[House Hearing, 118 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
DIGGING DEEPER:
ENSURING SAFETY AND SECURITY
IN THE CRITICAL MINERAL
SUPPLY CHAIN
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ECONOMIC GROWTH, ENERGY POLICY, AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND ACCOUNTABILITY
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
NOVEMBER 30, 2023
__________
Serial No. 118-78
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Oversight and Accountability
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available on: govinfo.gov,
oversight.house.gov or
docs.house.gov
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
54-313 PDF WASHINGTON : 2024
COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND ACCOUNTABILITY
JAMES COMER, Kentucky, Chairman
Jim Jordan, Ohio Jamie Raskin, Maryland, Ranking
Mike Turner, Ohio Minority Member
Paul Gosar, Arizona Eleanor Holmes Norton, District of
Virginia Foxx, North Carolina Columbia
Glenn Grothman, Wisconsin Stephen F. Lynch, Massachusetts
Gary Palmer, Alabama Gerald E. Connolly, Virginia
Clay Higgins, Louisiana Raja Krishnamoorthi, Illinois
Pete Sessions, Texas Ro Khanna, California
Andy Biggs, Arizona Kweisi Mfume, Maryland
Nancy Mace, South Carolina Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, New York
Jake LaTurner, Kansas Katie Porter, California
Pat Fallon, Texas Cori Bush, Missouri
Byron Donalds, Florida Shontel Brown, Ohio
Kelly Armstrong, North Dakota Jimmy Gomez, California
Scott Perry, Pennsylvania Melanie Stansbury, New Mexico
William Timmons, South Carolina Robert Garcia, California
Tim Burchett, Tennessee Maxwell Frost, Florida
Marjorie Taylor Greene, Georgia Summer Lee, Pennsylvania
Lisa McClain, Michigan Greg Casar, Texas
Lauren Boebert, Colorado Jasmine Crockett, Texas
Russell Fry, South Carolina Dan Goldman, New York
Anna Paulina Luna, Florida Jared Moskowitz, Florida
Chuck Edwards, North Carolina Rashida Tlaib
Nick Langworthy, New York
Eric Burlison, Missouri
------
Mark Marin, Staff Director
Jessica Donlon, Deputy Staff Director and General Counsel
David Ehmen, Counsel
Jeanne Kuehl, Senior Professional Staff
Mallory Cogar, Deputy Director of Operations and Chief Clerk
Contact Number: 202-225-5074
Julie Tagen, Minority Staff Director
Contact Number: 202-225-5051
------
Subcommittee On Economic Growth, Energy Policy, And Regulatory Affairs
Pat Fallon, Texas, Chairman
Byron Donalds, Florida Cori Bush, Missouri, Ranking
Scott Perry, Pennsylvania Minority Member
Lisa McClain, Michigan Shontel Brown, Ohio
Lauren Boebert, Colorado Melanie Stansbury, New Mexico
Russell Fry, South Carolina Eleanor Holmes Norton, District of
Anna Paulina Luna, Florida Columbia
Chuck Edwards, North Carolina Raja Krishnamoorthi, Illinois
Nick Langworthy, New York Ro Khanna, California
Vacancy
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on November 30, 2023................................ 1
Witnesses
----------
Dr. Steve Feldgus, Ph.D., Deputy Assistant Secretary, Land and
Minerals Management, U.S. Department of the Interior
Oral Statement................................................... 5
Ms. Isabel Munilla, Deputy Assistant Secretary, Multilateral
Engagement, Climate and Market Development, Office of
International Affairs, U.S. Department of Energy
Oral Statement................................................... 7
Ms. Halimah Najieb-Lock, Deputy Assistant Secretary for
Industrial Base Resilience, U.S. Department of Defense
Oral Statement................................................... 9
Opening statements and the prepared statements for the witnesses
are available in the U.S. House of Representatives Repository
at: docs.house.gov.
Index of Documents
----------
* Report, Interagency Working Group on Mining Laws,
Regulations, and Permitting, Recommendations to Improve Mining
on Public Lands; submitted by Rep. Norton.
* Questions for the Record: to Ms. Munilla; submitted by Rep.
Fry.
* Questions for the Record: to Ms. Najieb-Lock; submitted by
Rep. Fry.
The documents listed above are available at: docs.house.gov.
DIGGING DEEPER:
ENSURING SAFETY AND SECURITY
IN THE CRITICAL MINERAL
SUPPLY CHAIN
----------
Thursday, November 30, 2023
House of Representatives
Committee on Oversight and Accountability
Subcommittee on Economic Growth, Energy
Policy, and Regulatory Affairs
Washington, D.C.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:05 p.m., in
room 2154, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Pat Fallon
[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Fallon, Donalds, Fry, Edwards,
Langworthy, Bush, Brown, Stansbury, and Norton.
Also present: Representative Stauber of Minnesota.
Mr. Fallon. This hearing of the Subcommittee on Economic
Growth, Energy Policy, and Regulatory Affairs will come to
order. Everyone, thank you and welcome.
Without objection, the Chair may declare a recess at any
time. I recognize myself for the purpose of making an opening
statement.
Today's hearing examines another aspect of American energy
independence, access to critical minerals and materials.
Critical minerals and materials are the building block of the
products we rely on every day. The world is an ever-changing
place, and it is dramatically changing. I think 20 years ago
nobody could have predicted where we are today and some of the
critical materials that are just really essential.
What are critical minerals and materials? There are
different definitions. There are minerals that are those that
are essential to the economic and national security of the
United States.
Our witnesses today are from the Department of the
Interior, the Department of Energy, and the Department of
Defense, and they all have significant equities in regulatory
authorities in this space.
Since this is a cross-agency issue, I believe a cross-
agency discussion is a necessary step in resolving our present
and potential vulnerabilities regarding our access to these
essential materials and minerals. Although other committees
have had recent hearings looking into this important topic,
here on the Oversight Committee we have a unique opportunity to
cut through the jurisdictional lines and look at the entire
picture of critical minerals and material, the supply chain,
including how these elements impact national security with each
of the agencies represented at the witness table today.
While the Department of the Interior, the DOE, and the DoD
all have slightly differing definitions for these important
elements, each of these agencies are crucial players in the
U.S.'s ability to procure and utilize critical minerals, from
graphite and lithium in the mobile phone batteries to aluminum
in wind turbines, cobalt in electric vehicles, nickel in jet
engines, and critical minerals that are fundamental to the
American economy and, again, national security.
However, the United States only produces 14 of the 50
critical minerals. That means we have to rely on foreign
nations to extract, refine, process, and export to us the large
majority of these vital materials. Clearly that has national
security implications.
Following President Biden's Executive Order 14017, the
Administration reviewed the American critical mineral supply
chain. It determined that, and I quote, currently the United
States has limited raw material production capacity and
virtually no processing capacity. Without processing capacity,
the United States exports the limited raw materials produced
today to foreign markets.
Unfortunately, China dominates the global supply chain.
They have been very clever with their approach over the last
few decades. They control 60 percent of the production, 90
percent--let me say that again--90 percent of the processing,
and over 75 percent of the manufacturing of the critical
minerals.
What China cannot extract from within its own borders, it
secures access internationally through aggressive investments.
I think that is one of the reasons why we see the belt and road
initiative and their commitment to that. For example, Chinese
companies either own or finance 15 out of the 19 cobalt mines
in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. That is a process that
largely, unfortunately, exploits child labor.
Further, the renewable energy sector is driving up the
demand of these materials dramatically. The International
Energy Agency estimates that critical mineral demand from EVs
and battery storage necessary for renewable energy could
increase 40 times by 2040, 40 times.
Meanwhile, agencies are failing to create policy that is
transparent and efficient for private sector industries. In one
such instance, the Biden Administration stalled the Twin
Metals' project in Minnesota, which would have tapped 95
percent of the domestic nickel and 88 percent of domestic
cobalt reserves. That is a decision that is at odds with its
aggressive agenda to subsidize renewable energy products
dependent on these same materials. Any rational, independent,
objective mind would say what I just said.
So, despite the Biden Administration's lofty goals for
renewable energy installation and electric vehicle adoption
driving critical mineral demand, the domestic mining industry
faces extreme hurdles. Again, not consistent.
Biden Administration's red tape causes mining permits to
take an average of 7 to 10 years in the United States. Now,
that did not mean a lot to me because I did not know if that
was--I mean, 7 to 10 years always sounds like a lot. But
comparative to what? It is all relative. OK, well, comparative
to, say, you know, developed nations like Canada and Australia,
they manage to do those permitting processes in 2 to 3 years
with similar environmental standards that we have in the U.S.
Additionally, the various categories of critical minerals
and materials, including how they are defined by U.S. agencies
affect the speed and quality of domestic production. I would
suspect that China does not have a 7 to 10-year waiting period,
probably not even 2 to 3.
Increasing domestic mineral mining processing and
refinement would fortify our economy and military and ensure
these essential minerals are made free of humanitarian abuse
and greater environmental risk.
I would like to thank all of our witnesses for coming,
sincerely. Thank you for appearing today. I hope that we can
have a fruitful discussion on the importance of domestically
extracting and processing critical minerals because it is going
to benefit and it is going to be involved in good, high-paying
American jobs, in securing our supply chain and, in so doing,
addressing our national security.
I now yield to Ranking Member Bush for the purpose of
making an opening statement.
Ms. Bush. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
St. Louis and I are here today because we need to safely
develop the materials we need for reliable, renewal, energy. We
are here because the best path to achieving that is by enacting
a green new deal now. We simply cannot wait.
Last year, St. Louis had two 1-in-1000-year floods over the
course of 1 week in July. We are facing record-breaking
temperatures, supersized climate disasters, and trillions of
dollars in disaster recovery costs. The need to transition to
renewable energy should be indisputable because it is essential
to protecting both our environment and our health.
