    [Senate Hearing 118-309]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                                                            S. Hrg. 118-309

     OPPORTUNITIES TO COUNTER THE PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA'S CONTROL OF
    CRITICAL MINERAL SUPPLY CHAINS THROUGH INCREASED MINING AND PROCESSING
       IN THE UNITED STATES AS WELL AS INTERNATIONAL ENGAGEMENT AND TRADE

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

                                    HEARING

                                   BEFORE THE

                                  COMMITTEE ON
                          ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
                              UNITED STATES SENATE

                        ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION

                                   __________

                               SEPTEMBER 28, 2023

                                   __________

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

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

                                       ______

    	             U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
       55-812                       WASHINGTON : 2025

                   COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES

                    JOE MANCHIN III, West Virginia, Chairman
    RON WYDEN, Oregon                    JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming
    MARIA CANTWELL, Washington           JAMES E. RISCH, Idaho
    BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont             MIKE LEE, Utah
    MARTIN HEINRICH, New Mexico          STEVE DAINES, Montana
    MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii              LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska
    ANGUS S. KING, JR., Maine            JOHN HOEVEN, North Dakota
    CATHERINE CORTEZ MASTO, Nevada       BILL CASSIDY, Louisiana
    MARK KELLY, Arizona                  CINDY HYDE-SMITH, Mississippi
    JOHN W. HICKENLOOPER, Colorado       JOSH HAWLEY, Missouri

                           Renae Black, Staff Director
                          Sam E. Fowler, Chief Counsel
                    Peter Stahley,  Professional Staff Member
                    Zahava Urecki,  Professional Staff Member
                  Richard M. Russell, Republican Staff Director
                   Justin J. Memmott, Republican Chief Counsel
               Valerie Manak, Republican Professional Staff Member
                                C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------

                               OPENING STATEMENTS

                                                                       Page
    Manchin III, Hon. Joe, Chairman and a U.S. Senator from West
      Virginia.......................................................     1
    Barrasso, Hon. John, Ranking Member and a U.S. Senator from
      Wyoming........................................................     9

                                   WITNESSES

    Beaudreau, Hon. Tommy P., Deputy Secretary, U.S. Department of
      the Interior...................................................    12
    Yergin, Dr. Daniel, Vice Chairman, S&P Global....................    19
    Compton, Mark, Executive Director, American Exploration and
      Mining Association.............................................    32

              ALPHABETICAL LISTING AND APPENDIX MATERIAL SUBMITTED

    American Critical Minerals Association:
        Letter for the Record........................................    93
    Barrasso, Hon. John:
        Opening Statement............................................     9
        Chart listing top countries in lithium production, reserves,
          and resources..............................................    11
    Beaudreau, Hon. Tommy P.:
        Opening Statement............................................    12
        Written Testimony............................................    15
        Responses to Questions for the Record........................   109
    Compton, Mark:
        Opening Statement............................................    32
        Written Testimony............................................    34
        Responses to Questions for the Record........................   127
    Daines, Hon. Steve:
        USGS graph depicting U.S. mineral import reliance............    89
    King, Jr., Hon. Angus S.:
        Mother Jones Article entitled ``Yes in Our Backyards'' by
          Bill McKibben, published May-June 2023.....................    68
    Manchin III, Hon. Joe:
        Opening Statement............................................     1
        Chart entitled ``Global Share of Mining/Processing: 2023.....     3
        Chart depicting sourcing requirements for extraction and
          processing of critical minerals under the Inflation
          Reduction Act..............................................     5
    National Mining Association:
        Statement for the Record.....................................    96
    Sourcemap:
        Letter for the Record........................................   148
    Yergin, Dr. Daniel:
        Opening Statement............................................    19
        Written Testimony............................................    21
        Responses to Questions for the Record........................   126

     OPPORTUNITIES TO COUNTER THE PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA'S CONTROL OF
    CRITICAL MINERAL SUPPLY CHAINS THROUGH INCREASED MINING AND PROCESSING
       IN THE UNITED STATES AS WELL AS INTERNATIONAL ENGAGEMENT AND TRADE

                                  ----------

                          THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 28, 2023

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

              OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOE MANCHIN III,
                    U.S. SENATOR FROM WEST VIRGINIA

        The Chairman. We are here today to continue the Committee's
    work securing our critical mineral supply chains and countering
    the People's Republic of China's control over so many of the
    materials which have become essential to our modern lives. Just
    after the passage of the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law and on
    the heels of Putin's invasion of Ukraine, this Committee held a
    series of hearings on critical minerals in early 2022. We
    recognize the growing risk of our country's reliance for
    minerals on nations who do not share our values. Just like
    Putin weaponized Russia's oil and gas resources to try to scare
    off Europe from supporting Ukraine, Xi Jinping and the Chinese
    Communist Party are more than willing to use critical minerals
    as leverage to put Americans and the free world at risk. In
    fact, China is already doing so.
        Just last month, Xi Jinping's government announced export
    restrictions on gallium and germanium, two critical minerals
    that are needed for semiconductor fabrication. This is just a
    small preview of what could come in the future. And some of the
    decisions that the Administration has been making seem to be
    increasing our risk instead of reducing it. That is why it is
    so important that Congress has made progress to strengthen
    supply chains and onshore vital manufacturing, including
    through the Inflation Reduction Act, the Bipartisan
    Infrastructure Law, CHIPS and Science, and the National Defense
    Authorization Acts. However, our work is still not done.
        I want to thank my dear friend Dan Yergin, who I am
    grateful to have testifying before us today. He will help us
    better understand how the global landscape for critical
    minerals has changed in the wake of those legislative efforts.
    Dr. Yergin and his team have done extensive study of the supply
    and demand outlook for copper, lithium, cobalt, and nickel,
    including a focus on opportunities to produce these resources
    domestically as well as with our free trade partners. It will
    come as no surprise that I want to discuss our best options to
    pivot away from China, particularly when it comes to electric
    vehicle supply chain. Let me be clear--I fully support
    realistic and responsible approaches to reducing emissions in
    the transportation sector, and EVs are an important part of
    that equation, but so long as China and other countries that
    don't share our values control the supply of critical minerals
    required for EVs, I will strongly oppose moving too quickly
    toward an EV-dominated future.
        Thanks to innovation and investment in our domestic oil
    industry over the last two decades, there is no longer a risk
    that foreign adversaries could force us to ration gasoline like
    we saw in the 1970s. We must deploy the same innovative spirit
    and entrepreneurship to ensure that no American has to wait in
    line for the rationing of Chinese batteries. The chart behind
    me shows just how dire the threat is.
        [The chart referred to follows:]

