reducing the frequency of NEPA analysis for a particular 
        project, can alleviate some of the major barriers to geothermal 
        development. Reducing NEPA timelines directly decreases overall 
        project timelines which indirectly decreases the perceived risk 
        profile--lowering three of the four barriers to geothermal 
        development identified by industry. Lowering these barriers is 
        in line with one of NEPA's stated goals: to ``enhance the 
        quality of renewable resources.'' \4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\ Young, K., A. Levine, J. Cook, D. Heimiller, and J. Ho. 2019. 
GeoVision Analysis Supporting Task Force Report: Barriers. An Analysis 
of Non-Technical Barriers to Geothermal Deployment and Potential 
Improvement Scenarios, NREL/TP-6A20-7164, NATIONAL RENEWABLE ENERGY 
LABORATORY (2019). https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy19osti/71641.pdf.

    Defining geothermal resource confirmation drilling as a Non-Major 
Federal Action will significantly relieve the permitting burden for the 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
geothermal industry without undermining environmental stewardship.

    For years, Ormat and Geothermal Rising, the industry's trade 
association, have requested that Department of Interior (DOI) or 
Congress issue a new rulemaking or memorandum to expand and clarify 
existing categorical exclusions (CX) from NEPA to reduce the permitting 
burden for geothermal resource confirmation and observation. Defining 
geothermal resource confirmation drilling as a Non-Major Federal Action 
immediately unlocks new projects and their associated economic 
benefits, while allowing the hardworking BLM field staff to focus on 
appropriate permitting priorities. This action also provides greater 
parity between geothermal and oil and gas, which is afforded a broad CX 
for exploration activities, including resource confirmation wells, 
under Section 390 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005.
Next Steps for Geothermal Development on Public Lands

    In addition to annual lease sale requirements and categorical 
exemptions for exploration activities (as currently proposed in the TAP 
American Energy Act), Ormat asks the committee to consider additional 
reforms that prioritize renewable geothermal energy development on 
public lands. Ormat continually updates Congress on permitting 
timelines and the increasing timelines for Environmental Assessments 
(EA), Environmental Impact Statements (EIS), and even Geothermal 
Drilling Permits (GDP). Formation of a geothermal task force within BLM 
could expedite the review and execution of permits, educate BLM offices 
less familiar with geothermal development, coordinate U.S. Department 
of the Interior Office of the solicitor review of BLM actions, and 
reduce permitting delays caused by the Biden administration moratorium 
on drilling which impacted geothermal project permitting and increased 
solicitor review times.

    Streamline Geothermal Drilling Permits: BLM manages all subsurface 
geothermal resources on federal lands, regardless of the federal agency 
that manages the surface estate (like the U.S. Forest Service), 
creating a permitting bottleneck due to ineffective collaboration among 
land and resource managers. While interagency environmental planning 
remains essential to geothermal utilization at the power plant 
development phase, there is agency gridlock during review of Geothermal 
Drilling Permits (GDP) when multiple agencies cannot coordinate review 
efficiently. The DOI or Congress should establish a maximum two-month, 
BLM-only administrative approval time limit.

    Permit Process Transparency: Ormat understands regulatory processes 
are essential to ensuring geothermal development is carried out 
responsibly. Increasing transparency in the permit process would assist 
in overcoming uncertainty and costs associated with undefined 
regulatory review timeframes. Ormat has approximately 17 projects 
currently under review by BLM. On average, permitting geothermal 
exploration takes four years, though some projects have taken many more 
years and are still pending NEPA determination. Permit tracking across 
districts and field offices can provide renewable energy developers 
clear outcomes, issues identification, improved education of agency 
staff, and a significantly shorter permitting process.

    Remove Agency Redundancy: While geothermal plants are relatively 
inexpensive to operate and maintain once constructed, the resource 
discovery phase requires costly permitting and drilling to determine 
the quantity and quality of an underground resource. This places a 
disproportionate front-end investment on renewable energy projects. 
Costs are further exacerbated by cumbersome permitting cycles that put 
meeting federal and state renewable targets in jeopardy. Removing 
agency redundancies saves money and time. BLM should not be tasked with 
responsibilities to evaluate in detail resource issues that are under 
the jurisdiction or special expertise of federal or state environmental 
protection agencies. In the case of Nevada, water degradation 
prevention is already the jurisdictional responsibility of a state 
subsurface Underwater Injection Control (UIC) program with expertise in 
basin and range hydrologic and hydrogeologic systems. BLM should be 
directed to rely on and incorporate by reference the analyses of other 
state and federal agency with jurisdiction or special expertise, 
allowing BLM staff to focus on appropriate permitting priorities.
Conclusion

    Ormat has unmatched insight into the progress and pitfalls of 
geothermal development, which is why the company is celebrating with 
two ribbon cuttings events in 2023, one of which is the first new 
independent plant in California in over a decade. Ormat remains 
resolute in its mission to deliver 320 MW in Power Purchase Agreements 
by 2026, a quantity that could easily double with regulatory reform. In 
closing, Ormat Technologies supports the House Natural Resources 
Committee's commitment to energy development, and specifically to the 
deployment of more megawatts of geothermal production, which will 
generate new energy, new jobs, and added revenue for the treasury, 
states, and counties. It is my pleasure to ask this Committee to help 
ensure geothermal energy remains a pillar of our nation's clean energy 
future.

                                 ______
                                 

  Questions Submitted for the Record to Paul Thomsen, Vice President, 
                           Ormat Technologies
    Ormat applauds the work of Congressman Bruce Westerman (R-AR), 
Congressman Pete Stauber (R-MN), and members of House Committee on 
Natural Resources for their leadership in regulatory reform to 
geothermal development barriers in the United States. Further, Ormat 
appreciates the opportunity to respond to four additional questions 
pertaining to the geothermal components stated in the ``Transparency 
and Production of American Energy Act of 2023'' and H.R. 209 
``Permitting for Mining Needs Act of 2023''.

            Questions Submitted by Representative Westerman
    Question 1. Are the tools provided in this package for geothermal 
exploration consistent with other exemptions that the federal land 
management agencies offer to other energy sources?

    Answer. Specifically this action provides parity between geothermal 
and oil and gas exploration, which is afforded a broad categorical 
exclusion for exploration work including resource confirmation wells, 
under Section 390 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005. We believe the 
proposed language provides certainty and consistency for the geothermal 
industry while requiring compliance with all environmental regulations.

    Question 2. This bill would require the Department of the Interior 
to hold annual lease sales for geothermal development.

     Could you discuss how annual lease sales would help 
            provide certainty for the geothermal industry and how 
            making this change would impact investment in geothermal 
            development?

    Answer. Requiring annual geothermal lease sales is the only way to 
ensure that federally managed geothermal resources can be evaluated and 
developed. Ninety percent (90%) of conventional geothermal resources in 
the United States are located on federally managed lands. Access to 
more federal land is the critical first step for ensuring additional 
geothermal production. Annual lease sales are the foundation for 
developing additional geothermal resources. Standardizing annual land 
quotas, nominations, and decision time frames will create more 
opportunities for geothermal exploration and utilization.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Geothermal Rising, Letter to Secretary Debra Haaland (18 March 
2021). https://geothermal.org/resources/geothermal-rising-letter-
addressinggeothermal-permitting-public-lands

    Question 3. In your testimony you discuss the particularly 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
burdensome permitting process on the front end of a geothermal project.

     How would this bill expedite the permitting process on the 
            front end of a project?

    Answer. As is the case now, preliminary geothermal exploration is 
hampered by onerous ``front end'' permitting requirements. Eliminating 
burdens in the process results in fixing an unnecessarily slow 
development cycle which results in significantly higher project 
financing. This bill facilitates the ability to collect data and make 
determinations about commercial viability without spending hundreds of 
thousands of dollars permitting non-commercial resources. The bill also 
eliminates uncertainty for federal decision makers and allows both the 
federal land managers and proponents to instead prioritize their 
valuable resources on viable geothermal developments.

    Question 4. Without significant permitting reforms will we be able 
to meet the administration's goal of having 25 gigawatts of geothermal 
on public lands by 2025?

    Answer. No, 25 gigawatts of geothermal on public lands in less than 
two years is not achievable without significant permitting reform and a 
Department of Interior commitment to more efficient environmental 
review.

    In summary, the geothermal component of the ``Transparency and 
Production of American Energy Act of 2023'' and ``Permitting for Mining 
Needs Act of 2023'' provides several specific changes needed to improve 
geothermal exploration. While we have discussed the benefits and 
crucial nature of those changes, it is important to reiterate that the 
proposed changes do not affect the geothermal industry's responsibility 
and integrity in meeting the highest water quality, reclamation, and 
well abandonment standards for environmental stewardship.

                                 ______
                                 

    Mr. Stauber. Thank you for your testimony.
    The Chair will now recognize Members for 5 minutes of 
questions, and I will start with myself.
    I would like to first take a moment to recognize the 
important work done by our colleagues from Louisiana on the 
bipartisan effort to increase coastal revenue sharing to 50 
percent. Majority Leader Scalise is not only a standard bearer 
for our conference, but he is also my roommate and friend. I 
understand the importance of this provision to not only 
Representative Scalise, but also to my colleague on the 
Subcommittee, Representative Garret Graves. I am happy the 
BREEZE Act is included, and I look forward to supporting this 
legislation into law.
    Mr. Nolan, it is great to see you again, and thank you for 
joining us today. As you know, the Biden administration opted 
to ban mining in the Superior National Forest, a working forest 
which partially covers the Duluth Complex, one of the most 
mineral-rich areas in the world.
    After investing more than a half-a-billion dollars, Twin 
Metals had the rug pulled out from underneath. And the PolyMet 
project is on year 20 of permitting and fighting frivolous 
litigation. And by the way, both of these projects have project 
labor agreements in place with union building trades.
    Can you explain why certainty is so vital to mining 
projects in the United States, and how the Permitting for 
Mining Needs Act provides certainty to miners?
    Mr. Nolan. Be happy to, Mr. Chairman. The Twin Metals 
Project is a poster child for what is wrong with the permitting 
process.
    As you just outlined, the mining industry is a very patient 
group. We can wait, and we have waited. We have waited an 
incredibly long period of time. That time cost capital, cost 
jobs, cost trust, cost consultation. We really need to do 
better. The amount of capital that has been sunk for Twin 
Metals is a tremendous shame with a resource that can benefit 
the world and meet the exponential drive toward the minerals 
that we need to meet the electrification goals of the world 
economies.
    With regards to the legislation itself, the directive is to 
appoint a lead agency to consult with the other agencies to 
make sure that timelines and deadlines are getting accomplished 
through MOUs.
    The decision about bringing forward an EIS within 2 years, 
I think, is somewhat reasonable, from any measure.
    It has been mentioned about the Federal Government allowing 
private entities or states to bring forward EIS work. That is 
what we see with our competitors in Canada, who can get 
projects up and running in 2 to 3 years. It is something that 
the Committee should seriously take a look at. It is included 
in this bill.
    Changes such as that, looking at the land withdrawal 
process and assessing the minerals that are there before the 
land is withdrawn. We do not decide whether those minerals are, 
those were put there. And it is important that we take care of 
sensitive locations and communities, but at the same time there 
is a limited supply of locations where we can actually access 
those materials. Thank you.
    Mr. Stauber. Thank you very much. And, again, those are 
multi-generational union jobs that were just pulled out from 
underneath them.
    Mr. Naatz, thank you for joining us today. In your 
testimony, you discuss the long timeliness for drilling 
permits, which is something we also discussed 2 weeks ago in 
Hobbs, New Mexico. If the timeliness mirrored those of the 
states, would that result in more taxpayer revenue and bring 
down the cost of energy for Americans?
    Mr. Naatz. Certainly, Mr. Chairman, we believe, if the 
process was streamlined and they got back to the NEPA process 
as it was originally intended, that would certainly help. 
Independent producers, the members we operate, are small 
producers, largely not publicly-traded companies. They roll 
their profits back into the ground. Many times they are local, 
operating there. So, it is really important to have a process 
that they have comfort in, that they understand.
    One of the challenges, again, is the instability of the 
Federal regime, which, if it were clarified and made more 
streamlined, closer mirroring the states, we believe you would 
have additional production, both onshore and offshore.
    Mr. Stauber. Thank you very much. Will the TAP Act help 
reduce timeliness?
    Mr. Naatz. Is that to me? I am sorry----
    Mr. Stauber. Yes.
    Mr. Naatz. Yes, it will. It will. Again, the provisions--
first of all, requiring quarterly sales, which is part of the 
Mineral Leasing Act, which is the law, is really important. It 
is unfortunate, we believe, that you have to have another law 
to force the Administration to already move on another law. But 
yes, we believe the provision in the TAP Act will help 
timeliness for a variety of reasons.
    Mr. Stauber. Thank you very much. And it was great to see 
you down in Hobbs, New Mexico, and touring one of the drill 
rigs. I appreciate that.
    My time is up, and I want to refer the next 5 minutes to--
--
    [Pause.]
    Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. It is Kamlager-Dove.
    Mr. Stauber. Kamlager-Dove. There you go. I am sorry. I had 
my Ranking Member on my mind.
    Ms. Kamlager-Dove. Yes, I am skipping----
    Mr. Stauber. You are up now. Thank you very much.
    Ms. Kamlager-Dove. Thank you, Mr. Chair and my Vice Ranking 
Member for the courtesy.
    My district includes the largest urban field in the United 
States, so my constituents, sadly, know better than many about 
the environmental and health impacts that come with oil and gas 
development. And I certainly believe, as do they, that we need 
stronger, not weaker environmental, climate, and public health 
protections. And I am concerned that some elements of these 
bills take us in the wrong direction.
    Specifically, this legislation does a lot to limit 
environmental reviews critical for community input under NEPA. 
So, I have a couple of questions for Mr. Squillace.
    First, I understand that the Federal law requires tribal 
consultation. So, if during the consultation process, a tribe 
opposes a public lands mine that would destroy sacred sites, 
for example, does the mining law empower the Secretary to deny 
that project?
    Mr. Squillace. I would say that the mining law doesn't 
necessarily give the Secretary that authority. We have a law 
called the National Historic Preservation Act, which arguably 
comes in here. It would require consultation with the various 
parties who would be affected, including the Advisory Council 
on Historic Preservation. And there could at least be 
recommendations that the permit be rejected on those grounds. 
It is not mandatory, but certainly there would be an effort to 
understand the potential implications on tribal resources, and 
consider those actions or those impacts in a final decision 
that was made to allow or not allow that to go forward.
    Ms. Kamlager-Dove. But it is discretionary.
    Mr. Squillace. Yes, it is discretionary.
    Ms. Kamlager-Dove. OK, great. And then, not great, but 
thank you for the answer.
    [Laughter.]
    Ms. Kamlager-Dove. And then section 202 of the legislation 
would codify the Trump administration's disastrous NEPA 
regulations, which the Biden administration is in the process 
of replacing. Among other things, this legislation would 
eliminate the long-standing requirement that Federal agencies 
consider climate change in their environmental reviews, and 
also severely restrict the ability for agencies to consider 
pollution and public health impacts.
    So, I would just love your thoughts on what gets covered 
up, what is not shared when you silence community by removing 
public input from the process.
    Mr. Squillace. Yes, it is a really important question. And 
I guess I would say that one thing that we kind of have ignored 
here is the fact that the social cost, if you will, of climate 
change is enormous, and we have tools that we can use to 
calculate that cost and factor it in to important decisions.
    The EPA recently came out with a proposed study. It is 
still in draft form, but it suggests that the cost of one 
additional ton of carbon equivalent into the atmosphere is 
essentially costing us about $190 for each ton. And some of 
these fossil fuels facilities and operations are contributing 
massive quantities of carbon into the atmosphere.
    And if we took those costs into account, and we did so in a 
cumulative way, which would not be required under the Trump 
administration's NEPA rules, I think we would be able to see 
quite clearly that a lot of these decisions to allow oil and 
gas to go forward would be arbitrary and capricious. It just 
wouldn't be appropriate, given the cost to society that we are 
seeing from climate change.
    So, I think that is one of the big concerns with the 
proposal that has been offered there.
    Ms. Kamlager-Dove. Great, thank you very much. I agree with 
you. Oftentimes, we forget to talk about how much poor public 
health costs and how, while we are always looking to invest 
more in how we can have green and clean energy, we forget that 
when we are trying to circumvent a process or obfuscate it, we 
end up costing ourselves much more.
    I just want to close by saying, I think these regulations 
and some of our past regulations have already resulted in 
sacrifice zones like those in Cancer Alley in Louisiana. So, I 
am certainly dedicated to doing everything that I can to stop 
legislation like this so that the issues we are facing aren't 
further exacerbated, and so that communities like mine, people 
that live in my district, don't suffer that same fate.
    So, thank you so much, and I yield back my time.
    Dr. Gosar [presiding]. I thank the gentlewoman. The 
gentleman from Colorado is recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Lamborn. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing allow 
operators to drill numerous wells on a single pad, which 
reduces the surface disturbance on public lands. This is the 
least intrusive method that exists for large-scale energy 
production.
    However, many of these pads need numerous wells to be 
profitable. In many cases, the approval of only a couple of 
individual drilling permits is not sufficient. Instead, 
operators may need five or so wells to be economically viable, 
and they need all of the permits in hand and ready to go to 
provide the certainty that is needed to develop. So, by failing 
to efficiently issue drilling permits, this Administration is 
jeopardizing projects across the West that require multiple 
permits.
    Mr. Naatz, the TAP Act section 104 offers a suspension of 
operations to companies awaiting adjacent acreage not yet 
offered for lease. Can you talk about the development process, 
and why natural gas companies require multiple leases and 
permits?
    Mr. Naatz. Sure, Congressman, thank you for the question.
    You outlined it very well. Many times in the Intermountain 
West, on Federal lands or anywhere, you have to put together 
projects in a very complicated system of federal lands, state 
land, federal minerals, state minerals, private minerals. So, 
as producers move forward, you just don't get one permit and 
drill. You need to have a program together, especially, again, 
smaller independent producers, but all producers, so that you 
have a program ready to move and secure the drilling rigs, to 
secure the labor, to secure all the issues that are required, 
and are importantly required--environmental issues. And that 
unionization is really important, because it is not just one 
well you go out and drill. It just would never be economical, 
it wouldn't work. And that is the challenge.
    So, suspending those, again, some of the numbers that come 
out about the permit delays, that is exactly why you are 
holding on one permit, paying rent, paying for the lease, but 
at the same time you have to wait until these other projects or 
blocks come together. It is very important.
    Mr. Lamborn. OK, thank you. And for you and Mr. Nolan, how 
do U.S. energy and mining environmental regulations and labor 
standards compare to countries such as China, or Nigeria, or 
Russia, or Iran, where not only is the revenue going to 
countries that don't like us, but to countries that have poor 
environmental records and labor standards?
    Mr. Naatz. Congressman, just on our side, one of the things 
we always say is that U.S. oil and gas--and again, it is 
factual--are the cleanest barrels produced in the Gulf of 
Mexico, onshore, and especially as you compare to Saudi Arabia, 
to Venezuela, to Russia. Not only the environmental aspects of 
what is being done, but labor, the safety of the workers.
    Again, the American industry has a record--well, the 
natural gas industry--second to none. We are very proud of 
that. We are going to continue to improve. So, it is important, 
too, when you look at that.
    Mr. Lamborn. And what about mining, Mr. Nolan?
    Mr. Nolan. Congressman Lamborn, the U.S. mining industry 
complies above and beyond the highest environmental safety and 
labor standards in the world. This Committee has highlighted 
this past month what is going on in the cobalt fields across 
the world right now with child labor. It is unconscionable. We 
need to invest here at home, where we can create good American 
jobs in the safest environmental, health, safety, and labor 
standards in the world.
    Mr. Lamborn. And I am going to finish with a comment, and 
you can respond if you want to, but you don't have to.
    I just find it the height of hypocrisy that environmental 
extremists want to shut down U.S. energy and mining projects 
all over the United States wherever they can, when we excel at 
environmental regulations and labor standards compared to these 
other countries. I don't see them saying anything about these 
other countries and their poor labor standards and bad 
environmental records, and it is even worse because by shutting 
down U.S. production where they have been able to, that just 
forces these other countries to expand their operations and 
create more pollution and worse labor standards, including 
child labor. So, I just think that is the height of hypocrisy, 
and I really wish we could do something about that.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
    Dr. Gosar. I thank the gentleman. The gentlewoman from 
Michigan, Mrs. Dingell, is recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mrs. Dingell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Before us today are 
two bills that I have to tell you really do raise concerns for 
me, because they weaken landmark environmental laws, 
specifically NEPA and the Endangered Species Act, instead of 
offering meaningful or bipartisan solutions for us to consider.
    And I, again, want to reaffirm my commitment to work with 
my colleagues on real--I know we have to modernize our laws, 
but we have to do it in a way that protects original intent, 
but also makes it better. These don't. And I am serious about 
working with you on real legislation that would do that. 
Unfortunately, I don't think these are serious proposals.
    But let's first start with the mining law of 1872. I think 
it is fair to say a lot of things have changed over the 150 
years, and I would hope all my colleagues would agree that our 
law should reflect the times we are in, not the past. I know 
you are telling me that.
    So, Mr. Squillace, Democrats recently secured more than $1 
billion in the Inflation Reduction Act to increase Federal 
agencies' capacity for environmental reviews, which I was proud 
to support. So, how would modernizing our 150-year-old mining 
laws, instead of rolling back NEPA, allow us to better 
strengthen our domestic supply chain for critical minerals, so 
we can build the batteries we need to deploy more electric 
vehicles here in our energy storage solutions and not be 
dependent on China?
    Mr. Squillace. Thank you, Congresswoman, for that question. 
It is an important question.
    And I want to say that I think we are going to have to 
recognize that we may need some more domestic mining in this 
country.
    Mrs. Dingell. I agree.
    Mr. Squillace. But if we are going to have it, it needs to 
be done right. We need to look at all those reasonable 
alternatives that I talked about in my testimony. And we need 
to make sure we have considered the environmental costs 
associated with going forward with some of these proposals.
    I mean, I do think that the money that has been 
appropriated is going to help us to get there. But I also think 
that we owe it to the American people to reform the laws in 
such a way that these companies are paying a fair return to the 
people for taking these minerals. They are paying nothing to 
the American Government for taking our minerals, and most of 
these companies are foreign-based.
    We are essentially allowing foreign companies to come into 
our country and take our minerals, and they are not paying a 
dime to the Treasury. I think that is shameful. I think that 
needs to be fixed. If we fix that, we can have a much more 
constructive conversation, it seems to me, about what kinds of 
new mining we are going to allow in this country.
    Mrs. Dingell. Thank you. And, again, I don't think it is 
either/or. We can do both.
    Now I would like to move to the TAP American Energy Act. 
This is an Endangered Species Act question. The draft section 
209 of the TAP American Energy Act would preempt all future 
environmental review of seismic testing in the Gulf of Mexico. 
This is problematic.
    Section 209 ignores the science, ignores the Endangered 
Species Act, and the Marine Mammal Protection Act, and 
greenlights any and all seismic testing in the Gulf of Mexico 
outside the GOMESA moratorium area. It would be disastrous for 
the Gulf's marine wildlife and for the Rice's whale, one of the 
most endangered whale species on the planet. It is estimated 
that there are just 50 endangered Rice's whales left. NOAA 
biologists have concluded that seismic blasting is likely to 
eliminate or seriously degrade the entire species.
    Mr. Naatz, yes or no, do you agree that it would be bad for 
the Rice's whale to go extinct?
    Mr. Naatz. Yes. But I would just like to say again that the 
Endangered Species Act, our companies comply with it, 
understand how important it is. So, of course, we want to work 
with the Committee and find an answer.
    But, obviously, we would be concerned about any species 
going extinct.
    Mrs. Dingell. OK. So, yes or no, do you agree that it is 
prudent to evaluate the possible impacts of seismic surveys on 
the Rice's whale, and come up with mitigation and avoidance 
measures to help keep those remaining 50 whales safe, and help 
them on the road to recovery?
    Mr. Naatz. We are confident that the industry will work 
with the Federal regulators, work with the Fish and Wildlife 
Service to find answers there. And we are confident, again, 
that the Federal regulators will work with them to answer those 
questions.
    Mrs. Dingell. I am about to run out of time, but what I am 
concerned about is that section 209 of the TAP Act would 
prevent any future environmental reviews of seismic blasting in 
the Gulf.
    I would ask my colleagues on the other side, especially 
those from Florida and the Gulf states, is the extinction of 
the endangered Rice's whale in your backyard really the price 
you are willing to pay for unfettered access to seismic testing 
in the Gulf of Mexico?
    And Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to enter into the 
record the NOAA status review on Rice's whales and a statement 
about Rice's whales from 100 marine scientists that came out 
last fall.
    Thank you, and I yield back.
    Dr. Gosar. Without objection, so ordered.