We know that the most dire consequences of the climate
crisis and environmental degradation fall hardest on Black and
Brown and low-income communities. In St. Louis, we feel the
brunt of the failure to transition to clean energy every day.
Climate change has worsened racial disparities in mortality,
respiratory disease, mental health, asthma rates, and heat-
related illness.
We must also acknowledge the links between the extraction
and sale of these minerals and violence. In March 2022, I
attended a congressional delegation to Guatemala and Honduras,
and I visited communities directly impacted by mining. I heard
directly from them about the devastating effects of
irresponsible extractive industries. For example, in Guatemala,
Xinca community members and leaders have faced retribution,
intimidation, defamation, and even death for defending their
land against the Escobal silver mine.
Since 2011, the Xinca people have vocalized their concerns
about the mine's impact on water resources, cultural sites, and
concerns about the mine's impact on their local self-
determination. In 2013, the mining company's security forces
opened fire on peaceful Xinca protestors, injuring six people.
We cannot continue to import critical minerals from places
like Guatemala in order to make clean energy possible here at
the expense of lives and livelihoods of vulnerable groups
elsewhere. That is not the type of sustainable future that I am
working toward.
To transition from polluting fossil fuels to clean energy
technologies, we must make certain we have enough of the
critical minerals and materials needed to get us there, but
existing control mechanisms have proven to be inefficient and
too heavily rely on corporate goodwill. We must refuse to harm
Central America, indigenous and many other communities around
the world who live at or near sites of extraction, and we must
update and enforce mining laws to ensure development benefits
all people.
The global demand for minerals crucial to the development
of clean energy technologies will increase at least 400 to 600
percent in the next 20 years, and the demand for cobalt and
graphite, two critical materials found in electric vehicle
batteries, which we just heard, could increase by nearly 4,000
percent by 2040. Our need to develop domestic supply of these
materials, it will only increase in urgency as the demand
continues to increase.
We will work with the Biden-Harris Administration to
rapidly transition to a renewable energy economy. My colleagues
and I, we are leading the way to pave the path for the green
new deal. In the process, we will fortify the U.S. supply of
critical minerals from corruption and unsafe conditions abroad
that could disrupt our economy and put lives in danger.
Responsibly strengthening domestic mining infrastructure must
also ensure mining is performed in line with rigorous health
and safety standards, creating cost-effective domestic
production of critical materials.
We are beginning to make the kinds of public investments
that we need. Together with congressional Democrats, President
Biden signed into law the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs
Act, the CHIPS and Science Act, and the Inflation Reduction
Act, which have provided a combined $135 billion toward the
electric vehicle sector, including critical minerals and
battery manufacturing.
Strengthening domestic production and resilient supply
chains can improve economic security by growing the number of
good-paying jobs, good-paying union jobs, and supporting the
transition away from dangerous fossil fuels. The Environmental
Defense Fund found that $165.1 billion in investments in
electric vehicles, their components, and batteries has led to
the creation of 179,318 jobs in just the last 8 years.
We need far more investments to take on this climate crisis
at scale. This is why I authored the Green New Deal for Cities
Act. It will fund state, local, tribal, and territorial
governments to do a broad array of climate and environmental
justice projects, creating hundreds of thousands of union jobs
in the process.
Additionally, my bill includes minimum 50 percent
investments in both frontline communities and climate
mitigation. These types of investments help move the United
States away from its reliance on critical minerals developed in
unsafe and unaccountable working conditions that endanger
communities.
We will generate hundreds of thousands of good-paying union
jobs in places like St. Louis and all around our country.
Thank you. And I yield back.
Mr. Fallon. Thank you.
Without objection, Representative Stauber from Minnesota is
waved onto the Subcommittee for the purpose of questioning
witnesses at today's Subcommittee hearing.
I am pleased to welcome our witnesses for today. Steve--and
help me with your last name. I am a little intimidated.
Mr. Feldgus. Feldgus.
Mr. Fallon. Oh, OK, it is not bad. Steve Feldgus.
Isabel Munilla. Is that correct? Yes.
And work with me. I want to do it, see. We are going to try
it out. Halimah?
Ms. Najieb-Locke. Yes.
Mr. Fallon. Halimah Najieb-Locke.
Ms. Najieb-Locke. Najieb-Locke.
Mr. Fallon. Najieb-Locke.
Ms. Najieb-Locke. Very close. Very close, sir.
Mr. Fallon. Thank you for coming today. I appreciate it.
First, we have Dr. Feldgus who is Deputy Assistant
Secretary for Land and Minerals Management at the Department of
the Interior. Next, we have Ms. Isabel Munilla, Deputy
Assistant Secretary for Multilateral Engagement, Climate and
Market Development in the Office of International Affairs at
the Department of Energy. And last, we have Ms. Najieb-Locke--
yes--Deputy Assistant Secretary for Industrial Base Resilience
at the Department of Defense. We look forward to hearing what
you all have to say on this important topic.
Pursuant to Committee Rule 9(g), the witnesses will please
stand and raise their right hands.
Do you solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony you are
about to give is the whole truth, the truth, the whole truth,
and nothing but the truth, so help you God?
Thank you.
Please let the record show that the witnesses have answered
in the affirmative.
Thank you. Please take your seats.
We appreciate, as I said, you being here and welcome you
for your testimony. Let me remind the witnesses that we have
all read your written statements, and they will appear in full
in the hearing record. Please limit your oral testimony to 5
minutes.
As a reminder, please press the button on your microphone
in front of you, and you are going to have a little light. It
will be green, and then when you have got a minute left, it
will be yellow, and then red. If you could, at that point, just
kind of wrap it up, that would be much appreciated.
I now recognize Dr. Feldgus for his opening remarks.
STATEMENT OF STEVE FELDGUS
DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY
LANDS AND MINERALS MANAGEMENT
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Mr. Feldgus. Thank you.
Chairman Fallon, Ranking Member Bush, Members of the
Subcommittee, my name is Steve Feldgus. I am the Deputy
Assistant Secretary for Land and Minerals Management at the
Department of the Interior. Thank you for the opportunity to
provide testimony on the Biden-Harris Administration's
commitment to updating our mining policies, reforming the
general Mining Law of 1872, and promoting the sustainable and
responsible domestic production of critical minerals.
The Administration recognizes the important role mining
plays in the modern economy and the growing need for
responsibly sourced critical minerals to meet our climate
infrastructure and global competitiveness goals.
Since its enactment in 1872, the Mining Law has shaped
domestic mineral production on Federal lands. Initially, the
Mining Law allowed for the development of nearly all mineral
resources. In 1920, Congress enacted the Mineral Leasing Act,
which removed petroleum, natural gas, and other hydrocarbons
from the Mining Law and created a leasing-based system for
those minerals. In 1947, the Materials Act removed certain
common minerals, such as sand and gravel, from the Mining Law
and, instead, made them subject to sale or permit.
Today, however, almost all hard rock minerals on Federal
land, including precious metals such as silver and gold, remain
subject to disposition under the 150-year-old Mining Law.
Significantly, the Mining Law also applies to the critical
minerals that are needed to support our modern economy and fuel
our transition to renewable energy; minerals like graphite,
lithium, and cobalt.
As of the end of Fiscal Year 2023, there were over 500
active plans of operation on Federal lands, which reflect the
number of commercial mining and large-scale exploration
activities, and another more than 800 active mining notices,
which reflects smaller scale exploration.
The Biden-Harris Administration has approved over 34 new
mining operations since taking office, including a new critical
mineral mine for vanadium in Nevada just over 1 month ago. The
Mining Law does not require companies to report the type or
quantity of minerals produced on Federal lands, so the
Department, unfortunately, cannot provide an accurate
accounting of total mineral production occurring, including for
critical minerals.
While over the past 150 years the overall management of our
public lands has evolved considerably to meet the needs of our
Nation and more effectively steward public lands and resources,
almost all hardrock minerals on Federal lands remain subject to
disposition under the outdated Mining Law of 1872. This
inadequate structural framework serves as an impediment to a
robust and environmentally and socially responsible domestic
mining industry.
As I have mentioned, unlike for oil, gas, coal, and certain
other minerals, the Mining Law of 1872 allows hardrock minerals
to be extracted from public lands royalty free. Furthermore,
while coal companies pay a fee for every ton of coal they mine,
which goes into the abandoned mine fund to clean up legacy coal
mines, there is no equivalent source of funding to address the
tremendous need for cleaning up abandoned hardrock mines.
Since taking office, the Biden-Harris Administration has
outlined a whole-of-government approach to addressing our need
for critical minerals and to ensure that domestic mining
activity is carried out in a responsible and efficient manner.
In February 2021, President Biden issued Executive Order
14017, America's Supply Chains, which directed a governmentwide
review to assess vulnerabilities and strengthen the resilience
of supply chains of various goods, including critical and
strategic minerals essential to our economic and national
security. Consistent with the outcome of that review, in
February 2022, the Department announced the launch of an
interagency working group comprised of experts in mine
permitting, public engagement, and environmental law from
across the Federal Government. The working group was charged
with reviewing laws, regulations, policies, and permitting
processes for hardrock mineral development.
As part of that review, the Department considered input
received during dozens of meetings with the public and
stakeholders, multiple government-to-government consultation
with tribes, and a review of over 26,000 public comments,
including from the mining industry, state governments, tribal
nations, labor organizations, and others.
The working group concluded that fundamental reform of the
Mining Law of 1872 is necessary to provide an adequate
structural framework and remove impediments to the operation of
a responsible and sustainable domestic mining industry. The
final report from the working group contains more than 60
specific recommendations to improve mining on public lands,
including a number of reforms for Congress to consider.
Thank you again for the opportunity to be here today.
Recommendations from the working group's report can help ensure
a sustainable and responsibly sourced domestic supply of
minerals, which are key to advancing the Nation's vital climate
infrastructure and global competitiveness goals.