        The Chairman. When it comes to the EV battery supply chain,
    depending on the mineral, China and Chinese-controlled entities
    and countries, like Indonesia, process anywhere from 60 to 100
    percent of all the minerals needed for batteries in electric
    motors. And their dominance is not just in minerals, it is also
    in battery manufacturing. China is responsible for 74 percent
    of the world's cathode production, 92 percent of anode
    production, and 76 percent of lithium-ion battery cell
    production. They simply have cornered the market.
        With numbers like these, it is frustrating that the
    Administration continues to try to water down the sourcing
    requirements for EV batteries clearly stated--and I say clearly
    stated because we wrote it out in the IRA. This is what the
    Administration is administering to try to get more out quicker
    and be more dependent on China than we already are.
        [The Chairman refers to a second chart, which follows:]
        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5812.106

        The Chairman. They are reducing--in 2023, the bill stated
    you had to have 40 percent--40 percent--from the U.S. or free
    trade countries. They cut that down to 20, in half. Again, in
    2024, it goes to 50. They kept that at 20. 2025--60. They kept
    that at 30. 2026--cut it in half, from 70 to 35. You can see
    the trend. This is what you hear me complain about all the
    time.
        They are trying to administer a piece of legislation they
    never passed. And I am just waiting for them to get out of the
    interim. They are on the interim as far as they have not filed
    to follow the rules. They are operating under the interim right
    now because we can't sue them. As soon as they go into their
    final ruling, there will be somebody damaged. They can sue. We
    will do an amicus brief and stop this craziness. This is what I
    am dealing with. So when people say why are you upset about
    your bill--the bill is well balanced. We are producing more
    energy than ever before. We are producing more energy in this
    country than ever before. And we can do the same with minerals
    that we have that we have not even touched yet.
        So with numbers like these, it is frustrating that the
    Administration continues to try to water down the sourcing
    requirements for EV batteries clearly stated in the IRA.
    Through guidance, the Administration is attempting to cut the
    critical mineral sourcing percentage requirements in half, as
    we just showed you, pretending battery component manufacturing
    is the same as critical minerals processing and proposing fake
    ``free trade agreements'' that circumvent the law. And the
    Administration still has not published the ``Foreign Entity of
    Concern'' guidance required in the IRA to prevent bad actors
    from receiving taxpayer dollars. The chart, as we said, a stark
    difference behind me was between the strong critical mineral
    sourcing requirements explicitly spelled out in Section 13401
    of the IRA and Treasury's attempt to lower the bar through
    guidance. As you can see, Treasury is effectively cutting the
    requirements in half, making it harder to secure the supply
    chain here at home and with our partners.
        The Administration appears to care more about getting EVs
    on the road than our energy security and competition with
    China. With so many of our mineral resources on federal lands,
    I appreciate Deputy Secretary Beaudreau joining us to discuss
    the Interior Department's role as part of the solution. While
    Congress has given the Administration tools to secure our
    supply chain in recent legislation, I am incredibly frustrated
    that the bipartisan demand for urgency seems to be going
    unheard. Benchmark Mineral Intelligence estimates that at least
    336 new mines are needed for graphite, lithium, nickel, and
    cobalt to meet EV demands prior to 2035. However, an
    insufficient number of new mines are currently in development
    to meet that demand, while those projects that are under
    development face long time frames and considerable risk. When
    we refuse to allow mining and processing here in a timely
    fashion, we encourage it to occur in countries with lower
    environmental and labor standards than we would permit at home.
    No one in the Administration or Congress denies this reality.
        Personally, I have been speaking to members in the Congo
    who are basically being exploited and they are desperately in
    need of changing how they do business there and China having a
    stranglehold on them. And they are willing to fight, but it is
    going to be very hard. But we have not seen any major projects
    approved by the U.S. Forest Service or the Department of the
    Interior at any point during this Administration. What we have
    seen is environmental impact statements for mineral projects
    rescinded to undergo years of additional review and
    consultation with no end in sight. Other projects, including
    one that has received Defense Production Act funding so that
    the Department of Defense can manufacture desperately needed
    ammunition, have seen their schedules slip over and over again.
    And we have heard troubling reports that Department of Energy
    grant funding is being withheld for mineral processing that
    would enable new mining while recycling projects already have
    their cash in hand.
        Not only has the Administration delayed the minerals
    projects that we need, they appear to be taking the position
    that we don't have a permitting problem at all for critical
    minerals. The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law directed the
    Department of the Interior to make critical mineral permitting
    improvements and then report back to Congress within one year
    on progress and additional recommendations. But instead of
    getting the report the law requires, the report we received
    earlier this month, ten months late, does not describe any
    concrete actions that have been taken to speed up permitting or
    establish timelines as required by the Bipartisan
    Infrastructure Law. While I do support the intent of some of
    the Administration's non-permitting recommendations--like
    reasonable reforms to the Mining Law of 1872 to ensure a fair
    return for taxpayers and addressing abandoned hardrock mines--
    none of that does anything to secure the supply chains for
    minerals or for the EV batteries that this Administration so
    desperately wants.
        It is seeming more and more like this Administration's
    strategy is focused on talking about new mining, but doing very
    little to actually permit and use resources we have beneath our
    feet. I am committed to keep working on a bipartisan basis in