    [The information follows:]

Submissions for the Record by Rep. Dingell

               An Open Letter to the Biden Administration

We, the undersigned, are marine scientists united in our concern for 
the Gulf of Mexico whale, also known as Rice's whale, the only baleen 
whale known to be resident to the Gulf and one of the most endangered 
marine mammal species on the planet.

Early last year, in an effort led by the National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration, scientists confirmed that the whale 
constitutes a unique species, one that has diverged from other baleen 
whales through long isolation in the Gulf.\1\ A mature Gulf of Mexico 
whale extends about 40 feet in length and is sleek in form; it has a 
spectacular vocal repertoire, making a long call that has not been 
heard in other species.\2\ This cetacean is also critically 
endangered.\3\ The agency currently estimates that the entire species 
has a population of only 51 individuals.\4\ With so few whales in 
limited habitat, the species is highly vulnerable to effects from human 
activities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Rosel, P.E., Wilcox, L.A., Yamada, T.K. and Mullin, K.D. 
(2021). A new species of baleen whale (Balaenoptera) from the Gulf of 
Mexico, with a review of its geographic distribution. Marine Mammal 
Science, 2021: 1-34, doi.org/10.1111/mms.12776.
    \2\ Soldevilla, M.S., Ternus, K., Cook, A., et al. (2022). Acoustic 
localization, validation, and characterization of Rice's whale calls. 
Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 151(6): 4264-78.
    \3\ Rosel, P., Corkeron, P., and Soldevilla, M. (2022). 
Balaenoptera ricei. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species, 2022: 
e.T215823373A208496244. Available at iucnredlist.org/species/215823373/
208496244.
    \4\ Hayes, S.A., Josephson, E., Maze-Foley, K., et al., eds. 
(2021). U.S. Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico Marine Mammal Stock 
Assessments 2020, at pp. 160-67. NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-NE-271.

Continued oil and gas development in the Gulf represents a clear, 
existential threat to the whale's survival and recovery. The 
government's Natural Resource Damage Assessment on the Deepwater 
Horizon oil spill estimates that nearly 20 percent of Gulf of Mexico 
whales were killed, with additional animals suffering reproductive 
failure and disease.\5\ The species is also subject to chronic exposure 
to noise from seismic oil and gas exploration, which dominates the 
acoustic environment through much of the northern Gulf.\6\ Airgun 
surveys have far-reaching effects on baleen whales, including the 
masking of biologically important sounds and the disruption of 
activities vital to feeding and reproduction over large ocean 
areas.\7\,\8\,\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \5\ DWH NRDA Trustees (2016). Deepwater Horizon oil spill: Final 
programmatic damage assessment and restoration plan and final 
programmatic environmental impact statement. Available at 
www.gulfspillrestoration.noaa.gov/restoration-planning/gulf-plan.
    \6\ Estabrook, B.J., Ponirakis, D.W., Clark, C.W., and Rice, A.N. 
(2016). Widespread spatial and temporal extent of anthropogenic noise 
across the northeastern Gulf of Mexico shelf ecosystem. Endangered 
Species Research, 30: 267-82.
    \7\ Castellote, M., Clark, C.W., and Lammers, M.O. (2012). Acoustic 
and behavoural changes by fin whales (Balaenoptera physalus) in 
response to shipping and airgun noise. Biological Conservation, 147: 
115-22.
    \8\ Cerchio, S., Strindberg, S., Collins, T., et al. (2014). 
Seismic surveys negatively affect humpback whale singing activity off 
Northern Angola. PLoS ONE, 9(3): e86464.doi:10.1371/
journal.pone.0086464.
    \9\ Blackwell, S.B., Nations, C.S., McDonald, T.L., et al. (2015). 
Effects of airgun sounds on bowhead whale calling rates: Evidence for 
two behavioral thresholds. PLoS ONE, 10(6): e0125720.doi:10.1371/ 
journal.pone.0125720.

Vessel collisions are another significant threat to the species. At 
night, Gulf of Mexico whales come to rest within the upper 15 meters of 
the water column, leaving them acutely vulnerable to ship strikes.\10\ 
One stranded whale, a lactating female, was found with injuries 
consistent with blunt force trauma; another, a free-swimming 
individual, has been observed with spinal deformities consistent with a 
collision injury.1 A number of shipping routes traverse the 
whales' habitat along the northern Gulf, and the collision risk is 
likely to increase with new offshore oil and gas development. With 
abundance so low, the loss of even a single whale threatens the 
survival of the species.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \10\ Soldevilla, M.S., Hildebrand, J.A., Fraser, K.E., et al. 
(2017). Spatial distribution and dive behavior of Gulf of Mexico 
Bryde's whales: Potential risk of vessel strikes and fisheries 
interactions. Endangered Species Research, 32: 533-50.

Gulf of Mexico whales can recover. They continue to produce calves, and 
our experience with other baleen whales shows that populations can 
rebound as conditions improve. But Gulf of Mexico whales are on the 
edge of extinction, and measures are urgently needed to reduce 
mortality and serious injury as well as to alleviate human stressors. 
Aquaculture, offshore wind farms, and other new development should 
always be sited outside of their known habitat, which is limited to a 
strip of water running along the continental shelf break from the 
eastern through the central and western Gulf. Vessels transiting 
through the whales' habitat should be required to slow down and take 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
other measures to reduce the risk of a fatal collision.

In the case of oil and gas development, protecting the species means 
excluding leasing and other activities from the whale's habitat; 
prohibiting seismic airgun surveys to prevent exposure of the whales 
and their habitat to what has become the dominant source of noise in 
the northern Gulf;6 and disallowing drilling in areas both 
inside and outside of the whale's habitat, such as in the Mississippi 
Canyon, that pose a catastrophic risk to the species. Habitat in the 
eastern, central, and western Gulf must be protected. Your 
Administration is presently considering a new five-year program for 
offshore oil and gas leasing, as well as a new regulation and related 
permits and authorizations for seismic surveys in the Gulf of Mexico. 
Continuing with seismic exploration or drilling in the northern Gulf is 
antithetical to basic principles of conservation and would jeopardize 
the species' survival and recovery.

The Gulf of Mexico whale is a unique part of the Gulf's natural history 
and the only large whale species resident year-round in the waters of 
the United States. Yet few on-water measures have been established to 
protect it. Unless significant conservation actions are taken, the 
United States is likely to cause the first anthropogenic extinction of 
a great whale species.\11\,\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \11\ Corkeron, P., Roman, J., Kershaw, F., et al. (2022). 
Balaenoptera ricei is also the Gulf of Mexico whale. Marine Mammal 
Science, 38: 847-49.
    \12\ Corkeron, P., and Kraus, S.D. (2018). Baleen whale species on 
brink of extinction for first time in 300 years. Nature, 554: 169.

On this, the fiftieth anniversary year of the nation's commitment to 
whales through the passage of the Marine Mammal Protection Act, we urge 
you to announce robust conservation measures to protect the Gulf of 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mexico whale as well as funding for its recovery.

October 2022

Peter Corkeron, Ph.D.
Senior Scientist and Chair, Kraus Marine Mammal Conservation Program
Anderson Cabot Center for Ocean Life
New England Aquarium

Francine Kershaw, Ph.D.
Senior Scientist
Marine Mammals and Oceans
Natural Resources Defense Council

Matthew Leslie, Ph.D.
Adjunct Professor
Environmental Studies Department
Ursinus College

Joe Roman, Ph.D., Fellow
Gund Institute for Environment
University of Vermont

Alexandra Aines, M.E.M.
Marine Scientist
Oceana

S. Elizabeth Alter, Ph.D., Assistant Professor
Department of Biology & Chemistry
California State University, Monterey Bay

Kimberly R. Andrews, Ph.D., Bioinformatic Data Scientist
University of Idaho

Robin Baird, Ph.D., Research Biologist
Cascadia Research Collective

Lisa T. Ballance, Ph.D.
Director, Marine Mammal Institute
Endowed Chair for Marine Mammal Research
Professor, Fisheries, Wildlife, and Conservation Sciences
Oregon State University, Hatfield Marine Science Center

Jay Barlow, Ph.D.
40 years as a marine mammal scientist
NOAA/National Marine Fisheries Service (retired)

Lance Barrett-Lennard, Ph.D., Senior Research Scientist
Co-Director, Cetacean Research Program
Raincoast Conservation Foundation

Simone Baumann-Pickering, Ph.D., Professor and Researcher
Scripps Institution of Oceanography
University of California San Diego

Paulette Bloomer, Ph.D., Professor
University of Pretoria
Gill Braulik, Ph.D., Research Fellow
Sea Mammal Research Unit
University of St. Andrews

Claire Charlton, Ph.D., Principal Scientist
Current Environmental

Fredrik Christiansen, Ph.D., Assistant Professor
Zoophysiology--Department of Biology
Aarhus University

Phillip J. Clapham, Ph.D., Senior Scientist
Seastar Scientific

Christopher W. Clark, Ph.D., Founding Director (retired)
K. Lisa Yang Center for Conservation Bioacoustics
Senior Scientist, Cornell Lab of Ornithology
Graduate Professor, Dept. of Neurobiology & Behavior
Cornell University

Tim Collins, M.S., Researcher
Wildlife Conservation Society

Richard Connor, Ph.D.
Professor Emeritus, University of Massachusetts Dartmouth
Courtesy Professor, Florida International University

Rochelle Constantine, Ph.D.
Professor, Marine Ecology and Conservation Biology
Institute of Marine Science
University of Auckland

Stephen Dawson, Ph.D., Professor Emeritus
Marine Science Department
University of Otago

Asha de Vos, Ph.D., Founding Executive Director
Oceanswell

Alistair Dove, Ph.D.
Vice President of Science and Education
Georgia Aquarium

Charlotte R. Findlay, Ph.D.
Postdoctoral Fellow, Marine Bioacoustics Lab
Zoophysiology--Department of Biology
Aarhus University

Alyson Fleming Ph.D., Research Faculty
Forest & Wildlife Ecology
University of Wisconsin Madison

Wally Franklin, Ph.D.
Adjunct Fellow, Southern Cross University
Managing Director and Marine Scientist, Oceana Project

Laura Ganley, Ph.D., Associate Scientist
New England Aquarium

Peter Gill, Ph.D., Director
Blue Whale Study

Sarah Glitz, Ph.D., Marine Scientist
Oceana

Pavel Gol'din, Ph.D., Leading Researcher
Schmalhausen Institute of Zoology

Simon Goldsworthy, Ph.D., Professor
University of Adelaide
Rebecca Hall, Scientific Officer
Blue Whale Study

Robert Harcourt, Ph.D., Professor
Macquarie University

Mark Hindell, Ph.D., Emeritus Professor
University of Tasmania

Ellen Hines, Ph.D., Associate Director and Professor
Estuary & Ocean Science Center
San Francisco State University

Fairul Izmal Jamal Hisne, Co-Founder & Vice-Chairperson
Marecet Research Organization

Sascha Hooker, Ph.D., Professor
Sea Mammal Research Unit
University of St Andrews

Lisa A. Hoopes, Ph.D., Director of Research and Conservation
Georgia Aquarium

Kelsey Howe, Assistant Scientist
Anderson Cabot Center for Ocean Life
New England Aquarium

Erich Hoyt
Research Fellow, Whale and Dolphin Conservation
Co-chair, IUCN Marine Mammal Protected Areas Task Force

Sharon Hsu, M.S., Research Assistant
Anderson Cabot Center for Ocean Life
New England Aquarium

Miguel Iniguez, M.Sc., Researcher
Fundacion Cethus

Yulia V. Ivashchenko, Ph.D., Director
Seastar Scientific

Mark Johnson, Ph.D., Associate Professor
Zoophysiology--Department of Biology
Aarhus University

Kristin Kaschner, Ph.D., Research Associate
Department of Biometry and Environmental Systems Analysis
Albert-Ludwig-University of Freiburg

Eric Keen, Ph.D., Visiting Professor
Sewanee: The University of the South

Robert D. Kenney, Ph.D.
Emeritus Marine Research Scientist & Adjunct Professor in Resident
Graduate School of Oceanography
University of Rhode Island

Jeremy Kiszka, Ph.D., Assistant Professor
Department of Biological Sciences
Florida International University

Scott D. Kraus, Ph.D., Chair
North Atlantic Right Whale Consortium

Russell Leaper, Consulting Scientist
International Fund for Animal Welfare

Carolina Bonin Lewallen, Ph.D., Assistant Professor
Marine and Environmental Sciences Department
Hampton University

Laura May-Collado, Ph.D., Assistant Professor
Department of Biology
University of Vermont
Richard Merrick, Ph.D., Independent Scientist
Retired from National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

Olaf Meynecke, Ph.D., Researcher and Manager, Whales and Climate
Griffith University

Michael J. Moore, Vet. M.B., Ph.D., Senior Scientist
Biology Department
Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution

Leslie New, Ph.D., Assistant Professor
Ursinus College

Giuseppe Notabartolo di Sciara, Ph.D., Founder and Vice-President
Tethys Research Institute

Orla O'Brien, M.S., Associate Scientist
New England Aquarium

Daniel Palacios, Ph.D., Endowed Associated Professor in Whale Habitats
Marine Mammal Institute and Dept. of Fisheries, Wildlife, & 
Conservation Sciences
Oregon State University

E.C.M. Parsons, Ph.D.
Associate Professor, Centre for Conservation and Ecology, University of 
Exeter
Affiliate Professor, George Mason University

Heidi Pearson, Ph.D.
Associate Professor of Marine Biology
University of Alaska Southeast

Gwenith Penry, Ph.D., Research Associate
Institute for Coastal and Marine Research
Nelson Mandela University

Betzi Perez, M.Sc., President, Panama
Panacetacea

Benjamin Pitcher, Ph.D., Research Fellow
School of Natural Sciences
Macquarie University

Robert Pitman, Marine Ecologist
Marine Mammal Institute
Oregon State University

Stephanie Plon, Ph.D., Associate Professor
Stellenbosch University

Elena Politi, M.Sc., Member
IUCN Joint SSC/WCPA Marine Mammal Protected Areas Task Force

Margi Prideaux, Ph.D., Policy Director
Wild Migration

Timothy J. Ragen, Ph.D., Executive Director (retired)
Marine Mammal Commission

Kristen Rasmussen, M.Sc., Founder and President
Panacetacea

William J. Rayment, Ph.D.
Department of Marine Science
University of Otago

Vincent Ridoux, Ph.D., Professor of Ecology
University of La Rochelle

Denise Risch, Ph.D., Lecturer
Scottish Association for Marine Science
University of the Highlands and Islands

Lorenzo Rojas-Bracho, Ph.D.
Ocean Wise
Canada/Mexico

Rosalind M. Rolland, D.V.M., Emeritus Senior Scientist
New England Aquarium

Naomi Rose, Ph.D., Marine Mammal Scientist
Animal Welfare Institute

Peter Ross, Ph.D., Senior Scientist
Raincoast Conservation Foundation

Matthew Savoca, Ph.D.
NSF Postdoctoral Research Fellow
Hopkins Marine Station of Stanford University

Rod Salm, Ph.D., Senior Advisor Emeritus
The Nature Conservancy

Meike Scheidat, Ph.D., Senior Researcher
Wageningen Marine Research

Geoff Shester, Ph.D., Senior Scientist
Oceana

Mark Peter Simmonds, OBE, Visiting Research Fellow
Veterinary School, University of Bristol

Ana Sirovic, Ph.D., Associate Professor
Norwegian University of Science and Technology

Liz Slooten, Ph.D., Professor Emeritus
University of Otago

Brian D. Smith, Senior International Adviser
Wildlife Conservation Society

Craig Smith, Ph.D., Professor of Oceanography
University of Hawaii

Mark Smith, Manager of Conservation, Research, and Animal Welfare
Royal Zoological Society of South Australia

Renata Sousa-Lima, Ph.D., Associate Professor
Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Norte

Michael Stocker, Founding Director
Ocean Conservation Research

Dipani Sutaria, Ph.D., Research Fellow
James Cook University, and Marine Mammal Research and Conservation 
Network

Barbara Taylor, Ph.D.
28 years as a marine mammal scientist
NOAA/National Marine Fisheries Service (retired)
Coordinator, IUCN Cetacean Specialist Group Red List Assessments

Dom Tollit, Ph.D., Principal Scientist
SMRU Consulting Canada

Peter Tyack, Ph.D., Emeritus Research Scholar
Biology Department
Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution

Scott Veirs, Ph.D., President
Beam Reach Marine Science and Education

Val Veirs, Ph.D., Professor of Physics (emeritus)
Colorado College

Valeria Vergara, Ph.D., Senior Scientist and Co-Director
Cetacean Conservation Research Program
Raincoast Conservation Foundation

Els Vermeulen, Ph.D., Director
Mammal Research Institute Whale Unit
Department of Zoology and Entomology
University of Pretoria
Lindy Weilgart, Ph.D.
Senior Ocean Noise Expert & Policy Consultant, OceanCare
Adjunct Research Associate, Department of Biology, Dalhousie University

Shaye Wolf, Ph.D., Climate Science Director
Center for Biological Diversity

Bernd Wursig, Ph.D.
University Distinguished Professor Emeritus
Texas A&M University at Galveston

                                 ______
                                 

                NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC-692

                                        doi:10.7289/V5/TM-SEFSC-692

  STATUS REVIEW OF BRYDE'S WHALES (BALAENOPTERA EDENI) IN THE GULF OF 
                MEXICO UNDER THE ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT

  Patricia E. Rosel, Peter Corkeron, Laura Engleby, Deborah Epperson, 
       Keith D. Mullin, Melissa S. Soldevilla, Barbara L. Taylor

                             December 2016

                                 *****


    This memo is part of the hearing record and is retained in the 
                      Committee's official files.


It is available for viewing at:

https://docs.house.gov/meetings/II/II06/20230228/115368/HHRG-
118-II06-20230228-SD021.pdf