I appreciate the opportunity to testify today and would be
happy to answer any questions.
Mr. Fallon. Thank you, Doctor.
The Chair now recognizes Ms. Munilla for her 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF ISABEL MUNILLA
DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY
MULTILATERAL ENGAGEMENT, CLIMATE AND
MARKET DEVELOPMENT
OFFICE OF INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Ms. Munilla. Thank you.
Chairman Fallon, Ranking Member Bush, and esteemed Members
of the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to testify
before you today. My name is Isabel Munilla, and I serve as the
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Multilateral Engagement, Climate
and Market Development at the Department of Energy's Office of
International Affairs.
I appreciate the opportunity to provide an update on DOE's
work to advance technologies and approaches to ensure secure
domestic critical mineral and material supply chains.
For the 31 of 50 minerals designated by USGS in its
critical minerals list, the U.S. relies on other countries for
more than 50 percent of our requirements, and we rely entirely
on foreign sources for more than a dozen of these minerals, as
we have mentioned earlier.
With expected demand growth for critical minerals and
materials, or CMMs, to increase by four to six times over the
next three decades, no single country would be able to satisfy
global demand. This situation provides both a challenge and an
opportunity to grow our domestic industries to help meet the
growing global market demand to increase American
competitiveness while diversifying supply chains and to improve
labor and environmental standards worldwide while creating new
technologies that can be deployed domestically.
In response to this challenge, President Biden signed
Executive Order 14017 on American's Supply Chains in February
2021, and he directed the Administration to assess the supply
chain risks within each agencies' jurisdiction, developing
strategies to respond to the risks. Importantly, this executive
order expands work previously directed in the September 2020 EO
13953.
In two DOE reports over the past 2 years, we have found
that to meet the projective demand for CMMs, the U.S. must
develop multiple sources for critical materials. However, that
alone will not be sufficient to establish a resilient supply
chain. A lack of processing and refining capabilities, as well
as manufacturing, often poses a greater risk to supply chain
robustness than the resources themselves.
The PRC, as we know, maintains a dominant global position
in the processing capabilities for several critical materials,
and by intervening in each stage of the supply chain for over
three decades, PRC nonmarket policies and practices and
resulting market distortions have allowed them to concentrate
production and lower their costs to make them highly
competitive against other market players.
This has made it difficult for midstream processing
capabilities to be built in the United States or other
countries, and it is clear that our global dependence on a
single source for these materials leaves the U.S. and our
allies vulnerable to economic coercion, such as we have seen
using export controls earlier this year.
We must ensure a sufficient and diverse worldwide supply of
critical materials from responsible sources to protect our
national security and industrial competitiveness, and the
Department of Energy is committed to tackling this challenge.
Our strategy for enhancing American competitiveness and
national security on critical minerals and materials includes
five pillars, which you will see in the written testimony.
Diversifying and expanding supply chains, developing
alternatives, promoting efficient materials and manufacturing,
reducing the need for virgin material through enhanced
circularity, and furthering enabling activities like strong
international environmental and labor standards, lifecycle and
technoeconomic analyses, enhancing capabilities for modeling,
machine learning, traceability and verification.
For over a decade, DOE has invested in CMM research and
development to address scientific and technological challenges
underpinning our vulnerabilities. In addition, DOE has over 8
billion in funding dedicated to critical materials and minerals
advancement. To date, nearly 2 billion in Federal funding has
been awarded to projects related to CMM crosscutting activities
with a match of nearly 4 billion in private sector investment.
Additionally, the IRA provides 48C tax credits to re-equip,
expand, or establish industrial facilities for the processing,
refining, recycling of critical minerals and materials-related
technologies that will expand our domestic manufacturing
capacity.
But we cannot meet U.S. demand through domestic production
alone. To complement our domestic investments, collaboration
with the private sector and other countries is key to expand
and diversify the sources and quantities of responsible
supplies.
The Department is proactively engaging with our
international partners, with our colleagues in the interagency,
including the G7 and International Energy Agency where we are
working with allies to promote secure and diversified supplies,
enhanced market transparency, and responsible practices across
the supply chain.
Critical minerals and materials are crucial to the way we
live our lives every day. They are required in a wide range of
strategic industries, including aerospace, medicine, and
defense. They are also indispensable components in clean
energy, as we have discussed, such as batteries, EVs, wind
turbines, and solar panels.
Our reliance on non-allied foreign sources for these
materials is neither sustainable nor secure. That is why the
DOE is taking robust and wide-ranging action to address this
challenge and secure domestic and allied supply chains for
critical minerals and materials.
Thanks for the opportunity to testify, and I look forward
to answering any questions.
Mr. Fallon. Thank you.
The Chair now recognizes Ms. Najieb-Locke for her 5
minutes.
STATEMENT OF HALIMAH NAJIEB-LOCKE
DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR
INDUSTRIAL BASE RESILIENCE
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Ms. Najieb-Locke. Thank you.
Good afternoon, Chairman Fallon, Ranking Member Bush, and
distinguished Members of the Subcommittee. Thank you for the
opportunity to testify on the importance of mitigating critical
and strategic material supply chain risk within America's
defense industrial base.
My name is Halimah Najieb-Locke, and I am the Deputy
Assistant Secretary of Defense for Industrial Base Resilience,
and in my role, I work together with colleagues across the
Department of Defense, as well as the interagency, to secure
key sectors of the industrial base, including, but not limited
to, strategic and critical materials, technology, and work
force for the benefit of our military and our national
security.
We know from history that industrialized nations that do
not have secure and reliable access to critical materials
during conflicts have suffered performance tradeoffs that
contributed to their defeat on the battlefield. We must stay
focused on our work to develop robust, resilient, and
sustainable, as well as dynamic, defense industrial-based
ecosystems that will contribute to the Nation's integrated
deterrence.
In recent months, Chinese export restrictions on three key
materials, gallium, germanium, and graphite, have demonstrated
the PRC's willingness to cause disruption to critical U.S.
supply chains and highlighted the urgency of securing U.S.
supply chains against such tactics.
The Department needs stable access to arrange these
essential materials for everything from large-capacity
batteries and microelectronics to conventional munitions and
missiles, and new chemistries for next generation weapons and
aircraft. We rely on these materials as key components to power
computation for DoD weapon systems.
For instance, the Virginia and Columbia-class submarines,
as well as DoD aircrafts, such as the F-35, require rare earth
magnets. Antimony, magnesium, and other chemical precursors are
necessary for our missiles and munitions industrial base,
including our propellants.
President Biden's Executive Order 14017, America's Supply
Chains, worked to identify our weaknesses and provide
recommendations to increase our readiness and strategic and
critical materials supply chains. And just this week the
President announced the establishment of the Council on Supply
Chain Resilience to institutionalize the progress this
Administration has made in buying down risk to our national
security.
I would like to highlight the Department of Defense's
approach to securing strategic and critical materials, which
centers on four key solutions: Stockpiling to reduce our
vulnerability to sudden disruptions, investments to build long-
term capacity through the Defense Production Act Title III, the
DPA, and the Industrial Based Analysis and Sustainment program,
IBAS.
Three, DoD's acquisition policies that root DoD supply
chains in secure sources. And finally, our international
partnerships that leverage and strengthen U.S. and allied
secure strategic critical minerals. We use security of supply
arrangement, or SOSAs, to further this cooperation.
Turning to our first solution, a key pillar of the
Department's approach to secure supply chains is strengthening
our U.S. stockpile. The National Defense Stockpile, or the NDS,
is the Nation's stockpile for strategic and critical materials,
serving as an important buffer during emergencies. Stockpile
reserves allow us to release materials to keep key production
lines operating until long-term supply chains are restored.
We recognize and applaud Congress' appropriation of over
238 million in Fiscal Year 2, for the first time in nearly
three decades I might add, to give the NDS the strategic asset
that it needs to build our readiness for our complex threat
environment. However, material shortfalls remain. To bolster
the NDS inventory and hedge against material risk to our
defense capabilities, I recommend that Congress fund the
President's budget request for the NDS acquisitions.
In addition to stockpiling, we focus on investing in
domestic capacities for critical and strategic materials. As of
November 16, 2023, my office has awarded $645 million and
committed another $394 million across 33 strategic and critical
material projects in Fiscal Year 2. This funding is comprised
of funds from the Ukraine Supplemental and Inflation Reduction
Act, as well as congressional adds to base funding to the
accounts.
More investments are planned but, again, because of the
volatile threat environment, we recommend that Congress support
the full Presidential budget request for DPA and IBAS.
In conclusion, the path forward will rely on international
partnerships, our fourth solution, to buildupon what we have
done to bolster domestic capacity. We ask to strengthen
military partnerships, such as AUKUS, by investing in
leveraging unique capabilities of our allies through the use of
the DPA Title III, which has a legislative proposal in with
Congress to invest in projects in Australia and the United
Kingdom, to consider them as domestic sources.
So, when we look at international partnerships, revamping
the NDS, and investing in our domestic industries, we know that
these are the tools that the Department has and a comprehensive
approach to secure strategic critical materials, but these
actions are a part of a larger framework to be released by the
Department known as the National Defense Industrial Strategy.
Recent disruptions and adversarial actions have underscored
what we have long recognized. It is more urgent now than ever
to build our capability resilience and environmentally friendly
supply chains for critical minerals.
Thank you for providing me an opportunity to testify before
you today, and I look forward to your questions.
Mr. Fallon. Thank you very much.
The Chair now recognizes my good friend from Florida, Mr.
Donalds, for his 5 minutes.
Mr. Donalds. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Witnesses, thanks for
coming in.
Ms. Munilla--did I say that right?
Ms. Munilla. Yes.
Mr. Donalds. OK. Got it, got it.