    our Committee to correct this course. We must also acknowledge
    that while we can provide much of the minerals that we need
    domestically, we can't produce or process every mineral in the
    quantities that we need here in the United States or even just
    in North America. So we need to ensure that we are working with
    trusted, reliable partners when it comes to overseas mineral
    sourcing. That means looking to friends like Canada and
    Australia, free trade partners, and our NATO allies to help us
    secure our mineral supply chains. But it does not mean ignoring
    our democratic values, labor standards, or environmental
    priorities to buy from anyone willing to sell us minerals or
    batteries.
        In closing, if we don't address our dependence problem and
    look for innovative ways to onshore the critical mineral supply
    chain, it will compromise our energy security and handicap us
    in a global marketplace. Let me be very clear--the reason the
    bill was written the way it was--I didn't want to give 75 cents
    credit to EVs, to the car makers. And I think they have a good
    product. The market will go. That's where the market will take
    you. But in order to do that, we made a compromise. If we can
    develop our own supply chain, not dependent on China and areas
    of the world that we share no values with whatsoever that can
    hold them hostage, the same way that Putin has held energy as a
    hostage and a weapon, then I would be happy to work with you. I
    tried in good faith to do that. And we have a bill that we all
    passed. This law passed. It's a good piece of legislation that
    they do not wish to adhere to because it's not the time frame
    that they wanted. That is the problem I have.
        So I am going to continue to fight, and we cannot let this
    happen. And with that in mind, I can't help but take the
    opportunity with the Deputy Secretary to bring up the Inflation
    Reduction Act's oil and gas leasing provisions. I have been
    concerned about the efforts of the Administration to throttle
    back oil and gas leasing and production. So I made sure that
    that the IRA tied Interior's ability to issue wind and solar
    leases to the Department holding significant oil and gas lease
    sales both on and offshore, simply stating that you cannot go
    out and do what you want unless you do everything that we need.
    We are going to basically be able to extract the oil and gas
    that we need in the properties and basically, our BLM land and
    offshore, basically, with the Gulf and do that as we are
    basically developing the resources that we need for minerals.
    As we all know, not only are we nearing the end of the Fiscal
    Year on September 30, we are coming up on two major oil and gas
    deadlines: the release of the long-delayed five-year offshore
    leasing program and the Inflation Reduction Act's final
    mandate, Gulf of Mexico Lease Sale 261. Unfortunately, as a
    result of the Administration's own actions, they have managed
    to delay Lease Sale 261 until no later than November 8,
    according to a recent Fifth Circuit order.
        Let me review just how ridiculous this is. First, the
    Administration allowed environmental groups to hijack the
    leasing process by agreeing to a voluntary settlement related
    to the Rice's whale that bypassed Interior's normal procedure
    and set them up to lose in court. The settlement imposed new
    restrictions on oil and gas in the Gulf and would have removed
    six million acres from the lease sale. Then, when the federal
    judge determined Interior's changes to the lease sale were
    likely unlawful and ordered the sale to proceed as originally
    proposed, Interior said they did not have enough time to
    course-correct and meet the September 30 deadline set by
    Congress. Why not? Because according to Interior, they need
    more time to follow normal procedures, the same procedures that
    the Administration was willing to bypass to appease
    environmental activists in the settlement agreement. You can't
    make this crap up. You just can't. It's real.
        This is just the latest example in which this
    Administration has not gotten the message. Trying to rewrite an
    energy security law passed by Congress through Administration
    action is not a winning strategy. And they are finding out the
    hard way. And they are delaying everyone's production. I want
    everyone to know that I will support anyone who suffers damages
    as a result of this Administration failing to implement the IRA
    in alignment with the intent and the letter of this very
    balanced law because the reality is, we will get closer to
    achieving our shared goals--not Republican goals, not Democrat
    goals, but American goals--for oil and gas, for critical
    minerals, and for many other energy sources if we embrace the
    balanced approach in the IRA. As ten of my Republican
    colleagues stated in their amicus brief related to Lease Sale
    261, and I have said this: that bill that was put together--the
    IRA was done with all the consideration working with my
    partners on the Republican side and Democrat side for over five
    years. The IRA was a result of that considerable deliberation
    concerning the economic, energy, environmental, and strategic
    interests of the United States, and the IRA balances diverse,
    complex, and overlapping considerations, including growth and
    conservation, domestic needs and global positioning, and
    security and diplomacy. That was what my friends said. I could
    not agree more with my Republican friends on this and I will
    continue to do everything in my power to ensure the law is
    implemented in that manner.
        We are already on track to realize the benefits of these
    energy laws that we have recently passed. We are producing, as
    I have said before, more energy of all kinds in 2023--37
    trillion cubic feet of gas will be produced this year. Never
    before. And 4.6 billion barrels of oil from the United States.
    Never that much before. And doubling the amount of solar and
    battery projects, doubling the amount in one year. Never done
    before. If we work on a bipartisan basis to implement the all-
    of-the-above energy policy established by the IRA and the
    Infrastructure Law, then we can build even more on this
    success. So I look forward to hearing from our witnesses today
    to understand how we can find a realistic path forward without
    sacrificing our energy and national security.
        And with that, I am going to turn to the Ranking Member, my
    friend, Senator Barrasso.

               OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN BARRASSO,
                       U.S. SENATOR FROM WYOMING