                                ------                                


    Mrs. Dingell. Thank you.
    Dr. Gosar. The gentleman from Wisconsin, Mr. Tiffany, is 
recognized.
    Mr. Tiffany. Yes, thank you very much. I would just respond 
to the good lady from Michigan. All she has to do is look at 
the upper Midwest states--Michigan, Wisconsin, and Minnesota--
to see why the ESA needs to be reformed. And that is because of 
the wolf, the wolf that has recovered fully and no longer 
should be on the Endangered Species Act. They are the poster 
child for why we should reform the ESA.
    Mr., or excuse me, Professor Squillace, is the Energy 
Information Agency, are they incorrect? Because I heard you say 
that there is going to be less oil and gas use. They are 
projecting through 2050 we are going to have about a 50 percent 
increase.
    Mr. Squillace. Thank you for the question, Congressman. 
Yes, I think they are incorrect.
    The EIA has consistently over-estimated the amount of 
fossil fuels that we are going to need. If you look back the 
last 20, 30 years, particularly on issues like coal and oil and 
gas, their estimates were way off, in terms of----
    Mr. Tiffany. So, EIA is incorrect, EIA.
    What was the price of oil on January 20, 2021, the day 
President Biden was----
    Mr. Squillace. I don't know the answer to that question, 
Congressman.
    Mr. Tiffany. The answer is it was $60 a barrel. And what is 
it now, $90 a barrel? Something like that.
    Mr. Squillace. It is a little under $90, I believe, yes.
    Mr. Tiffany. Yes, exactly. So, you criticize a company for 
making huge profits. Why did that happen? All you have to do is 
look at cause and effect.
    And to say that these companies that are--you heard from 
Mr. Naatz, how he said that it takes years for us to get 
through the permitting process, and that they are being denied 
being able to get those permits done. If you are seeing 
significant delays, you can see how people are pricing in the 
increase in energy costs as a result of the reduction in energy 
that is going to be produced right here in America.
    It is time to stop the blame game, when we can bring down 
the price of oil really fast and also make it more affordable 
for the American people simply by producing more.
    Do you agree that plastics pollution is a problem?
    Mr. Squillace. Yes.
    Mr. Tiffany. Isn't plastics an alternative to us not 
mining?
    Mr. Squillace. I don't know what you mean by that question. 
Certainly, plastics can be used as a substitute for some 
other----
    Mr. Tiffany. We use them for so many things that we used to 
mine minerals for. Haven't companies factored in the 
alternative in that way by saying we are not going to go the 
mineral route, we are going to produce our stuff in other ways?
    I would just add a little statement. We just had the former 
U.S. Forest Service Director here a few months ago, when we 
were in the Minority last session, and I asked him if it is OK 
to mine anywhere. Because you lay out this whole issue of 
alternatives. But every time we said, ``Well, how about here,'' 
he is like, well, no, we just simply can't do it here, 
including the mine out in Arizona, Resolution Copper, that, 
gosh, we can't possibly mine there, because I brought that up.
    He said we shouldn't be mining in the upper Midwest, like 
Twin Metals. And I said, ``Well, how about in''--and he said a 
dry climate would be a better place to go. We said, ``Well, how 
about Resolution Copper?'' Well, we can't mine there, either. 
It seems like every time we bring up an alternative, it is 
always no.
    How many years of private sector experience do you have, 
Professor?
    Mr. Squillace. I would say six to seven. I should say that 
that was with the Department of the Interior.
    Mr. Tiffany. Yes, so that was not in the private sector. 
That was a public entity, correct?
    Mr. Squillace. That is correct, yes.
    Mr. Tiffany. OK. So, no years of private sector experience, 
if you exclude that.
    Have you ever owned a business?
    Mr. Squillace. No.
    Mr. Tiffany. When is the last time you visited an active 
drill site, either mining or for petroleum?
    Mr. Squillace. About a year ago.
    Mr. Tiffany. Which one?
    Mr. Squillace. I was up at the Montana mine. I am drawing a 
blank. The one in Butte, Montana. I was up at that mine.
    Mr. Tiffany. Did you talk to the owners and managers of the 
facility?
    Mr. Squillace. Yes. Yes, we did.
    Mr. Tiffany. Have you ever been to the Eagle Mine in the 
Upper Peninsula of Michigan?
    Mr. Squillace. No, I have not.
    Mr. Tiffany. I would urge you to go there. You will see 
modern, 21st century mining that goes on up at the Eagle Mine. 
They actually, the drill hole goes underneath the river. And I 
would urge you to go there.
    If people want to see 21st century mining right in your 
state, the Eagle Mine. It can be done using existing 
regulations that are there. The state permitting process can be 
used there.
    Mr. Squillace. Can I briefly respond to some of the 
comments that you are making here?
    Mr. Tiffany. No, I have only 20 seconds left, and I have to 
give some time to a couple of other people.
    Does the process drive up the cost of minerals, Mr. Nolan? 
Does this process drive up the cost of us bringing minerals to 
the marketplace?
    Mr. Nolan. It absolutely does. The time delayed for 
projects is very expensive, and capital goes elsewhere.
    Mr. Tiffany. And does that ultimately end up coming out of 
the consumer's pocket?
    Mr. Nolan. Eventually in the price in the marketplace.
    Mr. Tiffany. I yield back.
    Dr. Gosar. I thank the gentleman. The gentleman from Rhode 
Island, Mr. Magaziner. Did I say it right?
    Mr. Magaziner. That is right.
    Dr. Gosar. OK, thank you.
    Mr. Magaziner. Thank you, Chairman.
    This Committee has a responsibility to ensure that 
America's natural resources benefit the American people and not 
just the special interests. And over the past year, we have 
seen vividly what can happen when big energy companies are 
allowed to put profits ahead of people.
    In just 6 months last year, the price of gasoline in this 
country rose 49 percent. The price of diesel fuel rose 55 
percent. Rhode Islanders were paying $5 a gallon for gas for 
the first time ever. Families were struggling to heat their 
homes. And what were the big oil companies doing? Raking in 
record profits--not revenues, profits. Exxon, Chevron, BP, 
Shell, Total Energy has recorded profits of nearly $200 billion 
in 2022. That is not revenue, that is profits. That is $600 for 
every American citizen.
    Exxon alone reported more than almost $80 billion in 
profits. That is $6 million an hour. Their CEO made $18 million 
last year, and the company recently signed off on a $50 billion 
stock buyback plan.
    Chevron made $36 billion in profits, more than double the 
previous year. Their CEO made $22 million, all of this while 
the industry was sitting on more than 9,000 unused leases on 
Federal lands.
    They want the price to be high. They want the price to be 
high. So, we cannot have a real conversation about lowering 
energy costs without addressing runaway profits. The benefit of 
energy production on public lands should go to the consumer, 
not the highly-paid executives or the hedge fund managers.
    So, now we are being asked to consider legislation that 
would let the oil and gas industry short-cut environmental 
reviews to get even more leases faster and to sit on them 
longer, without any guarantee that it will do anything to lower 
prices for consumers. We are even being asked to look at 
gutting the funding that Democrats secured to speed up 
permitting reviews.
    I will say that again: gutting the funding to speed up 
permitting reviews, because the goal here is not to speed up 
the process, it is to shortcut the process.
    So, we cannot allow oil and gas companies to sit on unused 
leases for longer, preventing those leases from being used, by 
the way, for clean energy projects and other purposes that 
could lower costs for consumers indefinitely. We have to, as a 
Committee, make sure that we prioritize the interests of the 
American consumer, not the interests of the CEOs, the 
executives, the hedge funds, and the like. And I look forward 
to working with anybody to do that.
    My question for Mr. Squillace is, in your testimony, you 
talked about how these 14 million acres of unused leases in 
many cases could be used for other productive purposes, 
including affordable, clean energy projects that could lower 
prices for consumers. Could you expand on that point, please?
    Mr. Squillace. Sure. Thank you for the question, 
Congressman.
    We have tied up a lot of lands, not just for the 10-year 
primary term of a lease, but oftentimes much longer than that. 
There was a study done in 2018 that suggested over 2,700 leases 
had gone well beyond their primary term through these 
suspensions. The bill, the TAP American Energy Act, would allow 
almost unfettered access to these additional suspensions, which 
are supposedly in the interest of conservation.
    And the problem with that is that, under the TAP American 
Energy Act, apparently an oil and gas company could request an 
extension, basically because they are claiming that they need 
some adjacent land to develop their oil and gas, and the BLM is 
required to issue that extension within 15 days, no review, no 
public process. And these extensions go on and on forever. The 
GAO report found that for 650 leases, these leases had extended 
more than 30 years.
    So, the problem is that these leases are tying up our 
public lands and they are not being used for the purposes for 
which they were made. All those lands are no longer available, 
not just for renewable energy development, which could be 
important, but for other public uses that we could make of 
these lands, including public access, public recreation, and 
those kinds of things.
    So, I think it is really important that we clean up the 
leases that are not being used, that we find ways to remove 
them from our public lands, and indeed that we periodically and 
pretty often review suspensions of leases to make sure that 
they have been issued for legitimate reasons.
    Mr. Magaziner. Thank you.
    Dr. Gosar. I thank the gentleman. The gentleman, Mr. 
Curtis, is recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Curtis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Professor--and I am going to try to do this--Squillace, did 
I----
    Mr. Squillace. It is Squillace.
    Mr. Curtis. Squillace. Excuse me. I knew I wouldn't get it 
right, but I wanted to address you.
    In your testimony, you state, ``Calls to reform the General 
Mining Law of 1872 go back more than 100 years. To say that 
reforms are long overdue is a gross understatement.'' I 
frequently hear this from a lot of my Democratic colleagues.
    But I have noticed in an Op-Ed that you penned yourself on 
the Antiquities Act, you write, ``It would be shortsighted in 
the extreme for Congress to change a single word of what has 
been, by practicality, every measure, one of the most fruitful 
and farsighted laws that has ever been put on the books.''
    Now, I am not going to disagree that during Western 
discovery there could be a role for Antiquities Act, but those 
days are long gone. How do you square--how is it logical to 
argue one law needs updating due to its age and the changing 
conditions of the world, but not the other from the same time 
period?
    Mr. Squillace. Thank you for the question, Congressman. I 
really think it is apples and oranges here.
    I think, since the Antiquities Act was passed, there has 
been increasing demand from the public to protect our public 
lands for public kinds of uses. If you go back and look at the 
history of the Antiquities Act, many of our most favorite 
national parks started as national monuments that were 
designated under the Antiquities Act.
    Mr. Curtis. So, I am actually going to agree with you on 
that, although in my district the Antiquities Act has been used 
to abuse, to tie up vast amounts of land that don't have those 
same interests, and I would just argue with you that it needs 
the same changes because of its outdatedness.
    Mr. Squillace. Fair enough. Can we talk about the general 
mining law then, and the need for reform?
    Mr. Curtis. Well, I would like to talk to Mr. Nolan, and 
address a question to Mr. Nolan.
    On average, it takes 4\1/2\ years to complete the NEPA 
permitting and review process. The recent IRA and 
infrastructure laws have authorized billions of dollars for 
renewables, but they will go underutilized due to NEPA.
    Just yesterday, I met with the CBO Director, who agreed 
that permitting reform would increase the rate at which these 
new energy programs are used.
    As we all look to cut global emissions and end hard working 
conditions abroad, shouldn't we prioritize domestic minerals?
    Mr. Nolan. I would fully support that statement. The global 
forecast for minerals demand are exponential. We are going to 
have shortages, prices will go up, the consumers will pay the 
price, manufacturing will pay the price, economic progress will 
pay the price. We are 10 to 20 years behind China and the 
investments that they made, and now we are seeing the results.
    Mr. Curtis. Can you give us a sense of how the people you 
represent feel about this sense that it is not OK to do here, 
where we have rigorous standards for human rights, for 
emissions, for safety, and somehow it is OK--if we can't see 
it, it is somehow OK?
    Mr. Nolan. Well, the mining industry is a very proud and 
patient part, a vital part of our economy. We have witnessed an 
unprecedented growth in demand not seen in this country, not 
seen globally, probably, since World War II. And the 
opportunities that afford themselves here in the United States 
are vast.
    And, again, we have been patient with this Administration 
and the Congress now reaching a bipartisan conclusion that we 
need these materials. There has been capital investments made 
through the Department of Energy, through the Defense 
Production Act that are helpful. But at the same time, if we 
cannot permit or expand mines here in the United States, none 
of those resources matter.
    Mr. Curtis. I don't want to put words in your mouth, but 
you tell me if this is an accurate representation. The people 
you represent stand ready to meet the highest environmental 
standards, the highest safety standards, the highest human 
rights values to meet the needs that we have here in the United 
States.
    Mr. Nolan. And exceed them, Congressman.
    Mr. Curtis. Excellent. Good. Thank you.
    I yield my time.
    Dr. Gosar. I thank the gentleman from Utah. The gentleman 
from Arizona, the Ranking Member of the Full Committee, Mr. 
Grijalva, is recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Grijalva. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me follow up on 
my colleague's questions, Mr. Nolan.
    So, ``exceed the highest standards.'' Do you believe, then, 
that companies, multi-national companies, corporations that 
work in other parts of the world that exploit people, child 
labor, horrible labor standards, no concern for the environment 
or clean air or clean water, do you feel that these particular 
entities should be allowed to do business on Federal land and 
waters if they are violating the laws of other countries? Yes 
or no, if you wouldn't mind.
    Mr. Nolan. No.
    Mr. Grijalva. They should not be able to do business with 
us?
    Mr. Nolan. Congressman, there are specifics around global 
mining operations and how they operate. But what I can tell you 
is that the book of law that spans over three dozen Federal 
environmental laws and regulations, including some of them that 
have been mentioned here today, including the Antiquities Act, 
provides a vast----
    Mr. Grijalva. And I agree. And thank you, Mr. Nolan. I look 
forward to working with you and my colleagues from across the 
aisle to address that issue, in particular, through legislation 
in the future.
    If we are going to be consistent, that begs the question 
not to be consistent. And by banning those entities from doing 
business on Federal lands and waters, I think we take a step, 
and keep that standard high for the rest of the world. I look 
forward to those discussions.
    Mr. Squillace, the bill allows mining companies to do their 
own environmental assessments. Do you think that leads to, 
would create conflicts of interest? And how would that, in 
general, affect the environmental review, if a company does its 
own analysis?
    Mr. Squillace. Yes, I think there is no question, 
Congressman, that if a company prepares the environmental 
assessment, they have a biased point of view. They want to do 
what they are proposing to do. And that is why NEPA was careful 
to require that the NEPA document be prepared by the 
responsible official--that is, by the agency. Only by having 
the agency prepare the environmental documents are we going to 
get, as I was discussing in my testimony, a robust alternatives 
analysis that looks at other options.
    I mean, in most cases, there are other ways to develop a 
mineral resource. There are other places, maybe, where you can 
do it. That is not to say that the government should deny the 
permit for the applicant, but we need to look at these other 
opportunities that we have.
    I gave the example of lithium. It is kind of a very 
important issue right now, with what is going on with lithium.
    I think we have paid far too little attention to the 
potential for recycling. You can dismiss recycling and say we 
are not going there, but we have no program here in the United 
States for robust metals recycling. And we could go a long way, 
I think, with solving our problems if we adopted something like 
what Europe has done with their waste of electric and 
electronic equipment program.
    Mr. Grijalva. So, approximately sir, let me follow up with 
you. How much of our public lands would be open to mining 
claims if the text in this bill became law?
    What kind of restrictions would exist on those that stake a 
claim where--how long would these claims be good for?
    Mr. Squillace. So, Congressman, you have been a champion of 
mining law reform and trying to avoid a lot of these problems, 
and many of us are greatly appreciative of that.
    But I will say that because of the way that the proposal 
for H.R. 209 works, it would seem that it would open up all 
lands that have not otherwise been withdrawn. I think that is 
in the neighborhood of 300 million acres of public land that 
would be available. And you won't even have to show that you 
have made a discovery of valuable minerals. I mean, the only 
limitation we have really had on the ability of a mining 
company to go onto public lands and develop minerals is the 
discovery requirement. And that would be wiped out. As I 
pointed out in my testimony, it----
    Mr. Grijalva. So, mining waste would then become, on public 
land, a mining----
    Mr. Squillace. Yes, because the bill defines operations to 
include all ancillary facilities that are needed for mining. 
So, all a mining company has to do is say that they need this 
additional 2,000 or 3,000 acres of public land for their giant 
mine waste pile, and it is theirs. They can basically take over 
our public lands with this toxic mine waste, and that land is 
going to, essentially, be lost forever.
    Mr. Grijalva. As long as the present mining law exists, the 
legislation we are talking about today, it only makes matters 
worse. The law is the fundamental issue that is on the table. 
Mining industry doesn't seem to have a problem with that, but 
it does have a problem with public's right to know and public 
interest balance.
    But I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
    Dr. Gosar. I thank the gentleman from Arizona. The 
gentleman from Idaho, might be increased to be the Greater 
Idaho, is recognized.
    Mr. Fulcher. Not greater yet, but it might be coming here. 
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I am going to have a question for 
Mr. Thomsen here in just a second.
    But given our circumstances, if we try to do anything in a 
bipartisan fashion, it is difficult because my friends on the 
other side of the aisle, in terms of energy production, they 
are not real fond of coal, not real fond of hydro because of 
dams, not real fond of fossil fuels, certainly nuclear, not 
even wind and solar when it comes to the point that they don't 
want us to mine and manufacture what is necessary to do that.
    So, for some time I have been trying to think of, all 
right, unless you just don't like electricity, what are your 
sources? And one that has been a very strong one in my state of 
Idaho is geothermal. And I wanted to talk about that just for a 
moment, and ask you.
    You had submitted in your testimony there is significant 
potential for geothermal resources on Federal lands. And in the 
past, I have introduced bills to streamline the exploration for 
such. And I just wanted to ask you, first of all, just in 
general, to expand on your earlier thoughts and comments about 
the potential for geothermal on Federal lands.
    Mr. Thomsen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, through you to Mr. 
Fulcher. Thank you for the question, and we have discussed this 
some time ago. The potential for geothermal is huge, and states 
are starting to recognize that if they want carbon-free, 
reliable resources, they need to develop more and more 
geothermal resources.
    The year 2022 was incredibly good for Ormat. We signed 
about 311 megawatts of power purchase agreements for the 
development of geothermal. We have been a company since 1985, 
and we operated about 1,000 megawatts. So, a third increase in 
our total power purchase agreements is staggering. And we are 
just one company. There are other companies.
    California actually put out a request, basically, a mandate 
looking for 1,000 megawatts of resources from geothermal. So, 
the demand is increasing exponentially, and the need to be able 
to permit and develop these projects on Federal lands is also 
increasing.
    However, at the same time, we are seeing the timelines for 
an environmental assessment, an environmental impact statement, 
and even a geothermal drilling permit continue to increase.
    Mr. Fulcher. That actually takes me to the follow-up 
question. Please tell the Committee where those specific pinch 
points on the bureaucratic barriers for geothermal exploration 
and permitting, where are those pinch points in the 
bureaucracy?
    Mr. Thomsen. Sure. Mr. Chairman, through you to Congressman 
Fulcher, I think it is staffing at the Bureau of Land 
Management. I think it is education. I am incredibly impressed 
with the funding through the IRA. But it is going to take time 
to be able to hire the number of employees. We have seen a big 
loss in the specialty areas.
    A lot of Bureau of Land Management employees were excited 
to get in and look at wildlife management. They are not experts 
in subsurface hydrogeology, and reservoir engineering, and the 
things that are required for geothermal development.
    Mr. Fulcher. So, you could probably get the idea of where 
my head is on geothermal, and I think I understand where yours 
is. But it is very difficult, again, to get my friends on the 
other side of the aisle to do anything when it comes to energy 
production, except for turn on the light switch.
    Tell us in the remaining minute and 10 seconds that we 
have, what does that footprint look like when you have a 
geothermal facility--talk about the disruption of the surface 
area. Talk about the environmental impact of a geothermal well, 
a geothermal project.
    Mr. Thomsen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Through you to 
Congressman Fulcher, our footprint usually takes up about a 15-
acre disturbance. For the amount of power we produce, our 
environmental footprint is 22 times smaller than a solar PV 
project. We have zero emissions utilizing new binary 
technology. So, as previous comments looked at the climate 
change impacts, we see that discussion slowing down the 
development of some projects. We do not see it expediting the 
development of other projects like geothermal.
    Mr. Fulcher. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I yield 
back.
    Dr. Gosar. I thank the gentleman from Idaho. The 
gentlewoman from New York is recognized, the Ranking Member.
    Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. Thank you. Thank you so much.
    And, Mr. Squillace, I just wanted to speak to a little bit 
of the conduct that was directed toward you earlier. I think 
that we, in this Committee, I rarely see anyone ask someone if 
they have a Ph.D. or not. And if they don't have a Ph.D., then 
their experience is illegitimate, and so on and so forth. And I 
think it was inappropriate for a Member to attack your 
extensive experience, just because you don't have an experience 
as a corporate executive or trying to squeeze families for 
profit that you shouldn't be listened to. I think that is 
inappropriate. We wouldn't do that in any other form of 
experience.
    All forms of experience are legitimate, and yours is very 
necessary here in this hearing, particularly because it does 
provide that balance, and it speaks more to the state of our 
body that there seem to be people that think anything outside 
of corporate experience is illegitimate. So, thank you for 
being here today. You deserve better than that, but I will dive 
into it.
    One of the pieces of legislation, as has been extensively 
discussed, that is on the table today is the TAP American 
Energy Act, and it gives away more and more lands to fossil 
fuel development, and locks them up from potential productive 
use, other productive uses like renewable energy development 
and climate mitigation, and makes it even easier for industry 
to avoid public input and the consequences of their actions. 
So, let's talk about this whole leasing issue.
    Mr. Squillace, on average, how many drilling permits are 
approved each year on Federal land?
    Mr. Squillace. Thank you, Congresswoman, and thank you for 
your kind comments. I have a pretty thick skin, and I am 
reasonably confident about my own experience and expertise. I 
was not cowed by the comments of your colleague.
    I believe that the number is somewhere in the neighborhood 
of 3,000. Do I have that right?
    Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. Yes.
    Mr. Squillace. I think it is about 3,000 permits that are 
issued every year. And as I mentioned in my testimony, we have 
9,600 outstanding permits on our public lands. So, it is not as 
if the oil and gas industry doesn't have the opportunity to 
develop more public land oil and gas. I think the question is, 
do we really need to exacerbate the existing problem of all 
these leases and lands that are not being used, despite the 
fact that they are tied up for many, many years?
    Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. And from our data, that is absolutely 
right. Nearly 3,000 drilling permits are approved each year. 
And how many wells are drilled annually out of that 3,000?
    Mr. Squillace. I don't know the number. I am guessing that 
you have the number in front of you. But, I think, the broader 
point that needs to be made here is that there is not a lack of 
opportunity for the oil and gas industry to develop our public 
lands. What we really need to think about is a transition.
    I talked a little bit in my written testimony about the 
fact that the coal companies, a decade ago or so, many of us 
were arguing that we needed to think about the transition away 
from coal, because it was going to happen, and we couldn't get 
people to listen to the need to manage the decline, if you 
will, of coal. And what happened? We saw what happened. The big 
coal companies all went bankrupt, some several times. And the 
result was really devastating for a lot of the workers in the 
coal-dependent communities, while the executives made out like 
bandits.
    And I suspect we are going to see something similar in the 
oil and gas industry, not today, not in the next couple 2 or 3 
years. But if we start looking over the next decade or two, we 
are likely to see a significant change in that industry. And I 
think the most important thing is for the American Government 
to think about that transition. How are we going to manage it 
to make sure that we don't leave these dependent communities 
holding the bag, if you will, from the loss of jobs and the 
loss of an economic opportunity that they have?
    I think it can happen. We are seeing a fair amount of 
transition of oil company employees to renewable energy. That 
is great. I just think that we need to sort of manage it better 
at sort of the national level, because I think it is coming 
whether folks like it or not.
    Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. I mean, it is such an excellent point, 
Mr. Squillace, because our goals here are to actually protect 
and be proactive for coal workers and fossil fuel workers 
because they were left holding the bag in the case of the coal 
industry. This transition was not prepared for, and there was 
almost this artificial propping up of the coal industry until 
the market forces just really saw this not work out.
    And, in fact, there may be giggling here at that, but we 
saw even the other side resist pension protections for those 
coal workers. So, I don't want to hear this giggling at that, 
because we saw that pensions by the Republican Party were 
opposed for those fossil fuel workers until Democrats stepped 
in. But, thankfully, we were able to advance a bipartisan 
protection of that. But it wasn't until we were able to advance 
that.
    And I think that that planning, that transition is going to 
be essential. Thank you for raising that point.
    Dr. Gosar. I thank the gentlewoman from New York. The 
gentlewoman from Colorado is recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mrs. Boebert. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate you 
holding this important hearing today.
    With the average price of gasoline nationwide currently 
sitting at $3.35, and the average hardrock mining project 
taking 7 to 10 years to go through the NEPA permitting process, 
clearly we must do more to streamline the permitting process 
and encourage responsible energy production.
    And I must just add that I am not thrilled to hear the 
remarks from Mr. Squillace and the Ranking Member. It is 
coming, whether people like it or not, the Green New Deal? 
Wind? Solar? It is coming, whether people like it or not? We 
are not even going to allow the markets to decide? The markets 
were deciding with fossil fuels and it was a reliable and 
efficient energy source. And then the Federal Government came 
in and shut them down, and highly subsidized, heavily 
subsidized wind and solar--so-called renewables that are not 
renewable--and now we hear it is coming, whether people like it 
or not. You are going to learn to like it because the Federal 
Government is going to put the restrictions and regulations to 
force you to have it, and you are going to like it, whether you 
want to or not. Praise the Lord.
    Look, I am proud to support both of these well-crafted 
bills that we are here to discuss today that will do the work 
that is needed to streamline the permitting process and 
encourage responsible energy production here in America. I am 
also thrilled that the TAP American Energy Act also includes 
the American Energy Act that I introduced. My bill, H.R. 1067, 
is important to the people in my district, and will help reduce 
gas prices by providing certainty for energy producers.
    Chief Operating Officer Naatz, you talk about this in your 
testimony, but the Biden administration continues to ignore the 
leasing mandates in the Mineral Leasing Act and the Outer 
Continental Shelf Lands Act. Will this bill force the 
Administration and future administrations to comply with the 
law?
    Mr. Naatz. Well, it certainly should. Again, thank you for 
the question. As I said earlier, the laws are there, but the 
Biden administration has not enforced the Mineral Leasing Act 
and OCSLA. This bill will require quarterly lease sales, which 
is very important to get that process both onshore and 
offshore.
    And I just want to also stress again how important, or how 
negative the President has been. I can't tell you the impact 
that the Administration saying no more drilling on Federal 
lands, no more drilling offshore, the President saying again no 
ability for the oil industry to provide to continue to drill, 
period, has a----
    Mrs. Boebert. He wants to end fossil fuels. That was his 
campaign promise.
    Mr. Naatz [continuing]. Dampening effect on small producers 
that we represent to get out there and operate.
    And the one other thing I would say is, you are talking 
about the energy renaissance that happened with hydraulic 
fracturing. Nobody knew that. So, if you are talking about ``we 
know what is going to happen,'' we know the market decided 
that. Energy producers, independent producers, took huge risks 
to go down, hydraulically frack horizontal, and the energy 
renaissance has happened. Thank God that happened. Thank God 
that now that we have a situation in Ukraine and elsewhere, 
that people didn't say, ``Oh, we are done.'' Our producers, 
American producers went out and said, ``We are going to take 
the risk,'' small producers, and that has benefited all of us.
    Mrs. Boebert. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Naatz.
    It was reported yesterday that President Biden was 
incorrect about his assertions that the industry is sitting on 
9,000 drilling permits, according to the BLM. In reality, those 
numbers are much lower, potentially due to a clerical error--
how convenient--or a computer system malfunction.
    Mr. Naatz, will you explain to those in this Subcommittee 
who have echoed those same remarks that Joe Biden said, what 
the revised number means, and why the industry might not be 
able to use a permit immediately upon receipt?
    Mr. Naatz. So, the numbers were--again, as we talk about 
9,000--we are, by the agency's own admission, reduced down to 
6,600. Again, that will tell you how unclear the agency is on 
what is happening. The President of the United States himself 
used a 9,000 figure, which was wrong.
    Mrs. Boebert. Correct.
    Mr. Naatz. Second of all, many of those approved permits 
are tied up in litigation, lawsuits from the environmental 
community. Both in New Mexico and Wyoming, leases are tied up. 
So, as you are talking about leasing, it is really important to 
understand they are tied up in litigation.
    And then, finally, it is not just a spigot that you open 
up. Once you get a permit, it takes a huge amount of work. This 
doesn't happen overnight. So, we certainly take exception to 
this idea that you can just turn these projects on and off 
overnight.
    Mrs. Boebert. Right. Thank you, Mr. Naatz. My time is 
expired.
    And thank you to the witnesses who are here today.
    Dr. Gosar. I thank the gentlewoman from Colorado. The 
gentleman from Montana is recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Rosendale. Thank you, Mr. Chair, I appreciate it.
    My friends across the aisle, when we talk about the cost of 
energy, choose to ignore the impacts of supply and demand and 
our domestic production being intentionally reduced by nearly 2 
million barrels a day at the very offset of the Biden 
administration. They never bring up the amazing profits from 
renewable energy companies, much of which was extracted from 
taxpayers with no choice in the matter in the form of Federal 
subsidies. It came directly from tax dollars, and not because 
they actually consumed any energy whatsoever.
    So, I would just like to list a few of these. Some of the 
biggest profit margins in the country last year, 2022, we 
didn't hear about this. All we hear is about the oil and gas. 
GE Renewable Energy, $5.84 billion net profits 2022; Iberdrola, 
$4.99 billion net profit; NextEra, $3.83 billion; Vestas, $1.9 
billion net profits; Daqo New Energy, $1.63 billion; Brookfield 
Renewable, $887 million. These are all net profit numbers. We 
never hear about that. All we hear about are the oil and gas 
companies that had major profit margins. But, again, my friends 
across the aisle refuse to acknowledge the facts of supply and 
demand and this global market.
    Mr. Naatz, in your testimony, you mentioned that while it 
is a small percentage of all federally owned land, oil and gas 
development on Federal lands results in substantial revenue and 
investment in those communities that it is produced near. Could 
you tell me more about the impact of oil and natural gas leases 
to these rural communities?
    Mr. Naatz. Congressman, again, it is hugely important. The 
revenue source from both onshore and offshore is key to local 
communities, even throughout the West. The impact on jobs, 
economic development, schools are so dependent on this mineral 
revenue, which is a great resource.
    So, again, we feel that our industry is reducing its 
footprint, doing a much better job of addressing issues. At the 
same time that the footprint is getting smaller, we are 
producing more oil and natural gas from single well pads. So, 
the impact on the land, the impact on the environment is 
reduced. In addition, if you look at any data, CO2 
has gone down, methane has gone down, SOx has gone 
down, NOx has gone down.
    So, this is really a great story that we need to continue 
to do better, continue to do a better job of. But the impact on 
that--when I talked about multiple use--of using those lands 
for a variety of uses--and I want to stress not just oil and 
natural gas, a variety of uses--is really a backbone of those 
Western economies.
    Mr. Rosendale. And this is something that I had spoke with 
the ranker about just last week, and that is there are so many 
people that have been lifted out of impoverished conditions, 
provided cleaner water, energy to their homes because of having 
access to not only these natural resources, but the revenue 
that is provided by them.
    Mr. Naatz, you also mentioned in your testimony that no 
modern economy can function without oil and natural gas 
production. I understand that you are petroleum expert, so I 
hope it is not unfair to ask you a policy question. But energy 
is a commodity that is based on the global conditions and 
influences. Given your expertise, do you believe that 
significantly reducing the number of oil and gas leases in the 
United States could make us more vulnerable to foreign 
adversaries?
    Mr. Naatz. Absolutely. Again, we talked about the American 
production being the cleanest barrel of oil that is going to be 
produced, and that not only goes from the environmental 
benefits, but the labor, the safety. We are very proud of our 
safety record across the board.
    If you reduce that, and you saw the Administration have to 
do that, immediately you have to start looking at other 
countries--Venezuela, Saudi Arabia--which don't produce as 
cleanly, as safely. And that is going to have a huge impact 
when you, again, significantly reduce the production on Federal 
lands, both onshore and offshore, it is bound to have an impact 
of causing the United States to have to look abroad at sources 
that are far dirtier and far less safe.
    Mr. Rosendale. And outside of the environmental impacts, we 
have already demonstrated that there are actually more gases in 
the environment right now than prior to the Biden 
administration because of these other countries producing the 
energy at a lower quality environmental standard. What do you 
believe it does to our national security when we start relying 
more upon these adversaries for our energy?
    Mr. Naatz. It is, again, something we always talk about, 
which is more than even energy independence, it is energy 
security. It benefits the world when the United States is an 
energy superpower. And the renaissance that happened in the oil 
and natural gas shale revolution really has given us the 
ability--again, just look at any headline in today's paper, 
what is happening. Imagine if the United States didn't have a 
robust oil and natural gas industry to address that. And it is 
something, again, that we think is really important for energy 
security.
    Mr. Rosendale. Thank you very much.
    Mr. Chair, I yield back.
    Dr. Gosar. I thank the gentleman from Montana. I will 
recognize myself for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Thomsen, I have a question for you. Can you tell me 
what minerals you use in your geothermal? A lot of iron?
    Mr. Thomsen. Mr. Chairman, yes, we do. Iron ore for the 
piping for our geothermal facilities is critical.
    Dr. Gosar. So, I guess my question, and I am coming back to 
you, is how do you explore for geothermal?
    Mr. Thomsen. Mr. Chairman, we need to go out and drill 
exploratory wells to determine if there is a geothermal 
resource at depth. What separates geothermal from other 
renewable developers is it is not just an above-surface 
exercise. We can't put out an anemometer and know where the sun 
and the wind is going to blow. We have to go drill and, using 
geology, look for these unique areas where we have geothermal 
resources close to the Earth's crust.
    Dr. Gosar. So, pretty prevalent, if I am not mistaken, in 
Wyoming, Idaho, Utah, Colorado, right, in the West?
    Mr. Thomsen. Correct, Mr. Chairman.
    Dr. Gosar. Well, I think you said the magic word about the 
problem here, and that is called drilling. The similarity that 
each one of you have is drilling. We don't want to perforate 
that subsurface and that surface. I think that is what the 
biggest problem is here, because you, of all the industries, 
are the most renewable asset we have.
    Mr. Squillace, I have a dilemma here. A previous Minority 
witness had said that recycling was robust in this country in 
regards to solar panels and critical and rare earths. You said 
otherwise. What gives?
    Mr. Squillace. Well, Congressman, thank you for the 
question. I do not think that we have a robust recycling 
program in this country. It may exist in some local 
communities, and even in a few states. But I wouldn't call it 
anything close to robust, particularly with respect to all of 
the electrical and electronic equipment that we have that is 
generally disposed of in landfills.
    You think about all the old computers, hard drives, other 
kinds of equipment that has lots of valuable minerals embedded 
in it. And what Europe has done has basically adopted what they 
call the ``extended producer principle,'' which basically 
requires the producer of those materials, of those things, to 
take them back and recycle the metals that are in them. And if 
we were able to do that, I think it is a great idea. There is 
no there is no downside, I think, to requiring that we reclaim 
the minerals that we have already mined.
    Dr. Gosar. Well, let me interrupt you there.
    Mr. Squillace. Sure.
    Dr. Gosar. My understanding of the process is it is still 
pretty caustic in regards to reclaiming those metals and 
purifying them. But I thank you very much for giving me a 
better understanding from previous witnesses.
    Now, Mr. Nolan, in regards to, I want to talk about the 
mining process, particularly within the designation of Russia, 
Kazakhstan, and Uzbekistan, particularly with uranium.
    Anybody that I have seen that has any macho in regards to 
renewable energy understands you cannot do renewables without 
uranium. Tell me how this was nearsighted by not keeping them 
on the critical minerals list.
    Mr. Nolan. Uranium is critical to baseload power in this 
country. Combined with coal, it makes up 40 percent of our 
electricity generation here. Right now, only 5 percent of that 
uranium is coming from domestic sources, and the majority of 
that is in stockpiles. So, we don't have it.
    Dr. Gosar. So, where do most of the rods come from? Russia, 
right?
    Mr. Nolan. Russia, Kazakhstan.
    Dr. Gosar. And Uzbekistan.
    Mr. Nolan. And Australia and Canada.
    Dr. Gosar. So, very, very problematic, because if I am not 
mistaken, most of it is in Russia, Uzbekistan, and Kazakhstan.
    Mr. Nolan. That is correct.
    Dr. Gosar. So, when you are looking at something so 
critical for baseload power--and I want to make sure we get 
this right. Baseload power is different than temporary power, 
right?
    Mr. Nolan. Pardon. The question, sir?
    Dr. Gosar. They are very different, aren't they?
    Mr. Nolan. Very much so.
    Dr. Gosar. So, baseload power, 24/7, you flip the switch 
and it comes on. If the wind doesn't blow, the sun doesn't 
shine, we don't have energy on the temporary marketplace.
    In regards to the permitting process, why is it important 
that the mining companies have work outside of the United 
States? Can you give us a kind of a portfolio breakdown for us, 
and why?
    Mr. Nolan. They work outside the United States because 
there are jurisdictions measured--and any CEO or executive or 
mining exploration geologist can tell you--that are more 
attractive. This country, 10 years ago, was the No. 1 
destination for capital. We now fall into No. 3. China is 
literally cleaning our clock. There are jurisdictions in Canada 
and Australia that can get through the process and stand up 
mines within 2 to 3 years. As this Committee knows, it takes at 
least 7 to 10 in this country, and that is before you get to 
litigation, which can add another 1 to 3 years on top of that.
    Dr. Gosar. So, just to summarize it, you have to have other 
portfolio aspects to keep your company alive while you are 
waiting for something in the United States.
    Mr. Nolan. That is correct.
    Dr. Gosar. We are going to go to a second round real quick. 
So, with that, I am going to recognize the gentleman from 
Montana for his 5 minutes.
    Committee Staff Voice. She goes first.
    Dr. Gosar. No?
    Committee Staff Voice. No.
    Dr. Gosar. No, we go first and then they go. It is the same 
process. And then I will come back to you, then me. Yes, go 
ahead.
    Mr. Rosendale. We tried going ladies first.
    Mr. Nolan, as you can see, everything that I have been 
talking about today has had the national security focus on it, 
the national security vent, if you will. You brought up 
international competition for minerals in your testimony. 
Specifically, you mentioned China's Go Global campaign to 
secure raw materials.
    Do you believe that support for mining is an issue of 
national security as China aggressively pursues minerals?
    Mr. Nolan. Congressman, I do. The testimony is accurate. 
The Chinese have been at this investment strategy for over a 
decade. They have managed to corner the market in many 
materials, and especially including the finishing of those 
materials, processing and refining. And that is a big problem. 
That is why it is important to continue to invest.
    At the same time, we are talking about standing up new and 
expansive mine operations in this country. We also need to 
bring forward processing, and development, and smelting here in 
the United States. We ought not to be mining these materials, 
sending them overseas, just to buy them back. We need to do it 
all at once here, and we are behind.
    Mr. Rosendale. So, basically, like a colony producing raw 
materials and then shipping them overseas, having them turn 
into a product, and then purchasing them back again?
    Mr. Nolan. It is an unfortunate practice, but that is what 
happens now.
    Mr. Rosendale. And why would you, in your opinion, say that 
we have to send all of these raw materials overseas for that 
refining and processing?
    Mr. Nolan. There has been a lack of will and investment 
here in the United States, based on the limitations that have 
been put forward in standing up processing facilities from cost 
and environmental compliance standards.
    Mr. Rosendale. So, basically, it is a risk versus reward 
and the inability to have predictability. Not to put words in 
your mouth, but on the outcome of that investment.
    Mr. Nolan. It is less risky.
    Mr. Rosendale. OK. By any chance, do you know of the rough 
numbers of the 10 critical elements or minerals that we most 
depend upon, how much of those China currently has control 
over?
    Mr. Nolan. About 60 percent.
    Mr. Rosendale. About 60 percent of the top 10----
    Mr. Nolan. That is correct.
    Mr. Rosendale. We have all been talking about supply chain 
problems for the last several years. I think if we didn't 
recognize anything else, when we went through COVID, that the 
reliance that America has on, whether it is for pharmaceuticals 
or for computer chips, to be bringing that in from overseas is 
very problematic and, quite frankly, very dangerous to our 
country and to the people that live here.
    Do you think that transitioning too quickly or too 
aggressively to electric vehicles could create supply chain 
problems here in the United States?
    Mr. Nolan. Absolutely. I think you have already seen just 
about every major EV company take investment stocks and 
agreements with mining companies here in the United States and 
North America to de-risk those supply chains. Time will tell if 
that will be effective. If we don't get the permitting process 
right, those investments will not be proven out.
    Mr. Rosendale. So, I am not sure who would be the best one 
suited to answer this question across the panel there.
    But as I go around the state of Montana, a lot of the 
communities are extremely dependent upon small co-ops. It is a 
very rural state. We have spread-out communities, and we don't 
have that many large energy providers. And the local co-ops are 
telling me that they have substantial barriers and issues that 
are looming on the horizon in order to provide the electricity 
that is going to be necessary if we were to throw a switch 
today and say we are going to mandate all of these EVs.
    Are you getting any feedback about how we could actually 
produce--it is not just a question of producing the energy, but 
actually a question of having the infrastructure available to 
deliver that in, as well. Can anyone comment on that?
    Mr. Nolan. I can take a stab at it. We certainly made 
tremendous investments in infrastructure and electrification in 
this economy over the last Congress. But now we are coming up 
against the concerns that we have been talking about here 
today: there are not enough engineers, there are not enough 
permits, and there is not enough time to transition quickly 
enough to make sure we have the electricity we need. And that 
goes in spades for the co-ops, who are, as you say, small 
business operators.
    Mr. Rosendale. So, the last thing I would say, Mr. Nolan, 
is that I have also been quite the advocate to make sure that 
we have baseload electricity. And while it is great to utilize 
these renewables when they are available--including 
hydroelectricity, which still fails to be identified as a 
renewable energy--when we start looking at when they are 
actually going to be able to be utilized, the most efficient 
form that I have seen on a wind farm was about 40 percent that 
they could run at full capacity. So, that leaves about 60 
percent of the time, according to my real quick math, that they 
are not going to be able to.
    How are we supposed to provide the energy consistently, 
efficiently for that balance of that 60 percent?
    Mr. Thomsen. Mr. Chairman, if I may, to Congressman 
Rosendale, geothermal provides that baseload power with zero 
emissions. And the provisions in the TAP Act would allow us to 
develop our projects twice as fast, reducing the permitting 
time in half. The Department of Energy has said that would 
unleash about 6.5 gigawatts of additional energy, primarily in 
places like Montana, the West. So, when you look at the 
solution to EVs, it is expediting the exploration and 
development of renewable resources and drilling for projects 
like geothermal.
    I would be remiss if I didn't say that 6.5 gigawatts of 
additional geothermal generation represents about a $30 billion 
investment in construction, thousands of jobs, and about a half 
a billion dollars in local royalties paid to co-ops and folks 
who are taking advantage of these type of projects throughout 
the West.
    Mr. Rosendale. Thank you.
    And Mr. Chair, I will yield back with one final comment--
not question--and that is that is great to have all that energy 
being produced, but then we run into the problem of permitting 
the transmission lines to get it where it is actually going to 
be consumed. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I yield back.
    Dr. Gosar. I thank the gentleman from Montana. The 
gentlelady, the Ranking Member, from New York is acknowledged.
    Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. I thank the Chair. I want to quickly 
touch on Representative Stauber's Permit MN bill that is being 
discussed today that would update our mining laws to largely 
favor mining interests.
    My colleagues on the other side of the aisle have suggested 
here and in another forums that environmental review is a key 
bottleneck in developing critical resources, and that reforms 
to the National Environmental Policy Act are necessary, that it 
creates all of these headaches, and there are all these issues 
in NEPA, and we need to really streamline it and reopen it for 
editing and review.
    Mr. Nolan, you are the CEO of the National Mining 
Association. Do you know what percent of NEPA decisions have a 
significant enough environmental impact to require an 
environmental impact statement?
    Mr. Nolan. I don't have that, but I am happy to get it to 
the Committee. I am sure you may have it in front of you.
    I would say, though, that just about every EIS for a modern 
mining project is challenged in court after the decision is 
made.
    Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. I see here the GAO estimates it is about 
1 percent of all NEPA decisions require an EIS. Do you know how 
many of those NEPA decisions require an environmental 
assessment?
    Mr. Nolan. The GAO methodology is somewhat suspect, because 
that EIS component is limited, and that sample size in that 
report is something I would like to further discuss.
    Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. So, given that, and I register that. But 
on top of that 1 percent, we are also seeing that the estimates 
are less than 5 percent of all NEPA decisions requiring an EA. 
And, specifically, when it comes to hardrock mining, Mr. Nolan, 
the industry says it takes roughly 10 years to permit a mine. 
Is that correct?
    Mr. Nolan. Yes, ma'am.
    Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. I would also like to introduce to the 
record a GAO report that shows hardrock mines average, in their 
assessment, about 2 years to permit. So, when we talk about 
permitting reform, which in the case of this bill, guts a lot 
of environmental review, what we really, I think, should be 
focusing on is the more than the $1 billion in the Inflation 
Reduction Act to increase Federal agency capacity for those 
environmental reviews, which I think would actually speed up 
time.
    But I want to turn now to questions around royalties for 
hardrock mines. Mr. Nolan, how many abandoned hardrock mines 
are there in the United States?
    Mr. Nolan. Hundreds of thousands, ma'am.
    Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. Yes. And according to another report, we 
are looking at over more than 400,000 abandoned hardrock mines 
in this country. Also, according to that same study, cleaning 
up these abandoned mines costs billions upon billions of 
dollars. These abandoned hardrock mines currently have no 
source of funds for cleanup at all. And that means that the 
communities nearby these abandoned mines are left with the 
burden, the burden of toxic waste and pollution, and the burden 
of paying for that cleanup themselves, if it ever even does get 
cleaned up. And those communities are very often Indigenous, 
low-income, or already overburdened.
    The toxic health effects of these communities can be 
generational. In fact, a quarter of Navajo Nation women today 
have extremely high levels of radioactive uranium in their 
bodies decades after uranium mining stopped on the Nation's 
lands. And their newborn babies have equally high levels of 
toxic uranium.
    Mr. Nolan, do you believe that the public, public funds and 
taxpayers, should be responsible for paying for the remediation 
of these sites? And do you believe that these overburdened 
communities should be left with this mess that they didn't 
make?
    Mr. Nolan. I would say that the legacy of abandoned mines 
is something we all need to work on. Modern mining did not 
create this mess, you mentioned 20 years, 2 decades ago.
    But we are working in partnership with this Committee and 
the NGOs to address the problem. Whether it is Senator 
Heinrich's edition of $6 million in the Bipartisan 
Infrastructure Law or our partnership with Trout Unlimited to 
put forward bipartisan Good Samaritan legislation, we would 
like to continue to work with the Committee to address AMLs.
    Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. Thank you. I appreciate that. And would 
you support a royalty of some kind to help give Americans a 
fair return for mining companies' production of publicly owned 
minerals, and to help fund the cleanup of some of these 
abandoned hardrock mines?
    Mr. Nolan. Certainly, we have been on the record as 
supporting a fair return to the public, but we believe that 
that has to be done carefully. Right now, our total tax 
contribution is similar to our global competitors. And at the 
time we are trying to incentivize the electrification of the 
economy, bring these mineral projects forward, we have to do 
this very carefully.
    Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. And are you aware that in this bill 
there isn't any such kind of royalty of this kind?
    Mr. Nolan. I am.
    Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. OK. And with that, I yield back.
    Mr. Stauber [presiding]. Thank you very much. I am going to 
yield for questioning in his round one for Mr. Westerman, the 
Full Chair of the Natural Resources.
    Mr. Westerman.
    Mr. Westerman. Thank you, Chairman Stauber, and thank you 
to the witnesses. It is good that Congress is back at work. A 
lot of us have been not just slipping out and taking a break, 
we have been going back and forth to other Committees, where we 
are having markups. But there is no Committee hearing on 
Capitol Hill today that I believe is more important than this 
Committee hearing.
    And there was something I wanted to give Mr. Nolan a minute 
to clear up. There have been concerns expressed about 
provisions in the Permitting for Mining Needs Act, which 
affirms that exploration and mine support activities can take 
place with or without the discovery of a valuable mineral 
deposit. Could you explain why this language is crucial to 
current and future mining projects?
    Mr. Nolan. The provision in the draft allows for mine 
infrastructure, such as roads, ancillary use, buildings, and 
waste disposal without a discovery requirement. This simply 
codifies existing regulations, BLM's 4809 regs, Forest 
Service's 228 regs, and returns to the historical platform that 
has been the basis of mining on public lands.
    What we have seen recently is Judge Miranda Du, an Obama 
appointee, actually looked at the Rosemont finding with regards 
to Thacker Pass, and rejected the interpretation that the 
Rosemont decision about ancillary use was ``long settled law,'' 
and that was not persuasive. So, this rectifies and returns the 
mining practice to where it should be.
    Mr. Westerman. Thank you for clarifying that.
    Mr. Squillace, in your testimony, and I will read from it, 
it says, ``To say that reforms are long overdue is a gross 
understatement. Most egregiously, mine operators own our public 
lands, most of which are based in foreign countries, are 
allowed to take these valuable public resources while paying 
nothing to the U.S. Treasury, no initial payment to acquire the 
rights, no royalties, and no rental fees.'' And you say 
Congress should start by shifting public land mineral 
development to a leasing program.
    So, is it your testimony that the main problem with mining 
is an economic issue, and fair pay to the U.S. Treasury?
    Mr. Squillace. I would say that is a significant problem 
with the current mining----
    Mr. Westerman. You said it was the most egregious problem, 
and that is where Congress should start.
    Mr. Squillace. Well, I think what is egregious is the 
failure of Congress to adopt mining law reform more broadly. 
So, mining law reform would presumably include some issues 
dealing with permitting and environmental protection.
    But I do think that the failure to provide the American 
people with a fair return on their minerals is wrong.
    Mr. Westerman. Mr. Chairman, I would like to submit to the 
record a report from the U.S. Geological Survey and U.S. 
Department of Commerce that talks about the economic return 
from minerals in the United States. And this chart, it shows, 
when you net out mining and recycling, that you come up with a 
value of minerals of about $120 billion.
    But when you go further and process those minerals in the 
United States, that multiplies up to $900 billion of value from 
those minerals. And those minerals also, when they go into 
manufacturing, adds $3.7 trillion to the U.S. economy, to the 
GDP.
    Would you say that is any economic benefit to the U.S. 
taxpayer in jobs and other tax revenue that comes from 
developing those minerals?