True or false? Demand for graphite, copper, nickel,
lithium, and cobalt will rise substantially over the next two
decades, and these key minerals--these are key minerals of
electric vehicles and battery storage technology?
Ms. Munilla. True.
Mr. Donalds. OK. According to the Breakthrough Institute,
the Biden Administration's electrification goals require at
least a 62 percent increase in cobalt and a 590 percent
increase in graphite, there is obviously insufficient
production of cobalt and graphite in the United States.
In your view, is it reasonable to impose such an onerous
and unrealistic Federal electrification aspiration when there
is not enough domestic critical mineral supply and rare earth
mineral to accomplish the goal? Is that a wise thing to do?
Ms. Munilla. Thank you for that question.
This is a very important tension. I think the market has
moved. The demand for these materials, not just for graphite
and cobalt but for other materials, is coming to us from the
broader market and from industrialization, certainly for clean
energy technologies and their deployment, but also for broader
industrialization purposes.
And so, I would say that this is something that is needed.
The market is moving very quickly, and we are trying to
respond, and we are trying to also be competitive in that
market. We do not want to leave a vacuum for others to sideline
U.S. competitiveness, U.S. jobs, and certainly U.S. industry
from getting a piece of that market.
So, the domestic investments are really critical to have us
be competitive moving forward.
Mr. Donalds. In your opinion, what would be the best path
forward for domestic mining capacity, mining operations to meet
the capacity needs? What would be the policy recommendation
from the Department of Energy to make that a reality? Because
one thing we find all the time in Congress, especially in these
hearings, is that everybody wants to do things, everybody is
willing to invest, quote, unquote, in things, but there are no
practical regulatory--there is no practical regulatory
framework to accomplish the mission except for using massive
amounts of subsidization out of the Federal Treasury.
So, what would be the path of least resistance and the most
effective path to develop these critical minerals here in the
United States?
Ms. Munilla. The Energy Act of 2020 gave the Department the
mandate to begin to diversify those supplies to invest in the
domestic manufacturing technology innovation baseline. It gave
us the direction to move forward very quickly to invest----
Mr. Donalds. So, I am going to hold you right there because
the word ``invest'' came out three times. And one of the issues
we do have is a regulatory burden that stops the ability for
companies to mine for these critical minerals in the United
States.
Do we need a regulatory overhaul to help accomplish the
critical minerals needs for the electrification desires or
dreams, I would say, of the President of the United States?
Ms. Munilla. The President of the United States and the
Congress have given us significant amount of resources to move
forward within the BIL, the IRA, and those regulations to
implement those and the funding is moving forward.
Mr. Donalds. Give me one example. Give me an example of
one.
Ms. Munilla. The 30D tax credit is moving forward. The
Treasury Department is moving forward with implementing the
guidance and executing on that guidance. There is movement on
the 48C tax credit, and we certainly have a lot of regulatory
guidance that has been issued to the market. We see forthcoming
guidance coming on a range of issues, including the hydrogen
tax credit, et cetera, so----
Mr. Donalds. So, you have mentioned now three tax credits.
These are all funding apparatuses. These are funding
mechanisms.
Ms. Munilla. Yes.
Mr. Donalds. But we have not touched on anything with
respect to regulatory burdens.
Is the EPA going to play ball and allow us to actually do
the work that needs to be done in the United States to
accomplish these goals?
Is the Bureau of Land Management, Dr. Feldgus, is BLM going
to allow us the ability to have the flexibility to do the
mining necessary to accomplish these critical goals? That is a
regulatory situation. That is not a funding situation.
What is the answer to that?
Mr. Feldgus. Yes. In our mining report, we have 65
recommendations on legislation, regulatory, and policy efforts
that can move mining in the United States forward.
Mr. Donalds. Ms. Munilla, do you concur with that?
Ms. Munilla. We would concur. We have been working in the
interagency on this report. Also, we are absolutely supportive
of streamlining the permitting process, and certainly we are--
--
Mr. Donalds. Oh, that is music to my ears. Streamlining
permitting processes so we can actually get the critical
minerals that our Nation sorely needs. Because I will add--and
I will yield back, Chairman--the Chinese are not playing the
regulatory rubric game that we have done to ourselves here in
the United States. They are going to get the minerals. They are
going to dominate the globe. And no matter what the energy
electrification goals are, we are going to have to pay treasure
to our greatest adversary across the globe, and that, frankly,
makes no sense at all.
I yield.
Mr. Fallon. Thank you.
The Chair now recognizes the gentlelady from Missouri, Ms.
Bush, for her 5 minutes.
Ms. Bush. The United States must become a global leader in
the renewable energy transition. We must immediately invest
public dollars in long-lasting improvements to prevent and
remediate climate change and protect public health. The United
States and other countries most responsible for the climate
crisis must play a leadership role in investing in the future
we need as we make investments toward a green new deal.
For example, wind turbines, solar panels, electric
vehicles, and lithium batteries all rely heavily on cobalt, on
graphite, lithium, rare earth elements, and other critical
minerals, demand for essential products and components of clean
energy technologies are expected to increase 400 to 600 percent
in the next several decades, which I spoke about.
The production of critical minerals catalyzes our
transition away from fossil fuels and the harmful effects that
they have on our environment and on our public health.
Ms. Munilla, I know throughout your career you have led
research initiatives on mining, on oil and gas projects around
the world, as well as focusing on transparency in extractive
industries. As I spoke about in my opening remarks, we know
that communities that live at or near sites of extraction often
suffer destruction of the land, of their livelihoods, and
health, as well as direct violence in connection with the
companies mining these critical minerals.
Ms. Munilla, how can we best end these harmful practices
and balance our need to transition to clean energy with our
imperative to protect human rights?
Ms. Munilla. Absolutely. That is a tension that we are
working on right now, and it Is absolutely fundamental. And I
think the great news is that we have a lot of work in train.
So, our supply chain EO directed us to work with the EPA on
precisely these issues and that work is moving forward.
The objective of the work is to try to identify which
standards we need to strengthen and how to ensure those
standards apply across the globe and to make sure that we are
identifying critical minerals standards, traceability
standards, verification standards that can be integrated into
the work of companies around the world.
And we have a lot of support for those to make sure that
the signals that we are sending from our market about the types
of minerals that we would like to buy, sustainable minerals,
high quality minerals that respect community rights, that there
is a premium for that type of performance. And we are seeing
there being an openness from the market for that, and the great
news is that we are working very closely with our G7 partners
and other partners, and there is agreement at a global level
from large markets that we need to make this green premium,
this social premium really work for companies.
So, we are seeing a lot of openness there. And so, the work
continues, and we are happy to talk more with you about it
offline.
Ms. Bush. All right. No, I would like that.
And so, as we move away from importing the bulk of these
critical minerals and the United States does bolster its
domestic mining infrastructure, mining projects, we know,
should follow rigorous health and safety standards. So domestic
production of these critical materials must be both safe and
cost-effective.
And I will first start with safe and then cost-effective.
So, Ms. Munilla, how can the Federal Government best balance
the need to quickly expand domestic mining and refinery
projects of critical minerals while meeting the robust
environmental labor and sustainability standards?
And before you answer that, also making sure that we do not
inflict on folks locally in our country what has happened to
those in other countries.
Ms. Munilla. Absolutely. That is a fundamental question.
So, one example is that for any bill or IRA-funded work, a
community benefit plan is required to be submitted by the
applicant that lays out the efforts the applicant has taken and
will take to ensure that members of the community have been
consulted about the proposed project and that their views are
taken into account. That is a global norm that exists in the
rest of the world, and we are happy to see that roll out here
in the U.S.
Communities have to be a part of any project every step of
the way, not only for their benefit but also to ensure that
project risks are managed and that the project is carried out
with as few roadblocks as possible, and I believe that that was
fundamental to our work looking at streamlining domestic
permitting.
And last, employing environmental social and governing
standards are really, really vital, as we mentioned earlier, to
improving our U.S. critical minerals security and
competitiveness while upholding our Administration's commitment
to a laser focus on environmental protection, environmental
justice, and tribal consultation.
Ms. Bush. Thank you. And I yield back.
Mr. Fallon. Thank you.
The Chair now recognizes--I recognize myself for my 5
minutes.
So, Mr. Feldgus, I know--thank you for coming. I am glad
you are here. But I do not know if you were aware, we actually
had requested another witness to come and testify today.
Do you, offhand, do you know how many employees you have at
the Department of the Interior.
Mr. Feldgus. I believe it is around 70,000.
Mr. Fallon. Yes, that is what I said, 70,000.
So, my concern is that Congress provides oversight for your
agency and so many others, and we as--I think we need
bipartisan pushback because legislatively our authority and
really our oversight ability and responsibility is eroding
every day at the expense--you know, at the legislative expense,
and the executive branch continues to grow because I am sure
that the other 69,999 could have held the fort down if the
other person came and testified.
But having said that, I just wanted to get that on the
record.
So, we know that China has a strangle hold on global
critical minerals supply chains and is responsible, as we
mentioned before, for 60 percent of the production, 90 percent
of the processing, and 75 percent of the manufacturing. The
U.S. is currently dependent on these supply chains. We just
are.
So, Ms. Najieb-Locke, should the United States become
involved in a conflict with China, and we are no longer able to
access these supply chains, how do you think the U.S. would
respond?
Ms. Najieb-Locke. Thank you, sir.
So, Congressman, I think that the National Defense
Stockpile is exactly set up for that reason, to make sure that
we can respond by, one, releasing materials from our NDS to
make sure that the current manufacturing for our weapons
systems that are needed in the conflict are--continue to be
accessible, but that is also where our international partners
come into play.
And so, because of geographic reasons, the materials are
global and, therefore, our policies must be interconnected, and
so what we are doing today to buy down risk is, given the fact
that mining, processing, and, ultimately, market activity in
the buying is volatile, we must stabilize that market.