        Senator Barrasso. Well, thanks so much, Mr. Chairman, for
    your very strong statement on the importance of the hearing
    today and why we are holding the hearing because, as a nation,
    I agree with you, Mr. Chairman, we are highly dependent on
    imports of critical minerals and materials. Many of the
    countries that supply these resources are adversaries and they
    clearly, as you said, don't share our values. A Biden
    Administration official went so far as to call our mineral
    dependence a ``clear and present danger.'' And he met with
    members of this Committee just last week as we sat around to
    discuss the concerns that we share. That is one of the few
    statements from this Administration that I agree with because
    the projected mineral demand is increasing in an amount that is
    well known to all of us, and it does not seem to be understood
    by the Administration.
        The world demand for copper is expected to increase by 300
    percent by 2040. The Economist, last week, had an article about
    this. It said, where you going to go for the copper? This
    Administration has shut down a copper mine in northern
    Minnesota, so where are they going to go? Well, The Economist
    pointed out in their article, well, there is this place between
    the border of Iran and Pakistan where we can go to get the
    copper when we need it. The demand is up by 300 percent.
        Nickel demand is expected to increase by 1,900 percent.
    Graphite demand expected to increase by 2,500 percent. Lithium
    demand to increase by 4,200 percent. Much of this demand has
    been generated from President Biden's policies compelling,
    mandating the use of electric vehicles, solar panels, and wind
    turbines. The United States depends on imports for the vast
    majority of the minerals used in these products. China is a top
    producer of lithium and rare-earth elements. The Democratic
    Republic of the Congo is a major producer of cobalt and copper,
    and Indonesia produces nearly half of the world's nickel. These
    nations do not share our values. China ruthlessly exploits a
    religious and ethnic minority as a source of forced labor in
    its mining industry. The Congo has tens of thousands of
    children mining cobalt. Indonesia is clear-cutting vast areas
    of its tropical rain forest to access its nickel reserves. No
    moral or ethical sacrifice, including slavery and child labor,
    seems to be too great for Joe Biden's so-called green
    transition.
        America's dependence on foreign minerals is not only
    shameful and reckless, it is unnecessary. We have more of the
    resources that we need right here at home, including copper,
    including lithium, including nickel, graphite, cobalt; yet this
    Biden Administration's bone-headed policies make it clearly
    impossible to access them. Recently, Mr. Chairman, scientists
    reported that the United States may be home to the largest
    known lithium deposit in the world. In fact, our nation's
    lithium reserves are estimated to be more than three times
    larger than China's, yet China's lithium production is 27 times
    larger than ours. You can see it on the chart.
        [The chart referred to follows:]

        Senator Barrasso. Look at these comparisons of where we get
    things from and where they exist. The two bar graphs show
    lithium production and lithium reserves listed by country. We
    are number two in terms of availability. China is number three
    in terms of production. Even compared to countries with robust
    environmental standards, we are laggards. Australia has less
    than half of our reserves, but it produces 88 times more
    lithium than we do. This is ridiculous and unacceptable.
        The Biden Administration seems gleefully intent on keeping
    us dependent on foreign minerals. It senselessly revoked leases
    for a project in Minnesota that would have produced nickel and
    cobalt for electric vehicle batteries. It carelessly revoked
    approval of a road in Alaska that was needed to develop copper.
    It recklessly delayed a land exchange necessary for a copper
    mine in Arizona. And it foolishly proposed withdrawing ten
    million acres from mineral development across six states in the
    west, including Wyoming. If it were not enough, this
    Administration recently issued recommendations that would make
    it even harder to mine on federal lands. There is an
    interagency working group that is headed by Mr. Beaudreau, and
    he is one of our witnesses today, and the working group wants
    to fundamentally change the mining claims system. It wants to
    add new fees and is proposing more authority for the
    Administration to withdraw lands from mineral production. Since
    many of our nation's mineral resources are on federal lands,
    the group's recommendations will mean less, not more, mineral
    production here in the United States and more dependence on our
    enemies.
        It is a disgrace. I have said it before. Biden's agenda is
    not a transition from fossil fuels to sunshine and wind. It is
    a transition from American energy to foreign minerals. It is a
    transition from American strength and independence to American
    weakness and dependence. We must change this reckless course
    that we are on. We have abundant minerals and abundant energy
    resources here at home. We only need an Administration with the
    courage and the common sense to use them.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Barrasso.
        First of all, I want to thank all three of our witnesses
    for being with us today. I appreciate the efforts you made to
    be here and we look forward to hearing from you.
        We have with us today the Honorable Tommy Beaudreau, Deputy
    Secretary at the Department of the Interior and Chair of the
    Interagency Working Group on Mining Laws, Regulations, and
    Permitting.
        We have Dr. Daniel Yergin, Vice President of S&P Global.
        And we have Mr. Mark Compton, Executive Director of the
    American Exploration and Mining Association.
        So now we will hear their remarks and we will start with
    the Honorable Tommy Beaudreau.

     STATEMENT OF HON. TOMMY P. BEAUDREAU, DEPUTY SECRETARY, U.S.
                       DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

