[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]