    Mr. Squillace. Of course it is. But if you were developing 
those minerals on private land or on state land, you would be 
paying a royalty, and probably an acquisition fee for those 
minerals. So, this is not to say that mining doesn't promote 
economic development in some communities. Of course it does, 
and I think that is important. The question is whether the 
American people are going to get a fair return for the minerals 
that they are providing to companies, often foreign companies, 
I might add.
    Mr. Westerman. Mr. Nolan, in your testimony you have some 
very interesting bubble charts that show the production of U.S. 
minerals in the 1990s, compared to China, and the production of 
those minerals today. And on copper, for instance, it is 
showing .7 million tons is what China made in 1995, and the 
United States made 2.3 million tons. Today, the United States 
produces 1 million tons, and China produces 11 million tons.
    My understanding is there are 2 copper smelters in the 
United States and 50 in China. What impact could producing our 
domestic copper have to the U.S. economy?
    Mr. Nolan. The forecast for copper demand, whether it is 
wind turbines or electric vehicles that take a tremendous 
amount of copper, are off the charts. If we can bring the 
smelting and processing back home and incentivize new mines, we 
could recapture that, and really advance our economic future in 
electrification.
    Mr. Westerman. Does anybody see a way to do the proposed 
electrification of the economy without copper?
    Mr. Nolan. It is impossible.
    Mr. Westerman. I am out of time, Mr. Chairman. I yield 
back.
    Mr. Stauber. Mr. Westerman, did you want to submit that? 
And if so, so moved, without objection.