        Mr. Beaudreau. Thank you very much, Chairman Manchin,
    Ranking Member Barrasso, and members of the Committee. Thanks
    for the opportunity to provide testimony today on the
    Administration's commitment to updating our mining policies and
    promoting sustainable and responsible domestic production of
    critical minerals. In addition to serving as the Deputy
    Secretary at the Interior Department, which oversees hardrock
    mining on public lands, I am the co-chair of the Interagency
    Working Group on Mining Laws, Regulation, and Permitting. In
    many ways, today's hearing mirrors a conversation that Dr.
    Yergin and I had in Houston earlier this year at the IHS CERA
    conference, which was appropriately titled, ``Big Shovels:
    Supplying the Minerals for the Energy Future.'' It is a
    pleasure to be with you again today, Dr. Yergin. It is also a
    pleasure to join Mr. Compton from the American Exploration and
    Mining Association. Leadership from the mining industry is
    going to be essential to this effort.
        Earlier this month, the working group released its final
    report, which includes more than 60 specific recommendations to
    improve and accelerate the way we site, permit, oversee, and
    reclaim mines on public lands in the United States. This report
    is the product of President Biden's direction under Executive
    Order 14017 regarding securing America's supply chains and the
    Bipartisan Infrastructure Law. The reasons for the President's
    and Congress's focus on mining reform are clear. Reliable and
    responsible sources for critical minerals, including lithium,
    cobalt, nickel, and graphite are essential to the clean energy
    and technology revolutions that are shaping our future for the
    better. This working group's effort kicked off in May of last
    year with an unprecedented roundtable at the White House that,
    for the first time, brought together communities, including the
    mining industry, local governments, tribes, labor, federal and
    state partners, academics, and environmental advocates to have
    a serious conversation about how to meet our needs for these
    critical minerals while respecting local communities and
    keeping our lands and waters clean and safe.
        After hearing all of these viewpoints and receiving nearly
    27,000 written comments from the public, the working group
    identified key changes that will help mine permitting become
    more efficient and improve our ability to produce our own
    domestic resources while better engaging and protecting
    communities impacted by potential mines, especially tribes and
    rural communities. The biggest takeaway from the report is that
    our 150-year-old law, signed into law by President Grant for
    accessing minerals on public lands, needs to be reformed to
    meet the urgency and standards of the 21st century. I am not
    saying we need to rewrite the American mineral laws every
    century, but maybe every other century we should take a hard
    look at whether these laws are providing the tools we need to
    meet today's national security and economic imperatives for
    critical minerals. The 1872 Mining Law clearly does not do
    that.
        If we are to seize the opportunities for domestic sourcing
    of critical minerals, we need to employ the same tools that
    have been so successful in standing up thousands of megawatts
    of renewable energy on public lands and offshore. This includes
    leasing programs that target resources while reducing conflicts
    with local communities, wildlife habitat, and essential water
    resources. Moreover, unlike companies that develop energy
    minerals like oil, gas, and coal from public lands, companies
    that mine for hardrock minerals pay no royalties to the
    American taxpayer. This is one of the reasons we do not have
    the funding necessary to address the estimated 500,000
    abandoned hardrock mine sites that create safety hazards and
    pollute the land and water throughout the country. Recall the
    Gold King Mine incident that turned the Animas River in
    Colorado orange in 2015. Moreover, important to addressing the
    prolonged permitting process in this country is the recognition
    that there is no way to incentivize companies to use their
    existing mining claims. It is common for speculators to stake
    claims and sit on them for decades with no intention of ever
    producing the minerals.
        The second biggest takeaway from the report is that the way
    the government and mining companies engage tribes and
    communities is often too little and too late. Mining companies
    may spend years and millions of dollars planning for a mine
    before the public is given details about the proposal and an
    opportunity to weigh in. This is a recipe for local opposition,
    lawsuits, and protracted permitting delays. Despite the need
    for legislative reform, which we will work with Congress on, we
    are taking on significant reforms through the Bureau of Land
    Management as we speak. I look forward to discussing those
    reforms and answering the Committee's questions.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Beaudreau follows:]

        The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Beaudreau.
        And now we have Dr. Yergin.

                    STATEMENT OF DR. DANIEL YERGIN,
                       VICE CHAIRMAN, S&P GLOBAL

        Dr. Yergin. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member, members of the
    Committee, it is an honor to be here to have a chance to talk
    with you about these urgent questions of minerals, which you
    have been discussing since 2021. As Deputy Secretary Beaudreau
    said, we are moving from that term that headline writers like,
    ``Big Oil,'' to ``Big Shovels,'' which means a lot more mining.
    And I was thinking, since you had your original hearings on
    minerals, there have been a number of alarming messages from
    international organizations and from governments, including the
    U.S. Government, about the need and the urgency of minerals.
    The IMF, for instance, has warned that the pursuit of net-zero
    emissions will ``spur unprecedented demand for some of the most
    crucial metals,'' leading to ``soaring costs'' and shortages
    that could derail or delay the energy transition.
        But how much will be needed? It sometimes seems like an
    abstract question, but one way to think about it is that the
    State of California has in effect passed a regulation saying
    that every new car sold in the State of California after 2035
    will have to have two and a half times more copper than every
    car that is now sold. Now, the regulations didn't say that, but
    they said that they are going to be EVs, and EVs use two and a
    half times more copper for every single car. You can say the
    same thing with offshore wind and so forth. So at S&P Global,
    we have tried to examine what are the mineral requirements and
    have done it in our two studies that the Chairman referred to:
    ``The Future of Copper'' and then a study on the Inflation
    Reduction Act and its impact on minerals.
        We came up with this idea of energy transition demand to
    differentiate this as new consumption--consumption coming from
    EVs, on and offshore wind, solar panels, charging stations,
    battery storage. And this is different from the traditional
    demand, which is, for instance, the electric wiring in your
    houses. So our key findings are what have already been
    described by both the Chairman and the Ranking Member--we see
    copper demand, in order to meet the various goals out there,
    having to double by 2035 and other mineral demands growing by
    23 times for the United States. And securing these minerals to
    meet demand will be challenging for all the reasons--capacity,
    trade patterns, sourcing requirements, geopolitical tensions,
    and the long and complicated lead times for permitting and
    judicial reviews for developing new mines. So this will require
    an expanded international and domestic supply base and a
    realignment of trading patterns to go forward. Those were our
    numbers before the IRA. Since the IRA, we went back and looked
    at the numbers again and said that the demand for the four
    minerals that we are talking about will each increase on top of
    that big increase by another 12 to 15 percent to meet the
    demands that are laid out by the IRA.
        It is also important to recognize that other countries will
    be competing for these resources, so, at the same time, the EU,
    Japan, China, and other countries. And so this will further
    test the ability of the U.S. to get these resources. The
    Chairman talked about the concentration. I think there are two
    important parts of concentration. One is the processing that
    has already been cited and the dominance of China in those
    numbers--70 percent for nickel and cobalt, for instance. And
    then, it is production. Think about it this way as a
    comparison: Three countries produce 40 percent of crude oil--
    the United States, Saudi Arabia, and Russia. Two countries
    produce 40 percent of copper. One of them is Peru, which has
    had seven presidents in the last few years and the other is
    Chile, which is just in the process of nationalizing its
    lithium resources, which are considered, at this point, the
    largest in the world. And then, there is the matter of the
    ``obsolescing bargain,'' which is that governments, as prices
    go up, will renegotiate, drive up prices, and that will inhibit
    investment.
        I just want to say something now about permitting. We
    looked at 127 mines that began production between 2002 and
    2023, and if based upon that, if you started a new mine today,
    you would not see production until 2040. In 1956, the U.S.
    Bureau of Mines, which I believe is part of the Department of
    the Interior, said it would take three to four years to bring a
    new mine on in the United States. Today, it would take about
    five times as long to do that. And we do have significant
    untapped resources--enough copper to meet 20 years of demand
    that is untapped at this point. So much depends on what happens
    above ground in terms of permitting, in terms of regulation. So
    I think it's very clear from everything that is going on that
    the policy efforts to stoke this energy transition demand for
    minerals will be very effective, as the research shows.
    However, as you are doing with this Committee, greater
    attention needs to be paid to securing enough supply to
    undergird these demand ambitions, both domestically and
    internationally.
        Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Dr. Yergin follows:]

        The Chairman. Thank you, Doctor.
        And now we will have Mr. Compton.