And what we are doing across the interagency is using all
of our authorities in a nested approach to make sure that we
are diversifying and making redundant access points----
Mr. Fallon. Thank you. And I apologize. It is only because
I only have 5 minutes, and I have loads of questions.
So, you know, we both recognize, though, that the
stockpiles are finite.
Ms. Najieb-Locke. Yes.
Mr. Fallon. And they have a timeframe.
What weapons do you think, or military assets would be most
affected, if you could real quickly off the top of your head?
Ms. Najieb-Locke. Military assets that would be impacted?
Mr. Fallon. Most affected if--yes, most impacted if we got
into a conflict with China.
Ms. Najieb-Locke. So, of course, our missiles and munitions
supply chain would be impacted because there is diversification
in the critical precursors for our propellants. So, when you
think of our aircrafts, our unmanned vehicles, when you are
looking at the specialty metals for our naval suite, there
would be implications as we continue to build that out that we
would have to change.
One, the stocks, drawdown stocks of our weapons, as we see
from the invasion of Ukraine what we have done, but we also
would have to----
Mr. Fallon. Thank you.
Ms. Najieb-Locke. [continuing] Rely upon other sources.
Mr. Fallon. Mr. Feldgus, do you believe China upholds the
same environmental and labor standards for mining as we do here
in the United States?
Mr. Feldgus. I am not familiar with China's environmental
and labor standards. I will just say that the U.S. has among
the highest environmental and labor standards in the world.
Mr. Fallon. So, you do not think--you think China is up to
par with us?
Mr. Feldgus. I would not expect that they are up to par.
Mr. Fallon. Yes, I would not expect that. I mean, it is
obvious. It is almost rhetorical.
Most of the world's cobalt comes from the Democratic
Republic of Congo, as I mentioned in my opening statement. A
large majority of those mines are controlled by China in
projects run on child labor.
Mr. Feldgus, do you believe that creating good-paying jobs
here in the United States, potentially mostly probably union
jobs by encouraging domestic mining would be preferable than
our dependency on child labor?
Mr. Feldgus. Yes. Certainly, we find, you know, child labor
is abhorrent, and we oppose that everywhere in the world. And
in the U.S. obviously, you know, we are seeking ways to improve
our domestic production of critical minerals while upholding
the highest environmental, labor, and public engagement
standards.
Mr. Fallon. You know, and I agree. I think that is a
critical thing to do. It is just, unfortunately, some actions
contradict that when you have like the Twin Metals' project of
Minnesota did not really match that rhetoric.
Ms. Munilla, does the DOE conduct oversight and
accountability of human rights abuses in labor procuring the
critical minerals and materials essential for the Biden
Administration's clean energy infrastructure plan?
Ms. Munilla. Thank you, Chairman.
Yes, we do. We have a program that looks at--oversees the
funding that goes out and provides very critical monitoring of
those funds.
Mr. Fallon. So, do we still--we still purchase from the
Democratic Republic of Congo, though, do we not?
Ms. Munilla. The Department of Energy?
Mr. Fallon. Well, the United States does.
Ms. Munilla. That does not fall into my purview, those
purchases, so I cannot comment.
Mr. Fallon. So, you recommend that maybe some folks that
are purchasing from the Congo may look elsewhere considering
the means in which those materials are extracted?
Ms. Munilla. I would absolutely agree that at the
Department, we find child labor also abhorrent anywhere in the
world, and we certainly think that the energy market
opportunity we have right now gives us an opportunity to
address that issue globally.
Mr. Fallon. Well, my time is up, but I would say that I was
encouraged because from my Ranking Member's opening statement,
there was actually some common ground. So that is also always
promising, particularly in the Oversight Committee.
Now the Chair now recognizes Ms. Norton from Washington,
DC, for her 5 minutes.
Ms. Norton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Biden-Harris Administration recognizes the need to
bolster our domestic supply chains, especially for critical
minerals. Just this week, President Biden announced 30 new
actions to strengthen America's supply chains, including the
creation of the White House Council on Supply Chain Resilience.
I would like to direct two questions to all of our
witnesses. I recognize that this is a brand-new council, so you
may not have too much information about it, but can any of you
comment on how a cabinet-level enterprise-wide council focused
on supply chain resilience could help to shore up domestic
supply chains for critical materials? Can any of you?
Mr. Feldgus. Sure. I will just say that the council is
really part of the Administration's all-of-government approach
to addressing our critical mineral and other mineral issues.
There is no one single solution, and certainly there is no one
department that is going to have all the answers. Every
department has different amounts of expertise and abilities to
bring to bear to this problem.
So, this new council is really going to help improve
information sharing across the government and help us make our
supply chains more resilient.
Ms. Munilla. I would add that, yes, I think that it is
absolutely complimentary and additive to the coordination
process we have in place, for example, from under the Energy
Act of 2020. And our Secretary, Granholm, will serve on the
council. We think that it will certainly help to advance long-
term governmentwide strategies to build our supply chain
resilience, not just for critical minerals but more broadly.
Thanks.
Ms. Najieb-Locke. Yes, Congresswoman, I absolutely agree
that this whole-of-government approach is the way forward
because it allows us to use our authorities complimentary. So,
in the DoD, we are able to use the DPA for the mining and
extraction of projects that will bolster domestic access but
partnering with our interagency colleagues.
Department of Commerce's supply chain center is going to
help us understand the materials that the U.S. needs for energy
resilience from a commercial perspective since the defense
marketplace is a part of the commercial marketplace.
Department of Transportation's logistics and optimization
works program is going to ensure critical minerals and
materials are not subject to disruption. And the Department of
Energy's advance manufacturing recycling grant program is going
to help develop secure domestic supplies of critical materials
at the processing downstream end to partner with the DoD's
upstream authorities.
And, of course, the Department of Labor's supply chain
comply chain guidance will ensure that ethical and sustainable
practices to procure critical minerals are adhered to without
the use of child or forced labor.
Ms. Norton. In addition, can any of you comment on actions
specific to your agencies that the President also announced?
Ms. Najieb-Locke. We will go in reverse order this time,
ma'am. Yes, so thank you, Congresswoman.
So, the White House fact sheet did announce at the council
that the DoD is building on our $714 million DPA investments to
ensure the defense critical supply chains, and we are
publishing our first every national defense industrial
strategy. That is going to guide engagement and policy
development to use our broad acquisition authorities to the
betterment of the national security and the whole-of-government
approach of finding multiple layers of suppliers and sub tier
suppliers that make up these critical supply chains.
Mr. Feldgus. Sure. I will just mention that actually this
is a well-aligned panel for this because the U.S. geological
survey is going to be partnering with DARPA and ARPA-E on a
series of hack-a-thons that will begin next year. And the
purpose of that is to develop artificial intelligence methods
to assessing our domestic critical mineral resources.
Ms. Munilla. And last, we launched the Department of
Energy's Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, ERE,
we issued a $10 million funding opportunity announcement for a
critical materials accelerator. And so, projects funded under
this FOA will be led by the Advance Materials and Manufacturing
Technologies Office and will validate prototype technologies
and processes that address critical materials challenges by
developing alternatives, diversifying and expanding supply, and
increasing manufacturing material efficiency to establish a
circular economy.
Ms. Norton. Mr. Chairman, President Biden previously
convened the interagency working group on mining regulations,
laws, and permitting, which released its final report in
September. I ask unanimous consent to enter the interagency
working group's report into the record.
Mr. Fallon. Without objection, so ordered.
The gentlelady's time has expired.
The Chair now recognizes Mr. Fry from South Carolina.
Mr. Fry. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for having this hearing,
and I appreciate your commentary earlier and that of Mr.
Donalds'.
I think where we are, guys, is that at the end of the day,
we have these new standards that have come out from this
Administration, and we could disagree about those or not, but
it creates a certain demand in the marketplace for electric
vehicles and solar panels and all the like. But we are so
woefully unprepared for the domestic production of those
minerals.
And in my experience, at least in the state legislature,
there might be some health and environmental concerns that
arise when these challenges are--when they occur, but a lot of
times it is just classic nimbyism.
And so, you know, looking at the stats, and the stats do
not lie, I mean, China is eating our lunch right now, and they
have, goodness gracious, they have 60 percent of the global
production. They have 90 percent of processing and 75 percent
of manufacturing of critical minerals. I mean, that is just
astronomical.
And to Chairman Fallon's point earlier, if there is a
problem with China in the future, and we hope that there is
not, but if there is, how prepared are we to address that
today?
I understand that we are trying to stockpile certain
materials, but why would we not boost our own production? It
should not take 7 to 10 years to get a permit, quite frankly. I
think that is just ridiculous.
So, anyway, I want to ask something. Ms. Najieb-Locke, my
understanding is that DoD began issuing grants in 2022 to
source materials domestically. Can you tell me a little bit
more about the rollout of that grant program? Who has shown
interest? Is there enough outreach from DoD to get applicants?
What is the status of that?
Ms. Najieb-Locke. Yes, sir, Congressman. So, thank you very
much for that question.
This rollout is building upon, I think, years of research
that we do have a shortfall, as shown by the National Defense
Stockpile's congressional report to you all that we know we
have a shortfall. And so, we are focusing on the critical
supply chain nodes specific right now to the rare earth
permanent magnet supply chain, and so we have looked across
that value chain, and what we have done is executed our
authorities in a manner that, one, serves as patient capital
because this is something that was generations in the making.
It is going to take years to get out of it.
So, working with established mines, such as MP materials,
and establishing new sources domestically, such as Lynas,
expanding upon some of the work on the processing side, the
separation technology, Noveon Magnetics, TDA Magnetics. And so,
what we have done is used the DPA and IBAS to do open funding
announcements, FOA, and that BAA allows one papers to be
submitted.