    [The information follows:]

Submission for the Record by Rep. Westerman

United States Geologic Survey's Figure 1

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
                                 

    Mr. Stauber. Mr. Gosar, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
    Dr. Gosar. Thank you.
    Mr. Nolan, our colleagues often talk about how the demand 
for coal is non-existent. Could you please reflect reality at 
home and abroad, and can you discuss how coal is actually being 
used more?
    Mr. Nolan. Absolutely. Coal has a critical role to play in 
certainly navigating the energy transition we just discussed.
    Just yesterday, another regional grid operator warned about 
the capacity and blackout limitations going forward in this 
country. We saw blackouts and brownouts during Christmas Storm 
Elliot. As prices for other baseload power shot up, coal 
remained steady and kept the lights on in many regions of the 
country.
    We need the options now, more than ever, when renewables 
are not there, the sun doesn't shine, and the wind doesn't 
blow. It is incredibly important to note that during the 
Ukraine crisis and what has happened here and in Europe, as 
Bloomberg reports, over 40 U.S. power plants that rely on coal 
have extended their lifetimes and their shutdown deadlines 
based on the demand for electricity and the limitations on 
other fuel sources. In Europe, 26 plants were also brought back 
online to maintain energy demand and supply in a half a dozen 
European countries.
    So, we certainly want to value and continue to value coal 
as a reliable source of power, and certainly agree that 
technology can and continues to need to be developed, and 
investments need to be made in CCUS and CCS to meet the climate 
goals that we know are important for the nation and the world.
    Dr. Gosar. So, continuing that conversation, if the whole 
grid goes down, it is not very easy to get it started back up. 
Is that true?
    Mr. Nolan. That is accurate.
    Dr. Gosar. My understanding is we were a minute away from 
having that happen, particularly in the Western United States. 
Is that true?
    Mr. Nolan. Yes, sir.
    Dr. Gosar. Wow. That is pretty amazing, that we got to this 
point. Because I saw earlier in the discussion is that we don't 
care about markets. We can pursue and push new technology.
    Now, there was a comment in regards to actual work on the 
ground, and I applaud a Ph.D., but there comes a time when you 
learn things on the ground, things that are practical, things 
that are impractical. Would you agree with that, Mr. Nolan?
    Mr. Nolan. It is important to have, certainly, aspirational 
goals, but there is reality. And if you don't take that into 
balance, people can get hurt.
    Dr. Gosar. So, in regards to Resolution Copper, we talked 
about mitigation for mine sites. Did Resolution spend over $1 
billion mitigating a current mine site there?
    Mr. Nolan. Yes, there was an adjacent site that was on the 
edge of being on the Superfund list, and they voluntarily 
cleaned up the entire thing at their own expense.
    Dr. Gosar. And to specifications, right?
    Mr. Nolan. And they met all the modern environmental 
specifications, sir.
    Dr. Gosar. Now, we have constantly come to the grounds to 
mitigate some of these orphaned mines, or these abandoned 
mines. But the other side refuses to allow it, because they 
want to keep continually having them liable, whoever does it, 
the liability, even though they are doing it to the same 
context as the law stipulates. And these are groups like 
Audubon Society, Trout Unlimited, and they have been forbade to 
actually mitigate some of these. So, there are lots of 
possibilities here.
    The second-to-the-last question I have, Mr. Nolan, is we 
now have new smelting and extraction processes, particularly 
for critical minerals in regards to ore. It is very green, uses 
very little water, and extracts all minerals out of the ore, 
leaving a silicate base, which our semi-conductor base actually 
needs. How will this actually help us keep those types of 
programs here, instead of sending them abroad?
    Mr. Nolan. There have been tremendous strides made in 
additional modern environmental techniques, including in situ 
and brine extraction that my colleague had mentioned. And I 
think it is important to bring those technologies forward and 
invest in them as well, because the demand, again, as I have 
said repeatedly today, is so dramatic that we are going to need 
all sources, including brines in situ, as well as recycling.
    Dr. Gosar. Mr. Naatz, I am going to make a statement. It 
would take a revolutionary scientific advancement in battery 
storage for renewables to actually take the place of oil and 
gas. Is that true?
    Mr. Naatz. Again, I am not an expert on battery, but I can 
tell you, yes, about 70 percent of the current U.S. energy is 
either oil or natural gas.
    Dr. Gosar. Mr. Nolan?
    Mr. Nolan. Correct.
    Dr. Gosar. Mr. Thomsen?
    Mr. Thomsen. I am sorry, can you repeat the question?
    Dr. Gosar. Yes. It would take a revolutionary discovery in 
science for batteries to replace oil and gas, or even improving 
your place in the world, in geothermal.
    Mr. Thomsen. I think batteries don't produce electricity to 
begin with. They have to be charged and discharged. So, to make 
that clarification, I think, is critical.
    And the renewable resources, geothermal is one of the few 
that is baseload-producing power 24 hours a day. And for the 
intermittent resources to charge that, you would need a very 
large amount of batteries or a new technology, yes.
    Dr. Gosar. Last, Mr. Squillace. I am a big recycler, so I 
really want to see the push.
    Mr. Squillace. I appreciate your including me in the 
conversation here.
    There are some remarkable technologies that are being 
developed for what we call metal air batteries, iron air 
batteries, zinc air batteries, and some other things that are 
really, I think, going to revolutionize the storage of energy.
    I should also mention that there are a number of proposals 
now that are coming up for pumped hydro facilities. And I 
happened to prepare an environmental assessment for a company 
in Colorado that is doing a pumped hydro facility, which is 
basically a battery-type storage facility.
    So, we are not there yet, I think, with the kind of storage 
that we are going to need to overcome the baseload issues, but 
we are getting there. So, I think we are going to see that 
revolution in storage technology in the not-too-distant future.
    Dr. Gosar. Time will tell. Thank you.
    Mr. Stauber. Thank you, Mr. Gosar.
    You are up next, Mr. Webster.
    Mr. Webster. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I actually have a 
question of you, and it is kind of a long one, but I am 
supportive of many of the provisions in these bills because 
they make the permitting process for domestic energy and 
material production more efficient and reduces America's 
reliance on our adversaries for the resources.
    I also share your strong opposition to the mineral 
withdrawal recently imposed by the Biden administration in the 
Superior National Forest, which prevents the development of 
vast copper resources there. This Administration should be 
taking action to develop resources domestically before going 
out to our adversaries and nations, and significantly lowering 
environmental and labor standards.
    However, I am concerned about how the bill could impact 
Florida and the eastern Gulf of Mexico. Florida's Gulf Coast is 
a world-renowned tourist attraction, and the bases, important 
military training and weapons testing. I have long opposed 
drilling there. There are large, vital training areas east of 
the military mission line and require open space for fighter 
jet training. There are also many significant Department of 
Defense installations. The DOD refers to the Eastern Gulf as an 
irreplaceable national asset.
    The unique capabilities in the region have been developed 
over decades. We spent billions of taxpayer dollars as an 
investment. The Trump administration recognizes the importance 
of protecting the area and worked with the Florida delegation 
to extend a drilling moratorium. The Trump moratorium is in 
effect until 2032. I am glad this bill will not impact the 
existing moratorium.
    Will you commit to working with my office and the Florida 
delegation to ensure this bill includes, that the reporting 
requirement in section 301 does not have unintended 
consequences for national security and our way of life?
    Mr. Stauber. Mr. Webster, as a husband to an Iraq War 
veteran, I totally understand your concern for the military, 
and I appreciate your concern for our way of life, as well, in 
northern Minnesota, and our desire to develop our vast 
resources for the benefit of the country and the world.
    Like in my opening statement, these provisions are 
something I believe we can all get behind. And I understand 
your concerns about similarly protecting the way of life of 
Floridians, and I do commit to work with you before advancing 
this bill out of Committee. I am confident in our ability to 
get to a yes, and we will work together.
    And I yield back to my colleague from Florida for the 
remainder of his 5 minutes.
    Mr. Webster. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and I yield 
back.
    Mr. Stauber. And do you have anybody that needs to go to 
round two?
    Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. No, I don't.
    Mr. Stauber. OK. I am going to take my round two 
questioning, and Ranking Member Ocasio-Cortez, I want to thank 
you for allowing the second round of questioning for this 
important Committee work, and I really appreciate you being--
when I was out of the room, it was your decision to do that, 
and I want to thank you.
    Mr. Thomsen, Congress has created categorical exclusions 
for agencies to stop doing the same work over and over again, 
yet agencies still decide not to use a categorical exclusion. 
How would the TAP Act avoid issues with the unpredictable usage 
of categorical exclusions?
    Mr. Thomsen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You are absolutely 
correct that we have seen some district offices for the Bureau 
of Land Management deploy the categorical exclusions for 
geothermal and others not do that. So, the provisions in the 
TAP Act would make it clear that when we are doing exploration 
drilling with less than 5 acres of disturbance, it does not 
need to take the time of the hardworking BLM employees, and 
would let them focus on the projects that are backlogging the 
process today, the utilization planning for geothermal projects 
that have found a resource and will continue on to development.
    Mr. Stauber. Thank you very much.
    Mr. Nolan, a mining project, even a permitted project, can 
be challenged 6 years after a final Federal action. How does 
forcing any litigation sooner in the process help with getting 
new U.S. mining production?
    Mr. Nolan. I think we are talking about trust and upfront 
consultation with communities, tribal groups, Indigenous 
populations in the process, so there is more transparency. It 
is something the Committee can work on so that those challenges 
are known and can be addressed to the benefit of both the 
project and the community. So, I think that is something that 
the bill speaks to and can be worked on.
    Mr. Stauber. Yes, in the Permit for Mining Needs Act, there 
is a 120-day period after a Federal decision, and you and your 
folks support that?
    Mr. Nolan. We do. We think it is a tremendous improvement.
    Mr. Stauber. OK. That is really all the questions I have.
    Let me finish up here. One second.
    [Pause.]
    Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. And Mr. Stauber, while you arrange that, 
would it be all right--I have some documents that I would like 
to submit to the record. May I seek unanimous consent to submit 
that?
    Mr. Stauber. Without objection, so ordered.
    Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. Thank you.

    [The information follows:]

Submissions for the Record by Rep. Ocasio-Cortez

                        Combined Leasing Report
                         As of February 1, 2023

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                          .epsUpdated Monthly

                         Footnotes/Definitions:

  1.  A Planning Area is a large, contiguous portion of the OCS, 
            consisting of defined OCS blocks, considered as an entity 
            for administrative planning purposes. The quantity and size 
            of a planning area can vary by Region.

  2.  An Active Lease is a lease that has been executed by the Lessor 
            and the Lessee(s), has an effective date and has not been 
            relinquished, expired, or terminated. Some leases have more 
            than one block. Blocks are generally 9 square miles but can 
            be vary. Slight numerical discrepancies are the result of 
            the processes used during the rounding of acreage.

  3.  A Producing lease is an active lease that has produced product 
            i.e. oil or gas, or both. A non-producing lease is an 
            active lease that has not produced product. NOTE: There can 
            be a difference in the definition for producing and non-
            producing leases between BOEM and ONRR (i.e. time lag, 
            fiscal versus calendar year, etc) because of different 
            purposes in collecting data (i.e. operations versus revenue 
            collection.)

  4.  There are currently no active leases split between CGOM and EGOM; 
            thus there is no longer a small variation in acreage and 
            production.

  5.  There are 4 planning areas in the Pacific Region but only 1 
            planning area with existing leases.

  6.  There are 15 planning areas in the Alaska Region, but only two 
            planning areas with leases.

                                 ______
                                 

                                 [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
                                 

                               .

The full GAO report is part of the hearing record and is being retained 
in the Committee's official files.

It is available for viewing at:

    https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-14-369.pdf

                                 ______
                                 

                                 [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                               

The full GAO report is part of the hearing record and is being retained 
in the Committee's official files.

It is available for viewing at:

    https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-16-165.pdf

                                 ______
                                 

                              [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]   

The full GAO report is part of the hearing record and is being retained 
in the Committee's official files.

It is available for viewing at:

    https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-20-238.pdf

                                 ______
                                 
House Republican fires opening salvo on energy permitting

E&E News, January 10, 2023 by Emma Dumain

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


    .epsRep. Pete Stauber (R-Minn.) on Capitol Hill in 2021 discussing 
critical minerals policy. Francis Chung/E&E News

A senior House Natural Resources Committee Republican offered an early 
preview Monday of how the GOP will seek to overhaul the permitting 
process for energy projects with its new House majority.

While the approach, which deals with the hardrock mining industry, is 
one that's sure to galvanize Republicans, it isn't likely to attract 
the bipartisan coalition necessary for passage in the Democratic-
controlled Senate.

That won't deter Rep. Pete Stauber of Minnesota, incoming chair of the 
Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources, who is looking to forge 
ahead with a legislative agenda that mirrors the party's larger 
willingness to revisit the National Environmental Policy Act--a 
sacrosanct law to most Democrats--and cut regulations in the pursuit of 
U.S. energy independence and dominance.

The first bill Stauber has introduced in the 118th Congress is the 
``Permitting for Mining Needs Act (https://stauber.house.gov/sites/evo-
subsites/stauber.house.gov/files/evo-media-document/
hardrockpermit_01_xml.pdf),'' which is designed to increase domestic 
production of critical minerals necessary for meeting defense, 
technology and clean energy needs in the United States.

Stauber told E&E News in an interview that he views it as either a 
stand-alone bill that could move through the Natural Resources 
Committee or one that could become a part of a larger permitting reform 
package the committee's chair, Rep. Bruce Westerman (R-Ark.), has 
pledged to make a priority.

``This is important,'' Stauber said of his legislation. ``America needs 
this to become critical mineral dominant again.''

Stauber's bill, which enjoys support from the National Mining 
Association, among other groups, would shorten the hardrock mining 
permitting review process under NEPA so that environmental assessments 
would take no more than 12 months and environmental impact statements 
would take no longer than two years.

It would prohibit lawsuits against permitting decisions more than 120 
days after such a decision has been made and would designate a lead 
federal agency to review applications and grant approvals.

Crucially, the legislation also would allow an individual to pursue 
hardrock mining activities ``with or without the discovery of a 
valuable mineral deposit'' beforehand--a distinction critics like Aaron 
Mintzes, senior policy counsel or Earthworks, said would create ``Wild 
West claim-staking,'' opening up vast swaths of land to indiscriminate 
disruption.

This distinction is significant for Stauber, for whom this bill fills a 
parochial need beyond simply bolstering the larger party platform: His 
district is home to the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness, around 
where Twin Metals has for years been engaged in legal battles with 
environmentalists to mine for copper and nickel.

The ``Permitting for Mining Needs Act'' would, in fact, be nicknamed 
the ``PERMIT-MN Act,'' a nod to Stauber's home state.

The legislation benefits from a system that's been in place ever since 
passage of the General Mining Act of 1872. Under this law, companies 
seeking to do specific hardrock mining activities in the Intermountain 
West only need to make claims and payments for their desired land. They 
do not need to secure a lease beforehand, as is the case for non-
hardrock mining.

In Minnesota, where mining activities are subject to leasing, Stauber's 
legislative proposal could create new workarounds for Twin Metals to 
proceed with its ambitions.

Pitch to Democrats

Stauber isn't shy about his bill's home state connections.

``We have tremendous mineral wealth across this nation, and it's simply 
unacceptable that, in one case in northern Minnesota, they are pushing 
20 years for permitting, yet in the same watershed, in the country of 
Canada, they permit a mine within three years,'' Stauber said, 
referring to the Boundary Waters.

He is also quick to argue that it's imperative for the United States to 
promote domestic critical mineral mining as a means discourage the 
business relationship with the Democratic Republic of Congo, where 
cobalt is frequently mined using child labor.

Democrats should embrace the bill, Stauber insisted.

``I think we all can agree to allow an [environmental impact study] to 
go forward [that] lets the facts, the truth and the science dictate a 
project,'' said Stauber. ``The radical, anti-jobs, anti-mining groups 
sue at every turn. If they support the transition to alternative 
sources of energy--for instance, solar and EVs--they have to look at my 
legislation, and other legislation that comes out of our Natural 
Resources Committee. They know, with 100 percent certainty, that 75 
percent of cobalt is mined by slave labor. That is immoral.''

But Democrats probably won't.

Even amid bipartisan interest in tackling broader permitting reform--
inspired by Senate Energy and Natural Resources Chair Joe Manchin (D-
W.Va.), who convinced his party leadership to endorse the push as a 
condition of his supporting the Inflation Reduction Act--overhauling 
mining laws more narrowly has been a consistently insurmountable task.

Democrats last year tried to take their own approach to revising the 
General Mining Act of 1872. Rep. Raul Grijalva (D-Ariz.), then chair of 
the House Natural Resources Committee, and Sen. Martin Heinrich (D-
N.M.) were pushing for the ``Clean Energy Minerals Reform Act.'' The 
proposal would have brought all hardrock mining activities under a 
leasing system and created a first-ever hardrock mining royalty.

`Royalties are dead'

Consideration of the Grijalva-Heinrich framework in the House was 
ultimately derailed amid concerns even among Democrats about the 
dangers of putting guardrails on an industry that's so sorely needed to 
help with the advent of a clean energy economy.

Still, Democrats have largely rallied around the need to establish a 
royalty system for mining activities, and Stauber last night declared 
that ``royalties are dead.'' It's not clear whether the two parties 
will be able to overcome that difference.

In a statement, Grijalva--who will be the ranking member of the Natural 
Resources Committee this year--said that while there is ``no question 
that our 150-year-old mining laws need reform,'' Stauber's proposal 
``isn't even an honest attempt.''

Grijalva continued, ``the mining industry uses up our public lands, 
ignores tribes' concerns, spills their toxic waste into our communities 
and waterways, and leaves their messes for the rest of us to clean up . 
. . the Republicans' bill does nothing to solve any of these problems 
and instead just makes it easier for industry to do more of the same, 
inevitably ending in more destruction and more lawsuits.''

Mintzes said there are ``minor'' opportunities for Democrats and 
Republicans to find compromise on small-scale mining reforms in this 
Congress--for instance, directing excess claim maintenance fees toward 
hardrock abandoned mine lands, or legislation to make it easier to 
volunteer to participate in hardrock mine cleanup.

But Rep. Mark Amodei (R-Nev.), who has sought to engage colleagues on 
mining overhaul efforts in the past, said he is pessimistic that 
anything truly ambitious could survive the Senate gantlet.

``Mining law reform for minerals--if you scrub out all that political 
demagoguery, there's room to run in there and do the right thing for 
the resource, for the country, and all that stuff,'' he said. ``But the 
problem is, nobody can resist sticking in the knife and twisting it.''

                                 ______
                                 

US official: Research finds uranium in Navajo women, babies

AP News, October 7, 2019 by Mary Hudetz

ALBUQUERQUE, N.M. (AP)--About a quarter of Navajo women and some 
infants who were part of a federally funded study on uranium exposure 
had high levels of the radioactive metal in their systems, decades 
after mining for cold war weaponry ended on their reservation, a U.S. 
health official Monday.

The early findings from the University of New Mexico study were shared 
during a congressional field hearing in Albuquerque. Dr. Loretta 
Christensen--the chief medical officer on the Navajo Nation for Indian 
Health Service, a partner in the research--said 781 women were screened 
during an initial phase of the study that ended last year.

Among them, 26% had concentrations of uranium that exceeded levels 
found in the highest 5% of the U.S. population, and newborns with 
equally high concentrations continued to be exposed to uranium during 
their first year, she said.

The research is continuing as authorities work to clear uranium mining 
sites across the Navajo Nation.

``It forces us to own up to the known detriments associated with a 
nuclear-forward society,'' said U.S. Rep. Deb Haaland, who is an 
enrolled member of Laguna Pueblo, a tribe whose jurisdiction lies west 
of Albuquerque.

The hearing held in Albuquerque by U.S. Sen. Tom Udall, Haaland and 
U.S. Rep. Ben Ray Lujan, all Democrats from New Mexico, sought to 
underscore the atomic age's impact on Native American communities.

The three are pushing for legislation that would expand radiation 
compensation to residents in their state, including post-1971 uranium 
workers and residents who lived downwind from the Trinity Test site in 
southern New Mexico.

The state's history has long been intertwined with the development of 
the nation's nuclear arsenal, from uranium mining and the first atomic 
blast to the Manhattan project conducted through work in the once-
secret city of Los Alamos. The Federal Radiation Exposure Compensation 
Act, however, only covers parts of Nevada, Arizona and Utah that are 
downwind from a different nuclear test site.
During the hearing, Haaland said one of her own family members had lost 
his hearing because of radiation exposure. At Laguna Pueblo, home to 
her tribe, the Jackpile-Paguate Mine was once among the world's largest 
open-pit uranium mines. It closed several decades ago, but cleanup has 
yet to be completed.

``They need funds,'' Haaland said. ``They job was not completed.''

David Gray, a deputy regional administrator for the U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency, said the mine illustrates uranium mining and 
milling's lingering effects on Indian Country.