        STATEMENT OF MARK COMPTON, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, AMERICAN
                   EXPLORATION AND MINING ASSOCIATION

        Mr. Compton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Manchin, Ranking Member Barrasso, members of the
    Committee, I want to start by thanking the Committee for
    highlighting mineral security issues as well as your work to
    create an environment in which the U.S. mining industry can
    succeed and safely and responsibly provide the raw materials
    our nation requires for our national defense, economic well-
    being, and energy security. Unfortunately, a lack of access to
    our mineral-rich federal lands and a lengthy, inefficient
    federal permitting system have resulted in our unsustainable
    dependence on foreign countries for nearly 50 minerals and has
    empowered our adversaries to weaponize minerals against us.
    These supply chain concerns have led to bipartisan
    acknowledgement of the need for more domestic mineral
    production. Although we may need to obtain some minerals from
    our allies, we must responsibly utilize our own resources
    whenever possible. As Dr. Yergin pointed out, the surging
    global demand for minerals means other countries will be
    competing for the same limited supplies, challenging our
    ability to obtain minerals from abroad.
        Americans and the environment lose when we offshore our
    mineral requirements. It makes no sense to create mining jobs
    elsewhere, import minerals from countries with inferior
    environmental protection and worker health and safety
    standards, and to generate the CO2 by shipping
    minerals from faraway places. Because hardrock mineral deposits
    are rare geologic phenomena, it is imperative that mineralized
    lands remain accessible to mineral exploration and development.
    Mines can only be developed in those few places where
    economically viable deposits were formed and geologists have
    discovered them. We can't choose where they are located and we
    can't move them. More than half of federal lands are already
    off limits or severely restricted to mining. Further
    restricting access to mineral resources threatens our mineral
    security and chills investment. If we cannot invest in mineral
    exploration, we cannot discover that needle in a haystack
    deposit. According to the National Academy of Sciences, only
    one in 1,000 prospects actually becomes a producing mine.
        Now, there are complex logistics of mining that cannot be
    changed. But what can be changed is putting the right policies
    in place to prevent unneeded bureaucratic hurdles to domestic
    production. And those policies include providing adequate land
    access and minimizing permitting obstacles. For the past 18
    months, we worked closely and in good faith with the Biden
    Administration's Interagency Working Group on Mining
    Regulations, Laws, and Permitting (IWG). We viewed the IWG
    process and development of its report as an opportunity to
    identify ways to eliminate some of the current barriers to
    discovery and developing minerals on public lands.
    Unfortunately, the recommendations in the IWG report related to
    the mining law will make exploration and mine development
    harder because they propose eliminating security of land tenure
    and burden future mines with a confiscatory royalty. Given the
    skyrocketing demand for minerals, now is an especially bad time
    to upend this law and implement such proposals.
        In a broader context, the IWG report, BLM's proposed
    conservation rule, along with other administrative actions,
    will ultimately place more lands off limits to mining and
    ultimately increase our dependency on China and other countries
    for minerals. We applaud the important NEPA streamline
    amendments that were in the Fiscal Responsibility Act, but
    CEQ's proposed NEPA rules will only lengthen the NEPA process
    and spawn yet more litigation. The bipartisan interest in
    further permitting reform, though, is very encouraging. And we
    look forward to future dialogue in this Committee on Chairman
    Manchin's and Ranking Member Barrasso's permitting bills and in
    the Environment and Public Works Committee as well. I would
    also like to thank the Chairman and Ranking Member for their
    leadership in boosting the mining workforce of the future by
    introducing the Mining Schools Act and this Committee's markup
    of that important legislation last week.
        So we look forward to working constructively with you to
    seize upon this generational opportunity to ensure that ``made
    in America'' includes ``mined in America,'' and sourcing
    minerals from U.S. mines that use state-of-the-art
    environmental protection measures, put a premium on worker
    health and safety, and are committed to the communities in
    which they operate. I look forward to answering any of your
    questions.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Compton follows:]