And we know right now there is about $1.2 billion of
projects that there is a need from the Defense Department and
interest, but we do not have the funding to resource, but we
are getting after those areas that are joint needs from the
Defense Department and commercial industry because what we need
for Columbia-class submarines, those permanent magnets, are
also in aerospace, both on the F-35 and general side, as well
as electric vehicles.
Mr. Fry. Thank you for that.
And deposits of minerals on the sea floor known as
polymetallic nodules have been identified as a potential game
changer in the industry. Currently a lot of companies and
universities are engaged in that deep sea minerals research.
Does the Administration plan to further support this
effort, and do they consider that deep sea mineral strategic?
Ms. Najieb-Locke. The Administration is absolutely in
consultation with the universities and with our national labs,
as well as what the potential here is. I do know that there
have been a number of interagency conversations to understand
more, down to the purity level of what is there, doing
feasibility studies, testing it, and seeing what the processing
would need to be and if we have access to those processing
facilities.
And so, we are supportive of understanding more because
this will, of course, create redundancy and increase our access
to critical minerals.
Mr. Fry. Thank you for that.
Dr. Feldgus, real quick in my remaining time, I talked
about earlier that it takes 7 to 10 years on average to permit
a mine in the United States, but in Canada and Australia it is
about 2 years. So, what is the Department of the Interior doing
to streamline that process? And what are you all doing, working
with DoD, to ensure that the agency is doing everything in its
power to onshore the production and the mining of these
materials in the name of national security?
Mr. Feldgus. Thank you for that question.
As part of our review in the interagency working group, we
looked very closely into that data, how long it takes to permit
mines in the U.S. and also internationally, and we found that
the data does not support the 7 to 10-year timeline. In fact,
we found that with the Bureau of Land Management for
environmental impact statements for major mines it takes just a
little over 3 years.
And also, in Canada, the Canadian mining--or sorry, The
Mining Association of Canada also complains that it takes 10 to
15 years in Canada to permit a mine.
So, in fact, I think this reflects just the long-timeframes
everywhere in the world. S&P Global recently came out and said
internationally the average time to develop a mine is roughly
15 years. So, we certainly think we can do better on the NEPA
front. We can bring that time down from 3 years. We have the
requirements under the Fiscal Responsibility Act that we are
going to try to meet.
But, you know, I think people should be aware that it does
take a rather long time to permit complex mines.
Mr. Fry. Well, but to answer the question--and I know I am
out of time--but what are you doing to streamline it? I mean, I
know that is the objective. And, again, it is a mandate from
the FRA. But what are you doing to streamline that process?
Mr. Feldgus. So, we have a very effective process right now
at work in Nevada. Our BLM Nevada office came up with this
multistep way of permitting mines that puts a lot of the work
before NEPA starts and involves a lot of coordination both
among Federal agencies but also between Federal agencies and
the state and tribal governments, and brings the applicants in
early so that they know what is going to be expected of them
and they know what permits they are going to need and how long
things might take. And this has been extremely successful in
Nevada. So as part of the report, we have recommended that we
move that nationwide.
Mr. Fry. Thank you for that.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Fallon. Thank you.
The Chair now recognizes Ms. Stansbury of New Mexico for 5
minutes.
Ms. Stansbury. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And good afternoon. Thank you so much to all of our
witnesses for being here today.
This topic, critical minerals, is actually something that
is near and dear to my heart and something that I have worked
on across my career. And I always find these kind of technical
hearings in this political context interesting because I am a
science professional, and I have worked on natural resources
for much of my career, including on this topic. In fact, during
the Obama Administration, I was the OMB examiner for the USGS
which does the critical minerals assessment. And I worked on
the Obama Administration's Critical Minerals Strategy, which is
the precursor to the Biden strategy. So, I have a very strong
understanding of what you all are trying to accomplish.
I also was the minerals lead in the Senate Energy
Committee, where I was the staffer who wrote and negotiated
bipartisan critical minerals legislation with Dr. Feldgus when
he was the minerals lead for the House Natural Resources
Committee. So, we welcome you back to this body on the other
side of the dais.
But I think it Is important, you know, to talk a little bit
more about the science, the global aspects of why sourcing is
so difficult right now and what the implications and solutions
are. But I do want to just take a couple of moments to say, you
know, for me, this is not only a personal issue because of my
professional background but because I represent frontline
communities.
So, the congressional district that I represent is New
Mexico's First congressional District. It is a vast rural
district in central New Mexico. It includes a lot of BLM land,
and it includes a lot of tribal land. And when we talk about
mining, permitting reform, and all of these things, I think
that sometimes it is hard for folks who do not represent
frontline communities to understand the history and legacy of
mining in the United States and why there is a community-based
NEPA process to ensure that we are not doing mining activities
that ultimately will harm our frontline communities and the
environment.
So, for example, in New Mexico, in western New Mexico at
the height of the cold war, we were mining vast quantities of
uranium, and the legacy of that is that our tribal and our
Chicano communities in those areas are living from the
multigenerational impacts of the pollution that came from that
uranium mining.
The other aspect is it takes a long time to permit these
mines and not just for financial and investment reasons and
planning reasons, but because some places just are not suitable
for mining. There are places, for example, in Alaska that have
large deposits of critical minerals, but the reason we do not
want to mine them is because they are the headwaters of the
largest salmon fisheries in the Pacific Ocean. So, there is a
reason why we do not want to mine there because we do not want
to cause the collapse of a major ecosystem, including in
Minnesota where the Department of Interior chose not to because
it was the headwaters of the Boundary Waters.
So, it is not really a streamlining problem, though
certainly we all want to see red tape cut in our bureaucracy.
Sometimes we do not want to mine in places because it will hurt
our communities and hurt the environment, and we value that.
It is also important to recognize that--and I think, Ms.
Najieb-Locke, you said this yourself--this was years in the
making. In fact, the U.S. was the largest exporter of critical
minerals up until the 1990's when international markets
shifted. And that was actually a global market phenomenon. It
had to do with the international value of these minerals and
the fact that other countries were outcompeting the United
States, and so domestic mines shut down. You cannot just flip a
switch and turn domestic mining back on.
So, we can do responsible sourcing in the United States in
places that are suitable that are not in frontline communities,
and that is exactly what the Department of Interior is
proposing to do, and the Biden Administration is proposing to
do.
I also find it deeply problematic that we hear these
political arguments over and over again about certain mines in
certain places and certain places in the world where there is
substandard labor and environmental practices. Yes, absolutely.
And the United States has a fundamental responsibility in the
international community to address and push for international
standards in labor and the environment. However, critical
minerals are not just one mineral. We are talking about dozens
of different minerals. And for anyone that understands anything
about geology, you cannot just open a mine in the United States
and mine every single critical mineral. We are going to have to
source these minerals from all over the planet because that is
where the geology is, folks. So, you have got to follow the
science here.
But what I really enjoyed in your guys' testimony this
afternoon is the solutions that you brought to the table. And I
know, Mr. Chairman, I am out of time for myself, but I wonder
if we could just take a couple of minutes here and go back to
some of the solutions that were put on the table here.
We are talking about, for DoD, stockpiling, investments,
acquisition. For DOE, they are talking about diversifying and
expanding the supply chain, developing new materials so we do
not have to use these materials that we are having trouble
sourcing, designing new and efficient ways of manufacturing,
reusing and recycling, developing and pushing for better labor
and environmental standards.
And I think in the context of the places where we do
identify appropriate mining activities in the United States,
ensuring that we do consultation with our communities, that we
ensure that those frontline communities are not left at risk or
that we are violating cultural resources or historic places and
that we are not siting them in environmentally sensitive----
Mr. Fallon. The gentlelady has 30 more seconds because we
went over about 120. So, 30 more seconds.
Go ahead.
Ms. Stansbury. So, you know, I would love, Mr. Chairman, if
we could just hear from our panel of witnesses, rapid fire,
maybe 10 seconds each. What do you think is the most impactful
thing that Congress can do to help support the strategy and
help get the United States in a place where we are in a good
position on critical minerals?
We will start with Dr. Feldgus and go down as quick as you
can.
Mr. Feldgus. I would say reform the Mining Law of 1872 and
create a funding source to address abandoned hard rock mines.
Ms. Stansbury. Excellent.
Ms. Munilla. Provide more support and resourcing for
innovation and, in particular, our development of brownfield
sites, unconventional resources, tailings. There is a lot of
minerals to be mined out of what is already there; at the same
time, remediating sites that need to be remediated. There is a
lot there.
Ms. Stansbury. Excellent.
Ms. Najieb-Locke. Fully supporting the President's budget
request for the National Defense Stockpile, as well as the
Defense Production Act and IBAs accounts, so that we are able
to execute our 5-year investment strategy to comprehensively
secure mine-to-magnet rare earth supply chains in the United
States.
Mr. Fallon. Thank you very much.
The gentlelady's time has expired.
The Chair now recognizes our friend from New York, Mr.
Langworthy.
Mr. Langworthy. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
And I have the honor of representing New York's 23rd
congressional District not only on the Oversight Committee but
also on the House Agriculture Committee. And as a member of the
House Agriculture Committee, I am proud to be a cosponsor of
H.R. 4059 that would add two of the main elements in
fertilizer, phosphate and potash, to the U.S. Geological
Survey's critical minerals list to secure our domestic supply
of fertilizer.
Dr. Feldgus, I understand that the Interior Department
relies on a three-part test to determine whether to designate a
critical mineral. That test is basically composed of national
security, supply chain vulnerability, and essential function
criteria. Is that correct?
Mr. Feldgus. That is my understanding, yes.
Mr. Langworthy. OK. Now, looking at phosphate and potash,
they seem to fit these criteria. And I think all of our Members
and witnesses would agree both minerals are vital for America's
food security, both serve as an essential function in
manufacturing fertilizer and, if disrupted, would have
significant consequences on America's food supply. Yet our
agriculture producers live in a world where we are almost 50
percent of the global potash supply has been disrupted by war
in Russia and Israel and almost one-third of the global
phosphate supply is controlled by the Chinese.