On the Navajo Nation, he said, the EPA has identified more than 200 
abandoned uranium mines where it wants to complete investigation and 
clean up under an upcoming five-year plan, using settlements and other 
agreements to pay for the work that has taken decades.
Udall, who chaired the hearing, acknowledged federal officials had 
shown progress but that the pace of cleanup has proven frustrating for 
some community members.

``They feel an urgency,'' Udall said. ``They feel that things need to 
happen today.''

In her testimony, Christensen described how Navajo residents in the 
past had used milling waste in home construction, resulting in 
contaminated walls and floors.

From the end of World War II to the mid-1980s, millions of tons of 
uranium ore were extracted from the Navajo Nation, leaving gray streaks 
across the desert landscape, as well as a legacy of disease and death.

While no large-scale studies have connected cancer to radiation 
exposure from uranium waste, many have been blamed it for cancer and 
other illnesses.

By the late 1970s, when the mines began closing around the reservation, 
miners were dying of lung cancer, emphysema or other radiation-related 
ailments.

``The government is so unjust with us,'' said Leslie Begay, a former 
uranium miner who lives in Window Rock, an Arizona town that sits near 
the New Mexico border and serves as the Navajo Nation capital. ``The 
government doesn't recognize that we built their freedom.''

Begay, who said he has lung problems, attended the hearing with an 
oxygen tank in tow. The hearing held in the Southwest was especially 
meaningful for him after traveling in the past to Washington to 
advocate for himself and others, he said.

                                 ______
                                 
                                 [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
                                 

                            OUTDOOR ALLIANCE

                                                  March 6, 2023    

Hon. Pete Stauber, Chairman
Hon. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Ranking Member
Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources
House Natural Resources Committee
1324 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515

Re: Energy and Mineral Resources Subcommittee legislative hearing 
        February 28, 2023

    Dear Chairman Stauber and Ranking Member Ocasio-Cortez:

    On behalf of the human-powered outdoor recreation community, we 
write to express our community's views on the Permitting for Mine Needs 
Act (PERMIT-MN Act) and the Transparency and Production of American 
Energy Act of 2023 (TAP American Energy Act), which were considered 
during February 28's Energy and Mineral Resources Subcommittee 
legislative hearing. While we appreciate the Subcommittee's attention 
to improving federal permitting processes, we are highly concerned that 
the changes proposed in these bills would unnecessarily accelerate 
mining and fossil fuel development in a way that fails to account for 
other public lands values, including outdoor recreation. As a result, 
Outdoor Alliance opposes both bills and encourages the Subcommittee to 
instead explore how reforms can better protect recreation access, a 
healthy environment, and the $862 billion outdoor recreation economy.
    Outdoor Alliance is a coalition of ten member-based organizations 
representing the human powered outdoor recreation community. The 
coalition includes Access Fund, American Canoe Association, American 
Whitewater, International Mountain Bicycling Association, Winter 
Wildlands Alliance, The Mountaineers, the American Alpine Club, the 
Mazamas, Colorado Mountain Club, and Surfrider Foundation and 
represents the interests of the millions of Americans who climb, 
paddle, mountain bike, backcountry ski and snowshoe, and enjoy coastal 
recreation on our nation's public lands, waters, and snowscapes.
    Our community is highly familiar with the National Environmental 
Policy Act (NEPA) process, as well as the protections afforded by the 
Clean Water Act and other environmental laws referenced during February 
28's hearing. Through our advocacy in support of sustainable recreation 
access on federal public lands and waters, we experience both the 
invaluable public protections afforded by these laws, as well as the 
challenges that sometimes accompany permitting new projects. We are 
also eager to see recent federal investments in clean energy--including 
those from the Inflation Reduction Act--expeditiously put into action 
to address the climate crisis.
    With these perspectives in mind, we are open to an honest dialogue 
about how to modernize and improve federal permitting. Unfortunately, 
the proposals laid out in the PERMIT-MN Act and the TAP American Energy 
Act would advance fossil fuel and mineral development in a way that 
would not facilitate informed, science-based decision making, 
transparency, and robust public input, and would not protect recreation 
resources on public lands. We encourage the Subcommittee to consider 
additional perspectives, including from frontline communities, Tribes, 
scientists, and recreation advocates, as you continue to consider 
permitting reform.

    Our comments on individual bills are provided below.
Permitting for Mine Needs Act (H.R. 209)

    The PERMIT-MN Act primarily addresses the permitting process for 
mining on federal lands. The outdoor recreation community is profoundly 
affected by mining on federal lands, both through mining proposals that 
threaten to degrade valuable recreation lands, and through the ongoing 
impacts of legacy mining pollution. We are highly interested in reforms 
to mining policy that will help address these impacts while providing 
regulatory certainty for mine developers and meeting the growing demand 
for critical minerals.
    Unfortunately, instead of striking a necessary balance between 
mining and other public land values, the PERMIT-MN Act would instead 
further cement the harmful mining policies of the past two centuries. 
In particular, we are concerned by Section 8, which would change long-
standing policy under the 1872 Mining Law to allow for validating 
mining claims before a claimant has proven mineral discovery. We are 
similarly concerned by other provisions of the bill that would that 
would set an arbitrary 120-day limit for communities and tribes to seek 
judicial review for mining projects (Section 10), allow for exploratory 
mining without NEPA review (Section 7), and arbitrarily shorten the 
timeline for environmental reviews for mining projects.
Transparency and Production of American Energy Act of 2023

    The discussion draft of the TAP American Energy Act primarily 
addresses fossil fuel leasing and energy infrastructure on federally-
managed lands and waters. This bill would mandate a substantial 
increase in fossil fuel production and would undo hard fought 
protections for environmental, cultural, and recreational resources 
that are affected by energy development. We are highly concerned about 
provisions of the bill that:

     Undo important fiscal reforms to the oil and gas leasing 
            process established by the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) 
            that provide a fairer return to taxpayers from energy 
            development.

     Restrict the President and the Interior Secretary's long-
            standing authority to withdraw federal lands from mining 
            and oil and gas development. Mineral withdrawals can be 
            critical for protecting valuable recreation lands.

     Arbitrarily require the Department of Interior to hold 
            quarterly onshore oil and gas lease sales in every state 
            with oil and gas reserves, as well as offshore lease sales 
            twice per year.

     Codify the 2020 NEPA regulations promulgated by the 
            Council of Environmental Quality under the Trump 
            administration, and otherwise weaken the public input and 
            judicial review process for fossil fuel development 
            projects.

    Together, these changes and others proposed in the TAP American 
Energy Act would make it more difficult for federal agencies to balance 
fossil fuel development with sustainable recreation access and other 
uses of public lands and waters.

                                  ***

    Thank you for considering our community's input as you consider 
legislation to make changes to federal permitting processes. We look 
forward to working with you to ensure that reforms provide adequate 
protections for outdoor recreation, local communities, cultural 
resources, and the environment.

            Best regards,

                                             Louis Geltman,
                                                    Policy Director

                                 ______
                                 

    Mr. Stauber. And then, a great reminder, I too would like 
to enter into the record that the following organizations 
support one or both of these bills today, and I am going to 
quickly read them: The National Association of Building Trades 
Unions; American Exploration and Mining Association; National 
Mining Association; Better in our Backyard; Uranium Producers 
of America; Citizens for Responsible Energy Solutions; Range 
Association of Municipalities and Schools; Women's Mining 
Coalition; National Stone, Sand, and Gravel Association; and 
the Essential Minerals Association.
    I would also request that, if there is no objection, to 
enter into the record the following pieces of material that I 
have: the letters of the record from API; Essential Minerals 
Association; American Exploration and Mining Association; and, 
again, Women's Mining Coalition; the Louisiana Mid-Continent 
Oil and Gas Association that have supported one or more of 
these bills.
    Without objection, so ordered.

    [The information follows:]

Submissions for the Record by Rep. Stauber

                      AMERICAN PETROLEUM INSTITUTE

                                              February 24, 2023    

Hon. Bruce Westerman, Chairman
Hon. Raul Grijalva, Ranking Member
House Committee on Natural Resources
1324 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515

    Dear Chairman Westerman & Ranking Member Grijalva:

    The American Petroleum Institute (API) writes regarding legislation 
to be considered during the upcoming legislative hearings on Tuesday, 
February 28, 2023: The Transparency and Production of American Energy 
Act of 2023 (TAP Act) in the Energy and Mineral Resources Subcommittee 
and Building United States Infrastructure through Limited Delays and 
Efficient Reviews Act of 2023 (BUILDER Act) in the full Committee. API 
is committed to meeting the challenge of providing affordable and 
reliable energy while continuing to reduce emissions. As the leading 
trade association representing the entire value chain of the U.S. oil 
and natural gas industry, API supports policies that strengthen our 
nation's energy security and our economy, and that protect our 
environment.

    Last month, API released industry priorities for 2023 that include 
the adoption of policies that make, move and improve American energy 
and recognize U.S. oil and natural gas as a long-term strategic asset. 
API commends Chairman Westerman and Congressman Garret Graves (R-LA) 
for introducing important legislation that advances those priorities 
and we write to offer our support in these efforts.

    The TAP Act discussion draft provides a sensible roadmap to renew 
our nation's commitment to onshore and offshore leasing of oil and 
natural gas. Federal lands and waters provide 25% of the oil and 11% of 
the natural gas we produce in the United States. A robust federal 
leasing program is essential to maintaining our nation's energy 
security and providing critical conservation funding throughout the 
country. Additionally, reforms to our permitting processes are critical 
to help move energy from where it is produced in the United States to 
where it is needed. This legislation will help streamline the nation's 
permitting processes to maintain America's energy advantage.

    The BUILDER Act brings much-needed reform to the National 
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). A recent study from Rystad Energy 
commissioned by API cited Council of Environmental Quality findings 
that showed between 2010 and 2018, the average NEPA Environmental 
Impact Statement took more than 4.5 years to complete and exceeded 600 
pages. Delays in the NEPA process are costing billions of dollars in 
energy investment and locking up critical oil and natural gas resources 
that could reduce energy costs and enhance our energy security. The 
BUILDER Act will help expedite this process and unlock critical 
resources our nation needs.
    As the push for energy legislation and permitting reform progresses 
in Congress, API stands ready to support policies that strengthen 
America's energy security and promote economic development and 
environmental stewardship.

    We look forward to continuing to work with Members of the Committee 
and their colleagues in the House and Senate to support legislation 
that will restore America's energy leadership.

            Sincerely,

                                        Amanda E. Eversole,
                                         Executive Vice President  
                                           & Chief Advocacy Officer

                                 ______
                                 

                     ESSENTIAL MINERALS ASSOCIATION

                             Arlington, VA

                                              February 27, 2023    

Hon. Pete Stauber, Chairman
Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources
House Committee on Natural Resources
1324 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515

    Dear Chairman Stauber:

    On behalf of the members of the Essential Minerals Association 
(EMA), I write to thank you for your continued leadership on the issue 
of mineral permitting reform. The EMA supports H.R. 209, the Permitting 
for Mineral Needs (PERMIT-MN) Act of 2023 as a terrific first step in 
the process of reforming a system that all can agree is broken.

    The EMA represents the interests of more than 80 member companies 
that mine, process, or support the minerals that are critical to nearly 
all aspects of everyday life. According to the most recent figures from 
the United States Geological Survey, the metal/non-metal industry 
generates approximately $98 billion in production with an estimated 1.3 
million direct and indirect jobs, of which EMA's members are 
significant contributors. This production contributes significant tax 
revenues to the nation's local, state, and federal governments.

    The minerals produced by EMA's members are vital to the 
manufacturing processes for many, if not all, of the products we use 
every day.These minerals are used in agricultural feed, fertilizers, 
baking products, water purification needs, batteries, protective masks, 
dialysis machines, semiconductors, solar panels, glass, ceramics, 
paper, plastics, rubber, detergents, insulation, pharmaceuticals, 
cosmetics, foundry cores and molds used for metal castings, paints, 
filtration, metallurgical applications, refractory products, and 
specialty fillers. These are just a few of the many uses of our 
members' essential minerals.

    It has become increasingly clear in recent years that the federal 
permitting system is fundamentally flawed. The current process is 
onerous and duplicative in nature, and does not provide definitive 
timelines for reviews to occur. Even after going through the regulatory 
process, a company then faces the uncertainties of litigation which 
creates further delays. If the United States is to establish a more 
secure domestic supply chain of the minerals that are vital to our 
manufacturing and agricultural needs, then we must have a much more 
efficient process in place to provide mining entities with the 
predictability and clarity they need.

    From comments seen from both sides of the aisle in recent Natural 
Resources Committee hearings, we believe there is now bipartisan 
agreement on the need to reform our permitting system for the minerals 
sector. The transition to a greener economy relies upon an adequate and 
reliable domestic minerals supply, but the system currently in place in 
the United States makes it exceedingly difficult for a company to 
justify making the tens of millions of dollars of investments necessary 
to begin production. The current process is almost comical when 
compared to similar countries like Canada and Australia that can permit 
a mine in under three years with very similar environmental standards, 
whereas in the United States it routinely takes over a decade.

    Our country's national and economic security depend on strong 
domestic supply chains for mineral resources. Continuing to rely upon 
our strategic adversaries for the resources we need is an untenable 
policy, and streamlining the permitting for domestic mineral operations 
is a crucial step toward rectifying that dependence. We are currently 
being held hostage by China, Russia, and others for many of these 
minerals that we rely on for every aspect of our lives, and global 
geopolitical conditions globally continue to worsen by the day. China, 
Belarus, and Russia currently control 60 percent of the global supply 
of fertilizer, and they also control the supply of dozens of other 
minerals that are vital for agriculture and manufacturing. We are still 
seeing the impacts of the supply chain disruption from Covid-19. This 
is an unacceptable dynamic, but one that can largely be rectified if 
Congress does the right thing by passing the PERMIT-MN Act to secure 
our domestic mineral supply chains.

    We need to address this issue swiftly, and it must be bipartisan. 
All sides need to come to the table and reach a commonsense solution 
that allows for the rapid, environmentally safe development of the 
domestic mineral resources we have here at home. Producing more 
minerals domestically will allow those minerals to be extracted and 
processed under the protections of U.S. environmental laws and 
regulations, as well as those protecting worker health and safety. EMA 
member companies strive every day to protect vital land, air, water, 
and cultural resources while conducting operations, in addition to 
providing exemplary protection for the health and safety of their 
workers. This is in stark contrast to countries like Russia and China 
who have abysmal environmental standards and little or no regard for 
worker health and safety. Developing more domestic mineral production 
will benefit the environment, the workforce, and our country as a 
whole, and H.R. 209 will help achieve that objective.

    In particular, we strongly support the PERMIT-MN Act's provision to 
require federal agencies to complete Environmental Assessments required 
under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) within 12 months and 
Environmental Impact Statements within 24 months. The clarity and 
predictability these timelines would provide will incentivize U.S. 
mining entities to invest in domestic operations. Many EMA members have 
seen permit applications languish for 10 years or more with no 
guarantee of any decision ever being made, which deters development of 
essential mineral resources. We can and must do better, and the 
timelines in H.R. 209 are a key step in the right direction.

    We also support the PERMIT-MN's narrow and specific focus on 
permitting reform for the mining sector. While there may be partisan 
disagreement in Congress about permitting for other resources, there is 
bipartisan agreement on the need to increase domestic mineral 
resources. Permitting reforms in the previous Congress failed because 
of the disagreement over the inclusion of energy resources in those 
reforms, and we do not wish to see that same result in this Congress.

    The EMA believes that in order for this issue to be addressed and 
for meaningful changes to occur in a timely manner, we must have a 
minerals-specific bill like the PERMIT-MN Act. Including other, more 
controversial resources in the permitting reform debate will only serve 
to slow the process down and prevent this needed change from occurring. 
With this in mind, the EMA strongly encourages the Natural Resources 
Committee and House leadership to allow the PERMIT-MN Act to remain a 
stand-alone vehicle and remain a minerals-only bill.

    Enacting meaningful permitting reform legislation is vital to the 
future of the American economy as well as our national security. 
Increased domestic mineral production will create jobs across the 
country and will better enable our economy to complete the transition 
to renewable energy technologies; ensure farmers have adequate and 
affordable supplies of fertilizer, feed, and seed; support domestic 
manufacturing; provide resources to the healthcare sector; allow 
quality and affordable housing to be constructed; and supply our 
military with the sophisticated weapons and equipment to defend our 
country and our freedom both now and into the future.

    EMA strongly supports the PERMIT-MN Act as a long overdue step to 
promoting mineral development in the United States.
    We recognize and support that there must be changes to this bill to 
ensure that all sides' concerns are heard throughout not just the 
process of finalizing this bill, but in the implementation of the bill 
as well. Congress must enact the bill on a bipartisan basis as soon as 
possible to secure our domestic supply chains for essential mineral 
resources that are vital to the everyday life of millions of Americans. 
We look forward to continuing to work with you and your colleagues on 
both sides of the aisle to accomplish this goal.

    Please do not hesitate to reach out if we can be helpful in any 
way.

            Respectfully,

                                           Chris Greissing,
                                                          President

                                 ______
                                 

               AMERICAN EXPLORATION & MINING ASSOCIATION

                           Spokane Valley, WA

                                              February 27, 2023    

Hon. Bruce Westerman, Chairman
Hon. Raul Grijalva, Ranking Member
House Natural Resources Committee
1324 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515

Hon. Pete Stauber, Chairman
Hon. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Ranking Member
Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources
House Natural Resources Committee
1324 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515

Re: AEMA Statement for the Record for the February 28, 2023 House 
        Natural Resources Subcommittee on Energy and Minerals Resources 
        Hearing on the discussion draft for the Transparency and 
        Production of American Energy Act of 2023 and the Permitting 
        for Mining Needs Act (H.R. 209)

    Dear Chairman Westerman, Ranking Member Grijalva, Chairman Stauber, 
and Ranking Member Ocasio-Cortez:

    The American Exploration & Mining Association wishes to express our 
strong support for H.R. 209, the Permitting for Mining Needs Act of 
2023, and the concepts in the discussion drafts of the Building United 
States Infrastructure Through Limited Delays and Efficient Reviews Act 
of 2023 (BUILDER Act) and the Transparency and Production of (TAP) 
American Energy Act of 2023. As noted in President Biden's Executive 
Order 14017 (America's Supply Chains), ``the United States needs 
resilient, diverse, and secure supply chains to ensure our economic 
prosperity and national security,'' and mineral production is the first 
link to reaching these goals. The recent global pandemic and 
geopolitical events have led to an increased recognition of the 
importance of a strong domestic mineral supply chain. We believe H.R. 
209 and the discussion drafts will strengthen our ability to 
responsibly produce the minerals needed for our national and economic 
security.
Who We Are and the Importance of the U.S. Minerals Mining Industry

    The American Exploration & Mining Association (AEMA) is a 128-year-
old, 1,400-member national trade association representing the mineral 
development and mining industry, with members residing across 46 
states, 7 Canadian provinces or territories and 10 other countries. 
AEMA is the recognized national representative for the exploration 
sector, the junior mining sector, as well as mineral developers 
interested in maintaining access to public lands. Thus, AEMA represents 
the entire mining life cycle, from exploration to mineral extraction 
and then to reclamation and closure. More than 80 percent of our 
members are small businesses or work directly for small businesses.
    American miners continue to play an indispensable role in building 
and defending our Nation. From foundations to roofs, power plants to 
wind farms, roads and bridges to communications grids and data storage 
centers, America's infrastructure begins and ends with minerals and 
mining. As just one example, steel resulting from mining operations 
directly supplies the construction and development of roads, railways, 
appliances, buildings, stadiums, bridges, airports, conventional and 
renewable energy facilities, and other structures. Steel is used to 
reinforce concrete and other construction materials and 6 billion tons 
of steel are used across the U.S. National Highway System. Steel 
requires iron ore for its production, and sixty-five percent of the 
global zinc consumption is used to coat steel, for purposes of making 
it resistant to corrosion. Other metals important to steel alloys, 
including manganese, chromium, nickel, aluminum, vanadium, tungsten, 
titanium, cobalt, and niobium, are specifically identified on the U.S. 
Geological Survey's (USGS') final 2022 list of critical minerals.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2022/02/24/2022-
04027/2022-final-list-of-critical-minerals
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Another example is copper, with its flexibility, conformity, 
conductivity, and resistance to corrosion, that make it an ideal and 
essential clean energy metal.\2\ Forty-three percent of U.S. copper 
demand comes from the construction industry, as the average American 
home contains 439 pounds of copper. An electric vehicle (EV) uses 
approximately four times as much copper as a conventional car.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ According to the World Bank, copper is used in ten low-carbon 
energy technologies. https://pubdocs.worldbank.org/en/
961711588875536384/Minerals-for-Climate-Action-The-Mineral-Intensity-
of-the-Clean-Energy-Transition.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Infrastructure improvement and development at all levels depends on 
metals and mining. Beyond hard-rock mining, AEMA also represents the 
industrial minerals industry. Industrial minerals include any rock or 
mineral with economic value that is not used as a source for metals, 
gemstones, or energy production. Industrial minerals are classified as 
non-fuel minerals and differ from construction aggregates like sand, 
gravel, and crushed stone. Many different types of industrial minerals 
serve multiple uses, some of which are considered critical minerals and 
many of which are essential to our nation's economic and national 
security. The most widely used industrial minerals include limestone, 
clays, diatomite, kaolin, bentonite, silica, barite, gypsum, potash, 
pumice, and talc.
    Similarly, there is no substitute for phosphorus in agriculture and 
in the development of our Nation's food supply. Phosphorus is essential 
for plant nutrition and plays a vital role in photosynthesis, energy 
transfer, root formation, seed formation, plant growth and improvement 
of the quality of fruits and vegetables. China has been the leading 
producer of phosphates, followed by the United States. The Society for 
Mining, Metallurgy & Exploration's (SME) website \3\ provides a deeper 
introduction to industrial minerals and explains why securing domestic 
production is essential to America's future.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\ https://www.smenet.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    There is no question that the minerals we produce are indispensable 
to modern society. They are also essential to fighting climate change, 
and for zero-emission technologies such as wind turbines, solar panels, 
storage batteries and EVs. As these technologies are deployed in ever-
greater numbers, the demand for minerals is skyrocketing, and our 
Nation must do more to keep up. The International Energy Agency (IEA) 
published a report at the end of July 2022 titled ``Global Supply 
Chains of EV Batteries,'' and noted that demand for EV batteries will 
increase from 340 GWh today to about 3500 GWh by the year 2030. To meet 
that demand, 50 new lithium mines, 60 more nickel mines and 17 more 
cobalt mines would need to come into production.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\ https://iea.blob.core.windows.net/assets/4eb8c252-76b1-4710-
8f5e-867e751c8dda/GlobalSupply ChainsofEVBatteries.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Congress has taken note of this surge in demand, and through the 
Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act of 2021 and the Inflation 
Reduction Act of 2022, has decided--and we agree--that it is 
inappropriate, unwise and dangerous to rely on hostile, untrustworthy 
or unstable countries to supply our country's minerals. Notably, the 
Inflation Reduction Act contains provisions requiring automakers to 
source significant portions of their EV batteries and components from 
domestic supply chains, or from countries with which the United States 
has free trade agreements. Congress has sent a clear message--Now is 
the time to get serious about building a reliable mineral supply chain 
(emphasis supplied). AEMA and its members stand ready to help build 
that supply chain right here in America.
    Our members take great pride in producing the metals and other 
important minerals America needs for national and economic security, as 
well as the materials people use in their everyday lives. We are proud 
of our members' contributions across the communities and regions where 
they operate, many of which are rural areas facing significant economic 
and social development challenges. Notably, the U.S. mining industry is 
the safest, most environmentally responsible mining industry in the 
world. Our members have repeatedly demonstrated that mining and 
protecting the environment are compatible, as mineral producers make 
possible the development of society's basic needs and consistently 
minimize modern society's impacts on the environment.
We Need a Reliable Domestic Mineral Supply Chain

    Recent global events have exposed the United States' supply chain 
vulnerabilities, highlighting the importance of an abundant and 
affordable supply of domestic minerals for America's future.
    The fact is, global mineral demand is skyrocketing. As noted in a 
report from the International Energy Agency, keeping global temperature 
rise to below 2 degrees Celsius above preindustrial levels will 
quadruple the demand by 2040 for the minerals needed to build wind 
turbines, solar panels, and electric vehicles. A faster energy 
transition--reaching net zero globally by 2050 as the Biden 
administration has called for--would require critical mineral inputs to 
increase sixfold by 2040.
    Solar panels require silver, tin, copper, and lead; wind turbines 
use rare earths, copper, aluminum, and zinc; electric vehicles are 
built with copper, aluminum, iron, molybdenum; and rechargeable storage 
batteries use lithium, vanadium, nickel, cobalt, and manganese. 
Approximately 40% of the gold now produced is used in electronics and 
computer chips that are needed for clean energy technologies to meet 
carbon emission reduction objectives to address climate change.
    President Biden has promised to convert the entire U.S. government 
fleet--about 640,000 vehicles by 2030--to EVs. That plan alone could 
require a 12-fold increase in U.S. lithium production to manufacture 
the lithium-ion batteries that power EVs, according to Benchmark 
Minerals Intelligence, as well as increases in output of domestic 
copper, nickel, and cobalt--and that's just for the U.S. government 
vehicle fleet. The magnitude of the minerals needed for a 100 percent 
EV market is even more staggering, and simply cannot be ignored.
    Unfortunately, a lack of access to economically viable mineral 
deposits and a lengthy, inefficient federal permitting system has 
resulted in the U.S. being increasingly dependent on foreign sources of 
strategic and critical minerals. It's time that we, as a Nation, 
recognize this vulnerability and the vital importance of minerals to 
our national security, our economy, and our everyday lives. We have 
heard a lot over the years about the importance of energy independence, 
but it is equally as important, if not more so, that we are minerals 
independent.
    In September 2016, the Government Accountability Office (``GAO'') 
published a report titled ``Strengthened Federal Approach Needed to 
Help Identify and Mitigate Supply Risks for Critical Raw Materials.'' 
This reported evaluated ``certain metals, minerals, and other 
``critical'' raw materials [that] play an important role in the 
production of advanced technologies across a range of industrial 
sectors and defense applications.'' The GAO report found several 
limitations in the scope of federal critical mineral programs that are 
inconsistent with the directives in the National Materials and Minerals 
Policy, Research and Development Act of 1980. (30 U.S.C. 
Sec. Sec. 1602-1605), hereinafter referred to as the 1980 Act.