        The Chairman. First of all, let me thank all three of you.
    I appreciate it very much. We will start with the questioning
    now.
        Dr. Yergin, I respect you because you have been all over
    the world. I run into you in different places too, but
    basically looking and seeing what the facts are and what we are
    dealing with. The pressure now with us coming on so strong with
    the demand for EVs, the way the Administration is pushing our
    electric vehicles out the door quicker and not adhering to the
    law because they want to get more vehicles on the road, more
    dependency. How much of a strain is that putting on the world
    market and basically, us being able to meet the demand coming
    from different places? My thing--what I said is that I remember
    the 1974 oil embargo. I remember waiting in line to get my gas
    so I could go to work. I remember all that. And I just, I don't
    want to be waiting----
        Senator King. You weren't old enough to drive then.
        [Laughter.]
        The Chairman. You were my instructor.
        [Laughter.]
        The Chairman. Anyway, with that, like I just said, I don't
    want to wait in line if I need a new battery or something, for
    China to basically to say whether I can drive my vehicle or
    not. That is all I was concerned about. I think EVs are
    wonderful. People like them. They are great and all that and
    you buy what you want, but we are incentivizing people, almost
    bribing them to buy them and then putting them in a very
    perilous situation.
        Tell me what it's doing to the world market, as you see it,
    with changes going on around the world. I have talked to people
    in the Congo. They are totally upset, but it's a different
    controlled environment. Tell me what you are seeing.
        Dr. Yergin. Well, what is happening is basically trying
    to--you know, normally energy transitions take about 100 years,
    and this is trying to do one in 25 years. And that has never
    been done before and it is putting pressure on the system. And
    that is why, one of the things I wanted to emphasize, that it's
    not just demand from the United States, but it's demand from
    elsewhere in the world that is happening at the same time. So
    it is going to put enormous pressure on the system and I just
    don't see how the mining is going to catch up--the supply is
    going to catch up--and so that will mean prices going up.
        It will mean shortages. And then, as has been pointed out
    by you and Ranking Member Barrasso, there is a real imbalance
    on, particularly, the processing of it. And you know, it's
    unbalanced to do that. And it is quite concerning about just
    how concentrated, at this point, the supplies are, just from a
    few countries. So I don't envision a sort of 1973 in the sense
    of a collusion of countries, but you can imagine very tight
    markets and shortages and a few countries being in very tight
    control of supply.
        The Chairman. Mr. Beaudreau, I know that you have been
    through different Administrations seeing, basically, the
    balances of need. And you and I have had conversations. You
    know that I think we are out of balance in what we are
    producing and what we could produce and what we need. With
    that, the Administration does not seem to have the urgency to
    try to get permits and try to make sure that we are able to
    provide our own resources here with the minerals and deposits
    we have. What can we do to change that? What do you think
    really needs to be done for us to make a substantial change in
    how we extract in America?
        Mr. Beaudreau. Yes, thanks very much, Chairman Manchin.
        First of all, I share all the views expressed about the
    need to accelerate reliable and domestic sourcing of critical
    minerals. This is the fundamental work of the working group,
    consistent with the executive order and with the direction from
    Congress under the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law. The trick is,
    and the hard work is, how do we actually accomplish that? There
    are some fundamental principles, even setting apart legislative
    reform of the 1872 Mining Law, and that means proactive
    community engagement in order to do deconfliction. This is why
    it takes way too long to permit a mine in this country, because
    of community conflict, because of litigation, because of a
    history of environmental impacts, including to tribes, that is
    still very much on people's minds. Second, as part of that,
    communities need to see the benefit of mining activity so that
    communities don't feel imposed upon, but rather feel invested
    in these developments. So those are the types of administrative
    reforms that I am having conversations with the mining
    community about and also conversations within the Bureau of
    Land Management on how we can implement administratively.
        The Chairman. I am going to ask all three of you just one
    quick question as I am wrapping up my time--what is the
    greatest obstacle you think that we face and the most urgent
    need that we have? Would you say it's permitting or do you have
    something else that you think that is basically impeding us
    from moving forward? Our permitting reform is the most critical
    thing we are facing. If not, we are not going to be able to
    meet, not only the demands of the market, but we are not going
    to be able to meet the ability for us to even implement any of
    the laws that we have right now to the fullest.
        Mr. Beaudreau, I will start with you, if you would. How are
    your feelings on that? Is it permitting?
        Mr. Beaudreau. I agree. One of the biggest challenges is
    permitting--allowing for responsible mining to go forward. I
    think there are many examples where there are responsible
    mines, including mines that have been permitted in this
    Administration, such as lithium mines in Nevada. And so, it can
    be done. I am fully confident. The timelines do need to be
    reduced.
        Dr. Yergin. I think that permitting and the judicial review
    that goes on is absolutely the biggest obstacle. I mean, you
    realize that sometimes the permitting process will be half of
    the person's professional career. It can take that long. And
    also, what that does to the ability to have capital available
    to undertake these projects.
        Mr. Compton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        You know, it's hard to disagree about the importance of
    permitting.
        The Chairman. Nothing more important than permitting?
        Mr. Compton. Well, but what I would point out is, without
    access to mineral deposits first, and the security of tenure to
    be able to know that if you discover a deposit, that you are
    going to be able to develop that, then permitting never even
    comes into play.
        The Chairman. Let me just say for the Committee's sake of
    information, I want to compliment both of our staffs--our
    Republican friends and their staff on this side, Senator
    Barrasso's, and our staff on the Democratic side. They have
    been working diligently on permitting reform. And hopefully, we
    hope to bring something to the Committee that you all can work
    on because most of it is in our jurisdiction. We have been
    meeting with Senator Carper. To a certain extent, he has some
    in his jurisdiction of EPW. We could surprise the world if we
    can get something done before the end of the year. And we are
    going to have some substantial, I think, recommendations
    hopefully towards that period. So we are working diligently on
    this. We have the same conclusion you all have.
        Senator Barrasso.
        Senator Barrasso. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I
    appreciate all the cooperation that we have had as we work
    together on the permitting issues, and the work continues.
        Mr. Compton, as I mentioned in my opening statement, this
    interagency working group, they recently released a report that
    contains 65 recommendations. The recommendations include
    imposing new royalties and fees on mining and elimination of a
    mining claim system that encourages resource exploration. All
    these recommendations, if they adopted all of them, would they,
    on balance, increase or decrease mineral production on federal
    lands in America?
        Mr. Compton. Well, thank you for the question, Ranking
    Member Barrasso. As I said in my opening statement, you know, I
    think ultimately the IWG report, especially taken in context
    with other administrative actions, will increase our reliance
    on China and other countries for our mineral needs. The report
    really was a mixed bag, I would say, but the mining law
    recommendations in there, this is not the time to completely