Dr. Feldgus, would you agree that both phosphate and potash
fall under the definition of a critical mineral and agree to
work with Members of Congress to support our farmers and food
security?
Mr. Feldgus. I certainly think those minerals are
essential, very important. When we talk about the definition of
critical, we are really talking about meeting a certain
threshold established by the U.S. Geological Survey according
to their methodology that you described.
So, using that methodology, those do not currently qualify
as so-called critical, but that is not to diminish the
importance of those minerals for, as you said, food security
and economic security.
Mr. Langworthy. Very well. Thank you.
I would like to use the rest of my time to address the
issue of slow permitting. And it is no secret that China
currently dominates the global critical mineral market, leading
production in 30 of the 50 minerals on our critical minerals
list. China is aggressively seeking upstream reserves in
foreign countries like Indonesia, the Democratic Republic of
the Congo, while we are wasting serious opportunities to take
advantage of our own domestic mineral reserves. Yet the
Administration, beholden to radical environmental groups, they
have stifled any chance at overcoming these permitting delays.
And Democrats in Congress have stood in the way of the House
Republicans' serious attempts to make long overdue reforms to
the permitting system.
This obstruction and the kowtowing to the radical groups
has threatened not just America's energy security but our food
security as well, as we have seen in delays in permitting for
mines to extract domestic components of America's fertilizer.
Dr. Feldgus, the bottom line is this: Permitting mineral
mining currently takes an average of 7 to 10 years in the
United States. What is your agency doing to speed up this
process?
Mr. Feldgus. Well, thank you for the question. The first
thing I will say is, according to the data that we have from
the Bureau of Land Management, it takes considerably less than
7 to 10 years. The average time to do an environmental impact
statement for a major mine in the U.S. is approximately 3
years. Now, that is not all of the permits that a mine might
need. Certainly, for the Department of the Interior's
component, it is approximately 3 years, and we are working to
bring that down.
We are trying to take the process that our office in Nevada
uses and move that nationwide. They have a very good step-by-
step process that has been proven very effective. We recently
just permitted a vanadium mine, which is a critical mineral,
and there is a mine in Nevada that went from the notice of
intent to record of decision in roughly 3 years.
So, again, we think that in Nevada we have shown that, you
know, we can do things very efficiently, very effectively, and
we are hoping to do that in other places as well.
Mr. Langworthy. Very well. Would you agree that increasing
domestic mineral production would strengthen national security,
create good-paying jobs, and decrease mineral costs for various
technology and projects?
Mr. Feldgus. Absolutely.
Mr. Langworthy. Now, I will believe it when I see it. The
actions of this Administration speak louder than the words of
the reassurance that you have given.
Reports from the National Mining Association show that
mining projects for these critical minerals lose over one-third
of their value because of the significant delays during the
permitting process. Meanwhile, in Canada and Australia, both
countries, they have similar levels of environmental
protections as the United States. I do not think either country
could be accused of being, you know, on the big polluters list.
It only takes an average of 2 to 3 years and very little
investment, if any, is lost.
Could decreasing the permitting timeline even further help
make U.S. production more attractive to investors, in your
opinion?
Mr. Feldgus. Well, I will just say, first of all, that
according to the Mining Association of Canada, it takes 10 to
15 years to permit a mine in Canada. So, the 2-to-3-year
statistic, I am not sure how accurate that is. But certainly,
we are looking for ways to make mining more attractive in the
United States to investors.
Mr. Langworthy. Well, this is not a matter of ensuring our
environment is protected. This is a matter of an Administration
and regulatory apparatus that is entirely beholden to the whims
of radical environmental groups that they do not have the best
interests in the American people in mind.
I remain deeply concerned with the inertia and the
permitting process and the impact that we will continue to have
on our national security, including our food security. And I am
disturbed by the lack of concern that I see from this
Administration.
And I yield back.
Mr. Fallon. Thank you.
The Chair now recognizes Ms. Brown from Ohio.
Ms. Brown. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Strengthening every aspect of our supply chain, from
critical minerals and defense materials to pharmaceuticals, is
a top priority to me, my district in northeast Ohio, and the
Biden-Harris Administration.
We all saw how the COVID-19 pandemic revealed weaknesses
and blind spots in our domestic and global supply chains,
leading to shortages of goods like medical supplies, empty
shelves at grocery stores, and extended wait times for online
shipments.
In addition to higher prices for families at the checkout
counter, in my district, a hub of innovation and manufacturing,
many businesses face rising input costs as a result of supply
chain disruption, resulting in inflation. Although inflation
has steadily receded, it is more important than ever to secure,
strengthen, and supercharge our supply chain capabilities to
grow the economy and reduce reliance on foreign suppliers.
In the 117th Congress, congressional Democrats and the
Biden-Harris Administration made tremendous strides to address
vulnerabilities in our supply chains, including the critical
minerals supply chain. The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law,
Inflation Reduction Act, and CHIPS and Science Act all made
unprecedented investments in the infrastructure and technology
necessary to expand resilience in our domestic mineral supply
chains and support American production, which is why earlier
this year I introduced legislation to establish a nonpartisan
commission to study critical supply chains and provide vital
recommendations on ways we can improve even further upon these
achievements and prepare for inevitable disruptions.
And I would be remiss if I did not note how pleased I am to
see the Biden-Harris Administration establish the White House
Council on Supply Chain Resilience this week. This council's
expert review of supply chains will be instrumental in
reinforcing the President's modern effective strategy to
mitigate the impacts of supply chain disruptions on the
American people, our businesses, and the economy.
I applaud President Biden for taking this comprehensive
action which will help lower prices, boost our national
security, and keep key goods on the shelves and in our medicine
cabinets.
Ms. Najieb-Locke, how would the efforts of this Biden-
Harris Supply Chain Council and other efforts like the defense
supply chain management and risk management lead to a secure
and resilient critical mineral supply chain?
Ms. Najieb-Locke. Thank you, Congresswoman. I truly
appreciate the Council because what it will allow us to do is
to continue the work identified in, for the Defense Department,
the critical supply chains that are most at risk and vulnerable
to disruption. Those supply chains include energy storage and
batteries, microelectronics, kinetic capabilities, castings and
forgings, and rare earth critical minerals.
And as an underpinning of that, I have what is not to be
confused with, of course, our DLA list for the Defense
Department for the NDS; that is, the authoritative list. But we
have overlaid the periodic table and color-coded it by these
five areas of strategic risk so you can see the raw material
that is necessary for all of these sectors. The Supply Chain
Council will allow us to continue the work in buying down the
risk in each of these five sectors and starting with the
critical minerals and strategic materials supply chain to
ensure that we are able to defend the Nation if called upon.
Ms. Brown. Excellent. Thank you.
To reiterate, strengthening the U.S. mineral supply chain
through domestic production will improve economic security,
create jobs, and lower costs for families. In fact, the
Environmental Defense Fund found the investments in electric
vehicles, their components, and lithium-ion batteries led to
the creation of 180,000 U.S. jobs in the last 8 years.
So, Ms. Munilla, how will this sort of supply chain
investment we are seeing from Democrats in Congress and the
Biden-Harris Administration continue to grow our economy?
Ms. Munilla. Well, certainly as we have discussed, you
know, critical minerals and materials are crucial to the way
Americans live their daily lives. They are obviously critical
for our energy applications, and we need them for our strategy
to meet our global climate goals and our national climate
goals, but we also use them in our phones, our TVs, headsets,
anything that has a magnet in it, and we must remain
competitive, including, in particular, in strategic industries
like aerospace, medicine, and defense.
And as you have mentioned, we have seen over the pandemic
the risks that these supply chain chokepoints can create for
our economy, and the market has already moved in response to
that, and demand for the minerals will only grow.
And the side benefit of us stepping into this space is that
it creates jobs. Companies are on the sidelines waiting for us
to send the public investment signals that they can match with
private investment and create American jobs.
Mr. Fallon. The gentlelady's time has expired.
Ms. Brown. You----
Mr. Fallon. Well, you have got 20 more seconds, because one
of our----
Ms. Brown. Thank you very much.
Mr. Fallon. Twenty seconds.
Ms. Brown. Congressional Democrats and the Biden-Harris
Administration remain committed to improving national security
and boosting economic prosperity through enhanced supply chains
for critical minerals.
And with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Fallon. That was like 18 seconds. Well done.
All right. The Chair now recognizes the Chair of the
Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources of the House
Committee on Natural Resources, our good friend from Minnesota,
Mr. Stauber.
Mr. Stauber. Thank you, Chairman Fallon. I appreciate this
opportunity to be waived on the Subcommittee.
It is abundantly clear that critical minerals will be the
most important global commodity of the 21st century. Just like
we saw with oil during the 20th century, the countries who
control global supply chains for critical minerals will have
incredible leverage over the rest of the world.
Today, China has that control and, thus, the leverage and
power that comes with it. Without action from the United
States, China is set to have the same leverage and power over
us that OPEC nations had during the height of the oil crisis in
the 1970's. But it does not have to be this way.
The United States is blessed with incredible natural
resources, including incredible mineral wealth. The United
States has the opportunity to not only be critical mineral
independent but critical mineral dominant as well. We just need
the political will to do so.
Dr. Feldgus, it is great to see you twice in 2 days, and I
appreciate you showing up today.
Dr. Feldgus, where is the largest copper-nickel find
located in the world today?
Mr. Feldgus. I do not know if I have that statistic at my
fingertips.
Mr. Stauber. It is the Duluth Complex located in
northeastern Minnesota. It is the biggest copper-nickel find in
the world. Ninety-five percent of the nickel is there on
reserve, 88 percent of the cobalt, over a third of the copper
and other platinum group metals that your Administration
removed the leases from. Your Administration took leases that
were held for almost 60 years, pulled it for political
purposes. Would not even let an EIS go forward, Dr. Feldgus,
which is the highest scrutiny the Federal Government gives any
project. Would not even let an EIS go forward. The biggest
copper-nickel find in the world is the Duluth Complex located
in northeastern Minnesota.