    In the 1980 Act, Congress found:

        ``the United States lacks a coherent national materials policy 
        and a coordinated program to assure the availability of 
        materials critical for national economic well-being, national 
        defense, and industrial production, including interstate 
        commerce and foreign trade.'' (30 U.S.C. Sec. 1601(7).

    In response to this finding, Congress declared:

        ``. . . it is the continuing policy of the United States to 
        promote an adequate and stable supply of materials necessary to 
        maintain national security, economic well-being and industrial 
        production with appropriate attention to a long-term balance 
        between resource production, energy use, a healthy environment, 
        natural resource conservation, and social needs.'' (30 U.S.C. 
        Sec. 1602)

    As important as recycling is, it cannot meet the world's burgeoning 
mineral demand. The IEA's report estimates that by 2040, recycling 
metals from spent batteries could only supply about ten percent of the 
minerals that will be needed.
    Made in America must include ``mined in America'' and sourcing 
minerals from U.S. mines that use state-of-the-art environmental 
protection measures, put a premium on worker health and safety, and 
have financial assurances that guarantee reclamation when mining is 
complete.
Permitting Mines in the United States

    Effective implementation of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs 
Act of 2021 (also known as the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law) is 
dependent on the critical and strategic minerals and materials that our 
members mine. However, according to a 2021 report by the Wilson Center:

    The United States faces a troubling scenario when it comes to the 
supply chain for critical minerals. Rapidly increasing demand, under-
developed national resources, intense international competition, and 
years of neglect in this issue area place the U.S. at a distinct 
disadvantage vis-a-vis China in securing access to the metals and Rare 
Earth Elements that are vital for the energy transition and for 
geopolitical ambitions. [emphasis in original]

    Most notably, we are failing to develop infrastructure or critical 
minerals projects in a timeframe that would allow the United States to 
achieve its ambitious clean energy objectives, reduce our reliance on 
China and other adversaries for critical minerals, and strengthen our 
critical minerals supply chains. This is largely due to lengthy 
permitting delays and uncertainties which place the United States at a 
competitive disadvantage for purposes of attracting investments in 
mineral development.
    Notably, the permitting of comparable mining projects in Australia 
and Canada, which have similar environmental standards and practices as 
the United States, takes between two and three years, compared to the 
seven to ten years or more required to permit a mine in the United 
States. Given the comprehensive scope and effectiveness of U.S. 
environmental protection laws and the federal land management agencies' 
regulations governing mineral projects, these delays do not yield any 
substantive environmental benefits. However, they contribute 
significantly to the additional costs and risks that project proponents 
are required to bear. The adverse impacts stemming from permitting 
delays extend far beyond corporate boardrooms--as they hurt local 
communities that must wait for the jobs, tax revenues, and other 
investments and socioeconomic benefits associated with exploration and 
mining.
    There are real world consequences caused by permitting delays. The 
unpredictable nature of delays, alone, can reduce a typical mining 
project's value by more than one-third, or as much as one-half before 
production even begins. The challenges of our federal environmental 
review and permitting processes, and how they adversely affect our 
supply chain of critical minerals, were recently detailed as part of 
the aforementioned Wilson Center report.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \5\ https://www.wilsoncenter.org/sites/default/files/media/uploads/
documents/critical_minerals_ supply_report.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Domestic permitting delays chill investment in U.S. mining 
projects. Yet, our Nation needs these investments to remain competitive 
and to improve our supply chain independence. According to the USGS' 
Mineral Commodity Summaries 2023, our country's import dependence for 
key mineral commodities has doubled over the past two decades, with the 
United States now 100 percent import-reliant for 15 of its key minerals 
and more than 50 percent import-reliant for an additional 36 key 
mineral commodities. This foreign reliance continues despite the 
existence of significant mineral deposits of many of these commodities 
within our borders. Moreover, U.S. mineral import reliance continues to 
increase as mineral demand from essential industries, such as energy 
and transportation, soars. Notably, the World Bank sees mineral demand 
for advanced energy technologies jumping by nearly 500 percent by the 
year 2050.\6\ Copper demand alone may rise as much as 350 percent by 
2050, according to one estimate.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \6\ https://pubdocs.worldbank.org/en/961711588875536384/Minerals-
for-Climate-Action-The-Mineral-Intensity-of-the-Clean-Energy-
Transition.pdf
    \7\ https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/
S0959378016300802
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    AEMA wants to emphasize that it does not generally view compliance 
with substantive environmental protection laws and regulations to be a 
problem, because our members' projects are designed and operated with 
state-of-the-art environmental safeguards, and all our mining projects 
are fully bonded, and are carefully reclaimed when mineral exploration 
and mining activities are complete. Instead, it is the federally 
mandated permitting process--and associated litigation and 
administrative delays--that have caused major problems. For mine 
projects that involve federal permits and authorizations, the National 
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process consistently causes lengthy 
federal permitting delays and frequently results in subsequent 
litigation. In July 2020, CEQ issued a report and supporting materials 
(https://ceq.doe.gov/nepa-practice/eis-timelines.html) compiling 
information related to the timelines for preparing Environmental Impact 
Statements (EISs) from 2010 through 2018. While the CEQ's Forty 
Questions state that the time for an EIS, even for a complex project, 
should not exceed 1 year, CEQ found that, across the federal 
government, the average time from issuance of a Notice of Intent (NOI) 
to completion of an EIS and issuance of a Record of Decision (ROD) was 
more than 4.5 years. Only one quarter of the EISs evaluated took less 
than 2.2 years, and another quarter required more than 6 years.
    In recognizing the challenges associated with NEPA, the impacts of 
litigation must be considered because lawsuits are frequently the final 
step of any significant NEPA process. Typically, it is the NEPA 
analyses and federal permits for hardrock mining projects which are 
litigated in federal courts. Because NEPA litigation is so common, our 
members routinely anticipate at least two to three years, or more, of 
litigation delays when planning their proposed mining projects. While 
some level of litigation risk is a reality we will always have in the 
United States, the mining industry faces consistent and unnecessary 
litigation hurdles based on the fact that NEPA policies and procedures 
are developed and implemented on a project-by-project basis. This 
project-by-project approach leads to inconsistencies that make various 
courts the arbiters of compliance and cause confusion across the 
industry as to how NEPA should be applied. Costly and time-consuming 
lawsuits burden projects and federal agencies and hurt communities 
waiting for jobs, tax revenues and other project-related benefits to 
materialize.
    Most mining companies that progress mineral exploration to the 
stage of starting a mine are sophisticated and quite familiar with 
NEPA's requirements and related timing. They also understand their 
environmental obligations and--through the work of preparing complete 
applications for a Plan of Operations and other federal permits--have 
identified associated environmental permitting obligations, reclamation 
requirements, and both mine start-up and reclamation bonding costs. 
Although these applicants generally anticipate the time required for 
the NEPA review process, there are widespread concerns about the length 
of time it takes federal agencies to complete the process, which 
creates considerable uncertainty and complicates business plans and 
decisions and discourages investment.
    Mining companies frequently engage private consultant experts to 
assist in preparing the required environmental baseline studies, 
environmental impact analyses, and mitigation plans. The applicants and 
their experts are generally the most familiar with the project proposal 
and are required to submit technical information to support analysis of 
environmental, cultural, and socioeconomic impacts, but may sometimes 
be restricted from preparing the NEPA document. When that happens, a 
draft EA or EIS is likely to include factual errors or incomplete 
information that results in delays and additional litigation risk and 
cost. It is the litigation delay and cost that are the wild cards for 
any proposed mining project, often with the result that NEPA litigation 
delays render a project uneconomic or more difficult to finance. The 
2020 CEQ regulations made it clear that applicants have a substantive 
role in the process and may even prepare an EIS for agency review.
    Specifically, CEQ's 2020 regulations provided many commonsense, 
procedural changes to the NEPA process that AEMA believes are essential 
to improving its implementation and reducing the litigation risk that 
inconsistency brings; while still adhering to the basic tenets of the 
statute that allow for meaningful public input and support the federal 
decision-making process. These include well-reasoned bounds on timing, 
with exceptions for extraordinary situations, page limits, guidelines 
on proponent involvement, and particularly rules for interagency 
cooperation including procedures for issue resolution. They also 
provide for high level agency accountability for not adhering to the 
requirements, which is especially important given the potentially 
significant implications on the viability of the critical and strategic 
mineral projects that our members represent.
Mineral Withdrawals Must be Limited

    According to the GAO, the federal government manages about 650 
million acres, or 29 percent, of the 2.27 billion acres of land in the 
United States.\8\ Former Department of Interior Solicitor, John Leshy 
(now a professor at the University of California Hastings College of 
Law), estimated in 2021 that of the approximate 650 million acres of 
public lands, roughly 400 million acres are set aside for conservation 
and preservation purposes and are functionally off-limits to mining.\9\ 
He also calculated that during the period from 1980 to 2020, the acres 
of conservation and preservation lands grew from 250 million acres to 
400 million acres.\10\ Federal lands have been withdrawn from mineral 
entry to protect a variety of ``special places,'' from national 
monuments and wilderness areas to military bases. For example, the 
national conservation lands system already includes 35 million acres of 
pristine, culturally diverse and scientifically important sites that 
have been withdrawn from mineral entry, including: 122 national 
monuments, 28 of which are managed by BLM; 23 national conservation 
areas; 30 National Scenic and Historic Trails; 200 designated Wild and 
Scenic Rivers; 260 congressionally designated wilderness areas; and 491 
wilderness study areas.\11\ Congress has closed or withdrawn areas to 
mineral exploration in favor of other uses, including for the 
following:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \8\ GAO Letter report to Senator Tom Udall entitled ``Hardrock 
Mining: Availability of Selected Data Related to Mining on Federal 
Lands,'' May 16, 2019, available at: https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-19-
435r.pdf.
    \9\ John D. Leshy, America's Public Lands--A Look Back and Ahead, 
67th Annual Rocky Mountain Mineral Law Institute, July 19, 2021.
    \10\ Id.
    \11\ BLM website: https://www.blm.gov/programs/national-
conservation-lands.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     National Parks;

     National Monuments;

     Indian reservations;

     Various types of Bureau of Reclamation projects;

     Military reservations;

     Scientific testing areas;

     Wildlife protection areas;

     National Wilderness Preservation System and Wilderness 
            study lands; and

     Wild and Scenic River designated and study areas.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \12\ See BLM website: https://www.blm.gov/programs/energy-and-
minerals/mining-and-minerals/locatable-minerals/mining-claims/locating-
a-claim; see also Attachment 5, ``List of Select Federal Laws Amending 
or Affecting the Mining Law of 1872,'' identifying principal laws under 
which federal lands have been withdrawn from mineral entry.

    More withdrawals seem likely under Executive Order 14008 in which 
President Biden set a goal of preserving and restoring 30 percent of 
U.S. lands and waters by 2030.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \13\ See Executive Order 14008 ``Tackling the Climate Crisis at 
Home and Abroad'' (January 27, 2021) and the ``America the Beautiful 
Initiative.''

    Shrinking the available land base where mineral exploration and 
mining are allowed would reduce the number of future mineral 
discoveries that can become mines. This would ultimately increase the 
Nation's reliance on foreign minerals and thwart the country's goals to 
increase domestic production and become more mineral independent. The 
1980 House Subcommittee report discussed above recognized that removing 
lands from operation of the Mining Law was a serious threat to mineral 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
security:

        The most precious asset and the most fundamental requirement, 
        access to land--primarily the mineral-rich public land--in 
        which to search for minerals could well become the scarcest 
        component in America's mineral supply future.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \14\ 1980 Subcommittee Report, op cit. page xv.

    Rather than asking whether additional lands need to be withdrawn, 
it would be more appropriate to ask whether some previously withdrawn 
lands with high mineral potential should become available for mineral 
exploration and development to address current critical minerals 
availability challenges. In light of our untenable and dangerous 
reliance on foreign minerals, it would be in the public's best 
interests to determine whether certain withdrawn lands that are not 
part of the National Park System or congressionally designated 
wilderness are more valuable for their mineral resources compared to 
scenic, cultural, recreational or other land uses. This evaluation 
should consider how the modern environmental protection standards that 
would apply to potential mineral development would minimize 
environmental impacts, maximize protection of cultural resources and 
scenic landscapes, require reclamation when mining is complete, and 
enable multiple uses on these lands for mining and nearby recreational 
uses both during and after mining.
    As one example of how mineral withdrawals play out to this nation's 
detriment, in 2012, then-Secretary of Interior, Ken Salazar, finalized 
the withdrawal of 1 million acres of land well outside Grand Canyon 
National Park in Arizona. Although there was already a buffer around 
the park boundary in which many activities, including mining, are 
prohibited, advocates of the withdrawal successfully argued that an 
additional ``buffer beyond the buffer'' was necessary. Similar 
arguments were made with the recent withdrawal of 225,000 acres in the 
Superior National Forest in Minnesota.
    As AEMA noted in our comments on the Arizona withdrawal at the 
time,\15\ the United States was already importing 90 percent of its 
uranium in 2009, and northern Arizona holds ``42% of the nation's 
estimated undiscovered uranium endowment . . . To withdraw this 
critical resource from location and entry under the Mining Law, with no 
environmental benefit or necessity, is short-sighted and dangerous.'' 
In the wake of Russia's invasion of Ukraine on February 24, 2022, the 
United States has found the will to ban the import of all manner of 
Russian goods and commodities, but it is unable to wean itself off of 
Russian uranium imports--a troubling situation for domestic power 
generation and national security.

    \15\ Northwest Mining Association (now AEMA), Comment Letter on 
Notice of Proposed Withdrawal, 74 Fed. Reg. 35887, October 19, 2009.

    The Grand Canyon withdrawal is a real-world example of a problem 
AEMA has frequently raised in theory, and that is now playing out 
before us. The federal government placed federal lands off-limits to 
mineral entry that could have provided the uranium needed for power 
generation and national security purposes from highly regulated, state-
of-the-art mining operations. The United States has often withdrawn 
federal public lands from mineral entry before fully understanding the 
mineral potential of the withdrawn lands. Although the United States 
had a considerable understanding of the deposits in northern Arizona, 
policy makers failed to fully weigh the long-term ramifications of the 
withdrawal, which are now coming into clearer focus. At a time when the 
need for carbon-free, baseload power is ramping up, some of the nuclear 
power industry's best domestic sources of uranium are inaccessible. 
This is a self-inflicted wound. Uranium is not currently listed as a 
``critical mineral,'' but has been designated as such in the past and 
given its strategic importance, should be returned to the list in the 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
future.

    AEMA and our members oppose removing lands from mineral entry, but 
at the very least, every time a withdrawal or land use restriction is 
proposed to remove federal land from mineral entry, the decision makers 
should develop a full understanding of the land's mineral endowment. 
Otherwise, the United States runs the risk of repeating the same short-
sighted land management exemplified with the Grand Canyon withdrawal, 
which has put much-needed uranium resources off limits to mining.

Conclusion

    Since 1970, Congress has consistently and repeatedly recognized 
that minerals and mining are essential to all facets of our economy, 
society, and national defense. For example, the MMPA (1970), the FLPMA 
(1976), the MMPRDA (1980), the Energy Act (2020), the IIJA (2021), and 
most recently the IRA (2022) all direct the Executive Branch agencies 
to respond to the Nation's need for domestic minerals.

    Unfortunately, these Congressional directives have gone largely 
unheeded as more lands continue to be withdrawn from mineral entry and 
permitting timelines, costs, and risks have become intolerable. Our 
risky reliance on imported minerals is a direct result of five decades 
of ignoring Congress' clear directives that minerals should be mined 
from public lands to help satisfy the Nation's need for minerals. 
Despite the urgent need to increase domestic mining and reduce our 
dependency on foreign minerals, today it can take 10 years or more to 
permit a mine.

    The Departments of the Interior and Agriculture must start 
complying with the law; compliance is not discretionary. Through their 
land management agencies, BLM and the Forest Service, these departments 
must reverse the trend of the last 50 years during which it has become 
increasingly difficult to access potentially mineralized public lands 
and to secure the necessary permits to explore for minerals and build 
mines.

    The findings in the IIJA that ``critical minerals are fundamental 
to the economy, competitiveness, and security of the United States'' 
and that ``the Federal permitting process has been identified as an 
impediment to mineral production and the mineral security of the United 
States'' must result in constructive action to streamline permitting 
and eliminate permitting impediments.
    For the aforementioned reasons, we wholeheartedly support H.R. 209, 
the Permitting for Mining Needs Act of 2023, and the concepts in the 
discussion drafts of the Building United States Infrastructure Through 
Limited Delays and Efficient Reviews Act of 2023 (BUILDER Act) and the 
Transparency and Production of (TAP) American Energy Act of 2023. We 
look forward to continuing to work with you to ensure America has a 
secure and affordable supply of the minerals and metals needed for our 
modern society.

            Sincerely,

                                              Mark Compton,
                                                 Executive Director

                                 ______
                                 

                        WOMEN'S MINING COALITION

                              Reno, Nevada

                                              February 27, 2023    

Hon. Pete Stauber, Chairman
Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources
House Committee on Natural Resources
1324 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515

Re: Support for H.R. 209 and the TAP American Energy Act Discussion 
        Draft

    Dear Chairman Stauber:

    The Women's Mining Coalition (WMC) is writing to voice our strong 
support for your bill, Permitting for Mining Needs (PERMIT MN) Act, 
H.R. 209, and for Chairman Westerman's Discussion Draft of the TAP 
American Energy Act. Both bills address the significant barriers that 
the protracted, costly, and uncertain permitting processes create for 
the timely development of U.S. oil, gas, coal, and mineral resources.
    Recent events like the war in Ukraine clearly underscore the need 
to strengthen the Nation's critical minerals supply chains in order to 
reduce our dangerous reliance on foreign adversaries for the minerals 
essential to our national defense, economy, infrastructure, 
manufacturing and technology sectors, and our clean energy future. 
China's hegemony over many critical minerals constitutes a serious 
threat to the U.S.
    The Biden Administration's aggressive goals to reduce greenhouse 
gas emissions to address climate change through policies advocating 
nationwide electrification are unachievable without the minerals that 
are the raw materials needed to build EVs and energy storage batteries 
to supplement fossil fuels. The permitting obstacles that stand in the 
way of exploring for, developing, and responsibly mining domestic 
minerals like lithium, rare earths, copper, cobalt, and nickel must be 
solved before the U.S. can truthfully say we have implemented effective 
climate change policies. Without these minerals, the country's climate 
change policies are nothing more than hollow gestures.
    Similarly, the country urgently needs to increase the production of 
fossil fuels in order to provide sources of reliable energy during the 
transition to renewable energy sources. This transition is going to 
take longer than the 2030 and 2050 deadlines established in current 
policies. In fact, it is likely to take many decades. Once the 
renewable energy transition goals have been met in the future, the U.S. 
will still need long-term sources of domestically-produced fossil fuels 
for the petrochemical industry and other purposes. Chairman Westerman's 
TAP American Energy Act discussion draft addresses the permit 
streamlining that needs to occur to support the long-term and 
responsible development of the country's fossil fuel and mineral 
resources.
    We applaud your proposal in H.R. 209 to amend Section 40206 of the 
Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act of 2021 by extending its 
applicability to all minerals--not just those minerals on the U.S. 
Geological Survey's (USGS') list of critical minerals. There are no 
``unimportant'' minerals. All minerals are needed to support our 
economy, national defense, clean and conventional energy 
infrastructure, and our manufacturing and technology sectors.
    For example, the chart below from the World Bank Group's May 2020 
report entitled Minerals for Climate Action emphasizes the importance 
of many minerals in our energy sector. Please note that copper, which 
is not currently in the USGS' critical minerals list, is needed for all 
types of energy infrastructure. Recognizing the critical need to 
increase domestic production of copper, Chairman Manchin along with 
five of his Senate colleagues recently sent a letter to Secretary of 
the Interior, Deb Haaland, requesting that she direct the U.S. 
Geological Survey to add copper to the critical minerals list.

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


    .epsThe U.S. is fortunate to have a significant geologic endowment 
of many minerals and fossil fuels. Unfortunately, the Biden 
Administration has implemented policies that put significant mineral 
and fuel resources off-limits to exploration and development. For 
example, the recent pre-emptive vetoes of proposed copper projects in 
Alaska and Minnesota will categorically prevent the responsible 
development of two world-class copper deposits. WMC strongly supports 
Chairman Westerman's proposal in his discussion draft to put limits on 
the use of executive fiat to make mineral and fossil fuel resources 
unavailable for development.
    WMC has focused for many years on the Nation's dangerous reliance 
on imports of critical minerals from foreign countries like China and 
Russia and the paucity of domestic mineral processing facilities. 
Today, the need to significantly increase the number of domestic mines, 
smelters, and refining facilities is more urgent than ever as the Biden 
Administration implements the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act of 
2021 and the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022, which both require secure 
domestic sources of minerals.
    We also believe that an ``all-of-the-above'' approach to meeting 
our energy needs is the only viable policy for the foreseeable future. 
It is inappropriate and unproductive to pit one form of energy against 
another. We need all forms of renewable and conventional energy to 
support our economy and keep our country safe. We have the technologies 
needed to produce these energy resources in a safe and environmentally 
responsible manner.
    For these reasons, WMC supports both H.R. 209 and Chairman 
Westerman's TAP American Energy Act Discussion Draft. We urge this 
committee to advance both proposals.
    WMC is a grassroots organization whose mission is to advocate for 
today's modern domestic mining industry, which is essential to our 
Nation. Our membership includes over 200 women who work nationwide in 
hardrock, coal, and industrial minerals mining and in the energy, 
manufacturing, transportation, and service industry sectors.
    We will be in Washington, D.C. from April 17-21 for our annual Fly-
In and hope to have the opportunity to meet you and your staff to 
discuss the importance of strengthening the U.S. hardrock and coal 
mining sectors to supply the country with the mineral and energy 
resources needed for national security and our economic and social 
wellbeing. In the meantime, please contact us if you have any questions 
or would like additional information.
    Thank you for your consideration and this opportunity to submit 
this letter for the record for the February 28, 2023 hearing before the 
House Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources.

            Sincerely yours,

        Emily Hendrickson,            Wanda Burget,
        WMC President                 WMC Manager

                                 ______
                                 

             LOUISIANA MID-CONTINENT OIL & GAS ASSOCIATION

                            Baton Rouge, LA

                                              February 28, 2023    

Hon. Bruce Westerman, Chairman
Hon. Raul Grijalva, Ranking Member
House Committee on Natural Resources
1324 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515

    Dear Chairman Westerman & Ranking Member Grijalva:

    Since 1923, Louisiana Midcontinent Oil and Gas Association (LMOGA) 
represents all sectors of the oil and gas industry in Louisiana and 
across the Gulf of Mexico. Importantly, LMOGA represents the energy 
producers and refiners along the Gulf Coast who produce nearly 20% of 
our nation's energy, refine 45% of the total U.S. petroleum, and 
process 51% of the nation's natural gas. Our industry supports 
thousands of high wage jobs across the Gulf South, serviced by 
businesses in every state in the Union. In Louisiana alone, the oil and 
gas activities are 26% of Louisiana's GDP, and the industry accounts 
for over $4 billion in state and local tax revenue.
    We write today to voice our support for the TAP American Energy Act 
as it will bring much needed certainty to our industry in the Gulf of 
Mexico so that we can continue to produce energy that meets nearly 16% 
of our nation's energy demand and will strengthen our communities' 
resiliency to coastal land loss. Importantly, the legislation would 
mandate two area-wide lease sales in the Gulf of Mexico, direct the 
Department of the Interior to complete a new Five-Year OCS leasing 
Program this year, and improve the development of leasing programs and 
lease sales moving forward by setting predictable and achievable 
timeframes.
    When President Biden paused federal oil and gas lease sales in the 
Gulf of Mexico, our industry faced unprecedented uncertainty leading to 
record-high gas prices for consumers. The recently announced Lease Sale 
259, issued in accordance with mandates in the Inflation Reduction Act, 
is the first in 15 months since the Department of the Interior held a 
lease sale after federal court action. For the first time ever, there 
is a lapse in the Five Year Leasing Program for the Outer Continental 
Shelf. The TAP American Energy Act would build on the leasing 
provisions in the Inflation Reduction Act and ensure lease sales will 
continue in the Gulf of Mexico and the Department of the Interior will 
issue a five-year plan for the subsequent years in a timely manner.
    The TAP American Energy Act also provides Gulf coast energy 
producing states with a larger share of revenue from offshore energy 
development, bringing much-needed investments to our Coast, especially 
in Louisiana, to combat coastal land loss. LMOGA strongly supports 
these provisions and believes strongly that we must restore our coast 
to sustain both our livelihoods and our environment for generations to 
come.
    LMOGA also supports the BUILDER Act sponsored by Louisiana 
Representative Garret Graves. As the Representative knows well, 
permitting delay and uncertainty, largely due to the arduous 
administrative review process often holds up much needed infrastructure 
needed for our members to bring American energy to market. Louisiana in 
particular is at the precipice of a robust amount of new infrastructure 
build out as it works to develop and deploy new renewable energy 
offshore and its carbon capture utilization and storage (CCUS) 
industry. From permit renewals for the nearly 50,000 miles of existing 
pipelines in Louisiana, build out of new infrastructure to capture 
carbon, or laying cable in the Outer Continental Shelf for offshore 
wind development, the BUILDER Act will help bring certainty to the 
process and make our energy system in Louisiana transformative. We 
thank the Committee for considering these bills and urge their swift 
passage.

            Sincerely,

                                            Tommy Faucheux,
                                                    LMOGA President

                                 ______
                                 

            Supporting Organizations for H.R. 209 (Stauber),

                  the Permitting for Mining Needs Act

     National Association of Building Trades Unions;

     American Exploration and Mining Association;

     National Mining Association;

     Better in Our Backyard;

     Uranium Producers of America;

     Citizens for Responsible Energy Solutions;

     Range Association of Municipalities and Schools (RAMS);

     Women's Mining Coalition;

     National Stone Sand and Gravel Association; and the

     Essential Minerals Association

     MICHAuto

                                 ______
                                 

    Mr. Stauber. And then I would just like to close up this 
hearing by thanking the witnesses for your great testimony.
    Here is how we officially close. Again, I want to thank the 
witnesses for your time and your expert testimony, all of you. 
We value what you had to say to us tonight.
    The members of the Subcommittee may have some additional 
questions for the witnesses, and we will ask you to respond to 
these in writing.
    Under Committee Rule 3, members of the Committee must 
submit questions to the Committee Clerk by 5 p.m. on Friday, 
March 3. The hearing record will be held open for 10 business 
days for these responses.
    If there is no further business, without objection, the 
Committee stands adjourned.

    [Whereupon, at 12:43 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]

            [ADDITIONAL MATERIALS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD]

Submissions for the Record by Rep. Grijalva

                NATIONAL PARKS CONSERVATION ASSOCIATION

                             Washington, DC

                                              February 27, 2023    

Re: NPCA Position on H.R. 209, the Permitting for Mining Needs Act of 
        2023, and the TAP American Energy Act of 2023

    Dear Chairman Stauber, Ranking Member Ocasio-Cortez, and Members of 
the Energy and Mineral Resources Subcommittee:

    Since 1919, the National Parks Conservation Association (NPCA) has 
been the leading voice of the American people in protecting and 
enhancing our National Park System. On behalf of our 1.6 million 
members and supporters nationwide, I write to share our positions on 
H.R. 209, the Permitting for Mining Needs Act of 2023, and the TAP 
American Energy Act of 2023

    H.R. 209--Permitting for Mining Needs Act of 2023: NPCA opposes 
this legislation which risks key conservation lands that help protect 
our national parks and the health and wellbeing of our communities. 
While mining is not permitted within national parks, mining activities 
pollute the air and water that crosses the boundaries of other nearby 
protected lands. NPCA does not oppose additional mining for minerals 
critical to the clean energy transition and we acknowledge that growing 
demand for certain materials may require new hardrock mines, including 
some on federal public lands. However, there are better ways to source 
minerals than by allowing entities to stake claims prior to the 
discovery of a mineral deposit or imposing arbitrary environmental 
review timelines. Insufficiently regulated mining in the name of clean 
energy development promotes a false choice and we must do better.

    NPCA has specific concerns with sections 3, 8, and 10 of this bill:

    Section 3--This section sets arbitrary timelines for key steps in 
the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process for mine 
permitting. According to the Government Accountability Office, the two 
most cited challenges that affected the length of time to review 
hardrock mine plans were the low quality of information operators 
provided in their mine plans and the agencies' limited allocation of 
resources for their hardrock mining programs.\1\ This bill addresses 
neither of those problems and instead sets a time limit of 12 months 
for an Environmental Assessment (EA) and 24 months for an Environmental 
Impact Statement (EIS) without properly funding the agencies tasked 
with performing these reviews. This will dramatically reduce the 
quality of these reviews and opens the door to greater threats to 
water, land, sacred sites, and communities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-16-165.pdf

    Section 8--This section would exacerbate the issues with the 
current claim system by validating mining claims under the Mining Law 
of 1872 before the claimant has proven a mineral discovery. Currently, 
mining rights fully vest only after valuable minerals are discovered. 
Under H.R. 209, a claimant would no longer need to prove they 
discovered valuable minerals. Instead, any person could ``claim'' 
mining rights on unwithdrawn public lands merely by grounding a stake, 
paying a fee and filing some paperwork. This would effectively lock out 
most other uses of public lands and establish mining as the highest and 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
best-use of the land.

    Section 10--This section sets an arbitrary 120-day limit for 
communities to legally challenge mine projects in court. This 4-month 
limit severely restricts the ability of communities and Tribes to 
protect their water, land, air and sacred sites from toxic mining 
pollution. Restricting the ability of local communities to provide 
adequate input degrades the public trust in these industries and does 
little to expedite the permitting process.
    Congress has already invested significant time and resources into 
permitting reform for mining. The Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) 
included $1 billion to support timely and effective environmental 
reviews across federal agencies, which should lead to better, more 
equitable outcomes and help avoid litigation. The Permitting for Mining 
Needs Act of 2023 would not meaningfully address the underlying issues 
with mine permitting or supply of clean energy minerals but would 
exacerbate the conditions for more hardrock mines to pollute the 
watersheds of our national parks.

    H.R. ____--Transparency and Production of American Energy Act of 
2023: NPCA opposes this legislation which would allow unrestrained oil 
and gas development on federal lands and waters with no consideration 
for the negative effects it would have on national parks and 
communities. The bill effectively ends the long-standing policy of 
``multiple-use'' on public lands in favor of fossil fuel extraction 
over recreation and conservation and would have drastic implications 
for the president's ability to protect cultural, natural and sacred 
spaces. This legislation also makes unnecessary changes to NEPA, our 
nation's bedrock environmental protection law, including arbitrarily 
shortening timelines and limiting the public's ability to participate 
in the permitting and siting processes.

    While this legislation is problematic by effectively making 
extraction the dominant use on BLM and USFS lands, NPCA has specific 
concerns with the following titles:

    Title I--This title would force the federal government to lease 
large swaths of public lands and waters for oil and gas development 
with no regard to the effects on climate or national parks and 
communities. This ends the decades-long precedent of deferring to the 
president and secretary of the Interior on determining when and where 
to hold lease sales. It also requires the federal government to lease 
more public lands for coal mining while fast tracking the leasing and 
permitting process at the expense of environmental reviews and 
community input. We believe the future of energy development must 
include renewable energy, this title would hamper the federal 
government's effort to transition to clean energy including wind and 
solar.

    Title III--This title modifies the way a president may withdraw or 
conserve public lands from fossil fuel and mineral extraction. It also 
requires the administration to survey for additional mineral and fuel 
deposits on lands already protected through administrative withdrawal 
or Antiquities Act designation, allowing for the potential removal of 
these protections for fossil fuel development and mineral extraction. 
These changes upend the way public lands are protected and used, 
undermining our country's long-standing commitment to conservation and 
protecting resources for the enjoyment of future generations.

    Additionally, this title forces the federal government to 
prioritize oil and gas development and coal and mineral mining on 
federal lands over all other uses. This could make lands unusable for 
conservation and recreation purposes, including hiking, hunting and 
fishing, and end the long-standing policy of ``multiple-use''.

    As this would apply to all Bureau of Land Management and U.S. 
Forest Service lands that have not already been removed from oil and 
gas development by administrative withdrawal, lands protected through 
legislative designations or under the Wilderness Act could lose those 
protections and become open to drilling and mining.

    Title IV--This title rescinds the commonsense changes to the oil 
and gas leasing program that NPCA supported in the Inflation Reduction 
Act, including updated royalty rates and the end to non-competitive 
leasing. By lowering royalty rates, this title would take money from 
conservation funding programs and leave it in the hands oil and gas 
companies. By reinstating non-competitive leasing, federal land could 
be given away for oil and gas development for up to half as much as it 
would sell for at auction.

    Title V--This title makes drastic changes to the revenue sharing 
structure from energy production on federal lands and waters and would 
take funding away from multiple conservation programs, including the 
National Parks and Public Lands Legacy Restoration Fund created by the 
Great American Outdoors Act, the Land and Water Conservation Fund, and 
the Historic Preservation Fund. This title also abolishes 
administrative fees that help the Department of the Interior facilitate 
its leasing programs, effectively defunding the department's ability to 
manage its leasing program which Titles I and III of this bill seek to 
grow exponentially.
    The TAP American Energy Act of 2023 does not increase America's 
energy independence, security or diversification in a meaningful way--
which can only be done by increasing the use of renewable energy. It 
does, however, eviscerate some of our most important and long-standing 
protections for natural, cultural and sacred spaces.

    Thank you for considering our views.

            Sincerely,

                                          Christina Hazard,
                           Legislative Director, Government Affairs

                                 ______
                                 

                                              February 28, 2023    

Re: Energy and Mineral Resources Subcommittee Legislative Hearing

    Dear Chairman Stauber, Ranking Member Ocasio-Cortez, and members of 
the House Natural Resources Energy and Mineral Resources Subcommittee:

    As your subcommittee considers Mr. Stauber's legislation, H.R. 209, 
the Permitting for Mine Needs (PERMIT-MN) Act, we urge you oppose this 
bill and instead prioritize efforts that would balance public health, 
community input, and the protection of watersheds, wildlife habitat, 
and cultural and historic resources on America's public lands and 
wildlife. The PERMIT-MN Act would exacerbate deficiencies in the 
existing mining law and result in an unnecessary increase in mining on 
federal public lands and puts at risk irreplaceable protected lands, 
special places, endangered and sensitive wildlife, tribal sacred sites, 
and culturally significant sites.

    In particular, Section 8 of the legislation upends more than a 
century of practice by validating mining claims under the Mining Law of 
1872 before the claimant has proven a mineral discovery. Currently, 
mining claims do not become valid just because the claimant says so: 
mining rights fully vest only after the miner discovers valuable 
minerals. Yet, under H.R. 209, a claimant would no longer need to 
actually prove they discovered valuable minerals. Instead, any person 
could ``claim'' mining rights on unwithdrawn public lands merely by 
grounding a stake, paying a fee, and filing some paperwork. The PERMIT-
MN Act would effectively lock out most other uses of public lands, 
prioritizing mining instead.

    H.R. 209 rigs the legal system in favor of mining companies by 
reducing opportunities for communities to understand their government's 
mining decisions and to protect themselves from project impacts. Some 
of those impacts occur, and others become foreseeable, during mining 
exploration. Yet Section 7 allows exploratory mining with no community 
notice and removes environmental review under the National 
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Worse, Section 10 restricts the 
ability of nearby communities and Tribal nations to protect their 
water, land, air, and sacred sites from toxic mining pollution by 
arbitrarily closing the courthouse door to legal challenges brought 
more than one year following the permit, license, and/or approval.

    We urge all Members of Congress to oppose this legislation.

Improvements to the Mine Permitting Process

    We acknowledge that growing demand for certain materials may 
require new hardrock mines, including some on federal public lands. 
However, there are better ways to source minerals than allowing 
entities to validate mine claims prior to the discovery of a mineral 
deposit or imposing arbitrary environmental review timelines. Necessary 
changes include those considered last Congress in the Clean Energy 
Minerals Reform Act of 2022. Converting to a leasing system for 
hardrock minerals, just like the one that oil and gas companies use 
today, would help provide certainty to the permitting process and 
result in more timely and socially acceptable decisions.

    Congress has already invested significant time and resources into 
permitting reform for mining. The Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) 
included $1 billion to support timely and effective environmental 
reviews across federal agencies, which should lead to better, more 
equitable outcomes, and help avoid litigation. Additionally, the Fiscal 
2023 budget will help fund public lands management agencies to perform 
more thorough mining reviews.

    These resources for mine permitting build upon those in the 
Infrastructure Investment in Jobs Act (IIJA). IIJA made permanent the 
Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act Permitting Council 
(Permitting Council), which, in January 2021, added hardrock mining as 
a covered sector. In November 2022, the Biden administration announced 
the Permitting Council will devote $5 million in support of more 
meaningful consultations with federally recognized tribes in hardrock 
mine permitting.

    IIJA also required the Interior Department to identify process 
improvements to hardrock mine permitting. A coalition of tribes, 
indigenous-led organizations, and conservation groups have also 
petitioned Interior for rules that, if finalized, would result in more 
timely decisions for hardrock mine permits without sacrificing 
necessary public input. In response to both, the administration 
convened the mining reform Interagency Working Group which should 
recommend mining rule improvements, consistent with the petition. These 
updates would also help lead to a fair hardrock mine permitting 
process, delivering more certainty to both claimants and impacted 
communities.

Mining Law Must Be Modernized, Centering Historically Impacted 
        Communities

    Current mining law has allowed for the pollution of America's 
environment and waterways, placing additional unjust burdens on 
communities who have already borne the brunt of our nation's toxic 
mining legacy. Already, GAO estimates America is littered with hundreds 
of thousands of abandoned mines while the Environmental Protection 
Agency (EPA) estimates hardrock mines have polluted 40% of the 
headwaters of western U.S. watersheds and will cost taxpayers more than 
$50 billion to clean up. Under current law, taxpayers are potentially 
liable for billions more in cleanup costs at currently operating 
mines--including treatment of water in perpetuity, risking the health 
of already threatened Western watersheds--because the legal 
requirements for mining companies to remediate lands and waters remain 
inadequate. H.R. 209 does nothing to address the legacy of abandoned 
mines or promote remediation of American lands and waters.

    Mining companies have already left a lingering toxic legacy and 
enjoy generous access to minerals with insufficient environmental 
safeguards; all of which has led to severely negative consequences. A 
prime example of the ongoing toxic mining legacy is found in the Navajo 
Nation's experience with uranium mining, milling, and toxic pollution. 
The Navajo Nation is situated directly in America's uranium mining 
belt, and in the 1950's and 1960's fervent uranium development left 
residents with myriad health risks due to radiation exposure through 
polluted water and land. Today over 500 of these mines remain 
unremediated across the Navajo Nation, where they continue to impact 
residents' health. Navajo Nation residents are 67 times more likely to 
live without running water than other residents across the country--and 
many water sources on the Navajo Nation are contaminated as a result of 
uranium mining and milling operations. The Navajo Nation is not alone: 
past and ongoing impacts of uranium operations on Native communities 
are extensive.

    The Pinyon Plain uranium mine (formerly called Canyon Mine) sits 
less than ten miles from the south rim of the Grand Canyon on the 
Kaibab National Forest and within the Red Butte Traditional Cultural 
Property, a sacred site to the Havasupai Tribe. The mine was permitted 
in the late 1980's, but nearly four decades later, the mine has yet to 
commence mining operations. However, under the permissive 1872 Mining 
Law, the mine is allowed to continue to occupy sacred tribal and public 
lands. The mine's owner has constructed a close to 1,500 foot deep mine 
shaft, which has exposed mineralized rock and pierced groundwater 
aquifers that overlie a deeper regional aquifer--all part of a complex, 
interconnected, and little-understood groundwater system that flows 
through karst and fractured rock. The overlain aquifer serves as the 
only water supply to the Havasupai's remote village of Supai, is the 
source of Havasu Creek, which flows through Supai, and is connected to 
an unknown number of seeps and springs inside of Grand Canyon National 
Park. The mine's existence has impacted the Havasupai Tribe's cultural 
practices and is viewed by the tribe as an existential threat.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Silversmith, Shondiin. ``Havasupai Tribe: Pinion (sp) Plain 
Uranium Mine Threatens Our Existence.'' AZ Mirror. June 28, 2022. 
https://www.azmirror.com/2022/06/28/havasupai-tribe-pinion-plain-
uranium-mine-threatens-our-existence/

Any Changes to Mine Permitting Must Explicitly Include Protections for 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        America's Special Places

    Expanding mineral activities on federal public lands without 
modernizing our mining laws could threaten some of our nation's most 
treasured areas. Previous mine permitting proposals have sought to 
scale back protections for millions of acres of tribal sacred sites, 
culturally significant places, and iconic natural places. While mining 
is not permitted within the boundaries of National Parks, mining 
activities pollute the air and water that crosses the boundaries of 
protected lands. Insufficiently regulated mining in the name of clean 
energy development promotes a false choice by risking key lands that we 
need to conserve for our own health and wellbeing. We urge the 
committee to reject any legislation that puts important American lands, 
waters, and wildlife at risk of pollution and degradation.

Conclusion

    We urge Members of the House Natural Resources Energy and Minerals 
Subcommittee to oppose the PERMIT-MN Act, a bill that would exacerbate 
deficiencies in the existing mining law and result in an unnecessary 
increase in mining on federal public lands--risking irreplaceable 
protected lands, special places, tribal sacred sites, wildlife, and 
culturally significant sites.

            Sincerely,

        The Wilderness Society        Earthjustice

        League of Conservation 
        Voters                        Sierra Club

        Earthworks                    Natural Resources Defense Council

        Defenders of Wildlife         Conservation Lands Foundation

        Center for Biological 
        Diversity                     Nuestra Tierra Conservation 
                                      Project

        Information Network for 
        Responsible Mining            Cook Inletkeeper

        Southern Utah Wilderness 
        Alliance                      Soda Mountain Wilderness Council

        Citizens to Protect Smith 
        Valley, NV                    Grand Staircase Escalante 
                                      Partners

        Californians for Western 
        Wilderness                    Progressive Leadership Alliance 
                                      of Nevada

        Change the Chamber            Wilderness Workshop

        New Mexico Interfaith Power 
        and Light                     Endangered Species Coalition

        Multicultural Alliance for 
        a Safe Environment            New Mexico Climate Justice

        The Rachel Carson Council 
        (RCC)                         Friends of the Sonoran Desert

        Black Hills Clean Water 
        Alliance                      Friends of the Earth

        Winter Wildlands Alliance     Interfaith Power & Light

        Conservation Northwest        Grand Canyon Trust

        Environmental Protection 
        Information Center            Western Environmental Law Center

        Southern Utah Wilderness 
        Alliance                      Los Padres ForestWatch
        Endangered Species 
        Coalition                     Hispanic Federation

        Northeastern Minnesotans 
        for Wilderness                Seven Circles Foundation

        Bluewater Valley Downstream 
        Alliance (BVDA)               Ocean Conservation Research

        Earth Action, Inc.