Dr. Feldgus, what actions has the Biden Administration
taken to promote mining and develop critical mineral supply
chains in northern Minnesota?
Mr. Feldgus. Well, we recently completed a report from our
interagency working group on mining reform, although that was
mainly----
Mr. Stauber. I am going to cut you off. The answer is zero.
What actions has the Biden Administration taken to promote
mining and develop critical mineral supply chains in northern
Minnesota? The answer is zero.
And, Dr. Feldgus, I just want you to know that we mine the
taconite that makes over 82 percent of America's domestic
steel. We helped win World War II. And the cleanest water in
Minnesota is in the heart of mining country.
Quite frankly, this Administration has done nothing to
promote domestic mining and has actually taken action to shut
down our domestic mining industry and increase our reliance on
China. In fact, the Department of the Interior, the department
you are here to represent, instituted a mineral withdrawal in
the Superior National Forest and canceled the leases for Twin
Metals project, a project that would have supplied copper,
nickel, cobalt, and other important platinum group metals that
had a project labor agreement in place. And political
appointees at the White House earlier this year strong-armed
career officials at the EPA and Army Corps of Engineers to
throw out a Clean Water Act permit for the NewRange Copper
Nickel project also in northern Minnesota. These actions
indicate to me this Administration would rather rely on China
for these minerals.
Ms. Najieb-Locke, what would happen to U.S. military
readiness if China were to cutoff access to critical minerals
tomorrow?
Ms. Najieb-Locke. Readiness would be endangered, but we
would nonetheless be able to respond from our stockpiles.
Mr. Stauber. What was the first part of your answer?
Ms. Najieb-Locke. Readiness would be endangered if we lose
access to supplies.
Mr. Stauber. Did everybody hear that? Readiness from the
United States would be in danger. And this Administration still
wants to allow China and the Congo to develop these, where they
use child slave labor. They have no environmental or labor
regulations.
It is unbelievable that this Administration would allow
China to control our critical minerals and our destiny when I
have workers in northeastern Minnesota ready, able, and willing
to mine these critical minerals.
Ten years ago, when I toured the Lockheed plant in--or a
couple--years ago when I toured Lockheed in Fort Worth, Texas,
I asked the same question: If China stops selling you the
minerals, what would happen? That F-35, F-16 line would stop.
This Administration is going in the wrong direction. We
must domestically mine these minerals, otherwise we are going
to be in trouble. COVID has taught us so much. We cannot be
reliant on foreign adversarial nations, and this Biden
Administration is derelict in allowing domestic mining to
happen.
And you talk about EVs. In northern Minnesota, shelf life
on a battery is 50 percent when it is cold.
I yield back.
Mr. Fallon. The Chair now recognizes Ms. Bush, the Ranking
Member, for her closing statement.
Ms. Bush. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
St. Louis and I are here today because the climate crisis
is urgent, and the time to transition to clean energy, that
time is now. Yes, of course, in order to catalyze the U.S.
transition to clean energy, we must bolster our domestic supply
chains, so they remain secure, so that they remain resilient,
but not at the expense of our most vulnerable communities and
not without safeguards that protect people from the human
rights abuses perpetuated by extractive industries abroad. We
cannot simply transfer extraction from abroad to the U.S.
without holding those responsible for abuse and violence
against frontline communities to account. Our miners and other
workers at risk deserve to work with safety regulations and
labor protections in place. Respect for human rights must come
first before our need for these minerals.
As we transition to clean energy, my priority will always
be people-centered.
I agree with what Ms. Munilla said, communities must be a
part of any project that is rolled out. They must be consulted
and must benefit most from our green--new green energy economy.
What we need most in this country is a Green New Deal.
Again, my Green New Deal for Cities Act will fund local, state,
tribal, and territorial governments to do a broad array of
climate and environmental justice projects, creating hundreds
of thousands of union jobs in the process. And my bill includes
a minimum 50 percent investments in both frontline communities
and climate mitigation.
Mr. Chairman, I also want to thank you and say that I
appreciate your comments on building common ground, and I look
forward to building a bipartisan approach going forward.
And I would also like to remind you of my request for a
field hearing in St. Louis on the devastating legacy of the
Manhattan project in my community.
Thank you. And I yield back.
Mr. Fallon. Thank you.
In closing, we have heard that critical minerals provide
the United States with economic and national security, which we
would all agree are two essential pillars of our sovereignty.
As I stated in my opening testimony, these minerals are the
building blocks for our society moving forward.
The DoD witness stated in her written testimony that,
quote, ``Recent disruptions and adversarial actions have
underscored what we have long recognized: That it is more
urgent than ever to build capability and resilience in the
supply chains for critical minerals and other key sectors of
our national defense base. The United States does not get
dissuaded by the complex challenges we face. As we have
throughout our history, we will rise to meet any and all
threats to the Nation.''
And we have to do that. And it has to be bipartisan, or we
are not going to be here, we are not going to have a thriving
republic.
The ability--the availability, rather, of these minerals is
a threat compounded by the control our adversaries exert over
their supply chains. Now, editorial note: China is very clever.
It is an authoritarian regime that lacks legitimacy that their
people have not given them. They rule by the barrel of a gun,
but they do have some rather clever/sinister plans where they
knew they were not going to be able to compete with the
Americans in the West vis-`-vis combustion engine vehicles. So,
what was the future? OK. EVs. And what drives them? Well, these
critical and rare minerals.
And that is why I think that they have--and they have done
one hell of a job when you consider that 60, 90, and 75
percent, that is dominance right now. And so, with the United
States, you know, when we export control of our critical
mineral supply chain, we are exporting control of our economic
and our national security.
As one witness, Julie Lucas from MiningMinnesota, said in a
September hearing before the full Oversight Committee--I want
to quote her--quote, ``Too often we watch in frustration as our
Nation looks overseas for minerals Minnesota could provide. If
our Nation is going to drive the unprecedented demand for these
minerals, we must be responsible for our own consumption.''
I think you just heard a rather impassioned--and from
someone that knows this material very well, our colleague from
Minnesota, that we heard a lot of things from our witnesses
today that we would agree with. But is it actually happening?
Is this just theory or is this practice? Because we found there
with the Twin Metals project and others it did not seem like
the rhetoric was matching the actions.
So, it cannot be solved through governmental mandates
alone. I will always be someone that trusts the free markets
far more than I will ever trust the Federal Government. And
market-based solutions work for a variety of reasons.
I agree with the Ranking Member that we do need to do all
we can to strengthen our domestic mining industry, and we do
have common ground on that because I think that when you look
at it objectively, it makes perfect sense moving forward.
We need an all-of-the-above approach in the economy of the
future. And, you know, one of my colleagues did make mention of
the--this is the small font--the U.S.-based mining where
projects lose one-third of their value as a result of delays
during the permitting process. So that does not make a lot of
sense. I do not think that is a good use of taxpayer money if
we are going to subsidize this, and we have to get down to
brass tacks and understand that.
Now, we did hear the President of the United States say in
his State of the Union Address that we, quote, ``may need
fossil fuels for another 10 years.'' That was--I took a note of
that, and my eyes were a little bit widened when he said that.
We will see where we are in 2033. I do not foresee a technology
that is going to replace combustion engines anytime soon. Would
welcome it, though. You know, if it is going to be greener,
that is great.
We consume a hundred million barrels of oil a day in the
world. And when the Department of Energy--the Secretary of
Energy was asked that question, she did not know the answer to
that. I think that is Basic 101. The all-above approach is more
reasonable.
I will give you another example. Talking to stakeholders,
Toyota. They were saying that they could build 90 hybrid cars
using critical materials that it would take to build one EV. I
think that is a realistic solution for right now, not just EVs,
but hybrids, market-driven solutions, not something that is
regulated and bureaucratically mandated.
Also, when you talk to a lot of folks that are subject
matter experts on energy needs, nuclear energy, even folks that
are from the left and that have been really honest about where
we are and where we are going, nuclear needs to be an option
moving forward, smarter and cleaner uses of the fossil fuels
that we use. And then looking at the impact of some of these
rather, I think, aggressive and unrealistic mandates from, let
us say, the state of California, where I believe in 2035, all
new cars needs to be EVs. They cannot be combustion engines
anymore. I think that that is not going to really happen. But,
again, we will see.
Because what impact is that going to have on the grid? And
these materials, are we going to be able to grow our
manufacturing base? Because we are talking about dramatic
changes here. Let us be really honest here, when we are talking
about 40--I said 40 times, you said 4,000, same thing, right.
That is a dramatic increase. And, wow, we have got to have kind
of an all hands on deck on that stuff.
So really--and then, of course, mining, refining,
processing, and manufacturing, China is doing one heck of a job
right now and for, I think, nefarious intent. And so, we really
need to get focused, and we need to get unified moving forward.
So again, I want to thank the witnesses. I would really
appreciate it if Department of Interior could have, while you
did a great job and we love you being here, the witness that we
actually request. Because we need to stand firm as a
legislative branch because this is going to happen--you know,
depending on who--regardless of who is in--if we have divided
government, this could happen to a Democratic majority with a
Republican President. We should not see that. We should see
when Congress requests a witness, they should show up,
particularly when you have 69,990 other people that can hold
down the fort.
So, anyway, thank you very much. I appreciate it.
In closing, again, I want to thank the witnesses. I know--
let us see here. Oh, right here.
With that and without objection, all Members have 5
legislative days within which to submit materials and
additional written questions for the witnesses which will be
forwarded to them.
If there is no further business and, without objection, the
Subcommittee stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 3:37 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
[all]