    upend our system. The report even acknowledged that converting
    to a leasing system would cause significant delays in our clean
    energy objectives.
        Senator Barrasso. So then, Secretary Beaudreau, simple
    questions. They are not meant to be trick questions, you know--
    please, on balance, is it better to mine cobalt here at home or
    with child labor in the Congo?
        Mr. Beaudreau. Of course it's better to have reliable,
    domestic sources for critical minerals.
        Senator Barrasso. Is it better to mine lithium here at home
    or slave labor in China?
        Mr. Beaudreau. Of course it's better to have reliable
    supply chains for all of these critical minerals.
        Senator Barrasso. Is it better to mine nickel here at home
    or razing the rain forest in Indonesia?
        Mr. Beaudreau. As I have said, and as is the purpose of the
    interagency's work, it is to advance the cause of developing
    reliable sourcing and supply chains for a host of critical
    minerals necessary for clean energy and technology development.
        Senator Barrasso. So then, why is the Administration and
    the Secretary blocking access to minerals and making it more
    difficult, as we just heard, to mine them here at home?
        Mr. Beaudreau. So I think, as members of this Committee
    know, I am a serious person on these issues, and having a lot
    of experience across energy projects as well as mining
    projects, fundamentally, we need a system and we need to
    implement reforms that enable that type of development. The
    main barrier to unlocking America's resources here is conflict
    and litigation and uncertainty about the permitting process. We
    need to take that on. That is what the report is intended to
    do.
        Senator Barrasso. So the Administration also has issued
    mineral withdrawals--26 mineral withdrawals or proposed mineral
    withdrawals in just the last two and a half years since taking
    office. In January, the Department withdrew 225,000 acres from
    a site containing 95 percent of our nation's nickel reserves,
    88 percent of our nation's cobalt reserves, and 34 percent of
    our nation's copper reserves. We are talking about withdrawals
    that the Administration has done, and the Secretary sat here
    and seemingly took great credit for it. The Biden White House
    has said that over-reliance on foreign sources and adversarial
    nations for critical minerals and materials poses national and
    economic security threats, yet your Department of the Interior
    continues to make it harder to develop the resources, and we
    have them right here at home.
        How do these mineral withdrawals that your Secretary came
    here and talked about, how does that help us reduce our
    nation's dependency on foreign minerals?
        Mr. Beaudreau. So let's talk about where those withdrawals
    happened. So as an Alaskan, the right place to mine for some of
    these materials is not in the richest, most abundant salmon
    fishery in the entire world. As a supporter of a host of
    economic activity, the right place to mine for some of these
    materials is not in the Boundary Waters of Northern Minnesota,
    which is the biggest economic driver in that part of the state.
    And so, these things do have to be viewed in context.
    Unfortunately, under the existing laws, the only blunt
    instrument available to the Department, and this is why we need
    more tools, is something like a mineral withdrawal. We need to
    be able to have a much finer and targeted approach to the
    development of critical minerals.
        Senator Barrasso. So Mr. Compton, and then to Dr. Yergin,
    we are developing only a small fraction of our nation's lithium
    reserves, especially compared to Australia. Is there any reason
    that we should be so far behind a nation with similar
    environmental and labor standards as we are with Australia?
        Mr. Compton. No, of course, there is absolutely no reason.
    We should be, you know, even if we considered ourselves average
    in permitting with some of these countries, I don't think it's
    the United States' place to celebrate being average either. So
    yes, we have a lot of work to do on our permitting to get out
    ahead.
        Senator Barrasso. So Dr. Yergin, you know, how can we, here
    at home, drive up our mineral production to levels closer to
    Australia, specifically with lithium?
        Dr. Yergin. Well, I think if we look at Australia and
    Canada, they have more efficient permitting processes and they
    get on with it and see it as important, as opposed to--and they
    are both countries with strong mining traditions, so they don't
    have the kind of divisions that we do. We do see, actually, of
    the four minerals that we have talked about, particularly three
    of them, the U.S. has the best prospects. Lithium is our best
    prospect to become a bigger, a much bigger producer. We are
    best positioned in that, we think----
        Senator Barrasso. So as my final question----
        Dr. Yergin. I'm sorry.
        Senator Barrasso. No, well, just the Chairman and I were
    just talking about the fact--how about the court systems and
    how it drags on, because I think Secretary Beaudreau just
    talked also about the litigation involved in slowing all of
    this down.
        Dr. Yergin. Yes, well, that's why I said it's not only
    permitting, but it's the judicial review that goes on and on
    that is unique to our system that makes it so difficult to do
    it. And even if you wanted to get going now, it's going to take
    time to get going, but when you look at 20 years to get a
    project going, you know, we are talking about 2040, 2043.
        Senator Barrasso. Thank you.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman. Senator Hickenlooper, up early.
        Senator Hickenlooper. I wouldn't go that far.
        Let me start with you, Mr. Beaudreau--Tommy, if I could be
    so bold. Interior's work, including the USGS critical mineral
    list, helps inform a lot of the approach you are taking, that
    our country is taking, to these critical supply chain issues.
    How does the USGS information help other agencies as they work
    to try to enhance our mineral processing capabilities,
    strengthen ties with our foreign allies on securing the
    minerals we need for this clean energy future and the
    Bipartisan Law, including funding to map out our nation's
    critical resources--how is that work progressing from your
    point of view, and what benefits is that mapping going to
    provide?
        Mr. Beaudreau. Thank you, Senator.
        I think it gets at an issue, an important issue that Mr.
    Compton raised, about the locatability of these minerals. And
    so, one way that the Interior Department and the Federal
    Government and the USGS, in particular, can help is with the
    development of geologic information that can inform both the
    permitting process as well as prospecting, and provide
    certainty to the industry about where there are high-value
    resources and also potentially reduce conflict. And so, I view
    that as incredibly important work. And we are lucky to have the
    USGS as focused on it as they are and their work is progressing
    very well.
        Senator Hickenlooper. Great, thank you.
        And I'm not going to ask a question on this, but obviously,
    Colorado has the Colorado School of Mines. There are a number
    of great mining schools out West. And the Chair and the Ranking
    Member have led on the Mining Schools Act. And obviously, I
    think, how we get the next generation of engineers--and
    geologists--and make sure we are recruiting them, training
    them, and retaining them is important. But I'm going to submit
    that in writing so I can get a chance to ask Dr. Yergin a
    question. Hopefully, I will get to all three of you.
        Dr. Yergin--Daniel, if I could be so bold, you are an
    expert in global oil production and yet, back in those dark
    days in the 1990s, no one really foresaw or was able to predict
    the amazing innovations that would take place that would take
    us from a struggling producer to really the global leader. And
    I guess my question is, what do you see--what things can we be
    doing to push the innovation in our critical minerals? So
    whether it's through substitution, through its efficiencies,
    you know, how do we find some way of achieving some of those?
    Obviously, very few people--you probably had some notions--but
    very few people saw that shale revolution coming. Are there
    other revolutions coming in terms of copper and, say, lithium?
        Dr. Yergin. Well, the shale revolution did come as a
    surprise and it was transformative. It took us from being the
    largest importer of oil in the world to the largest producer of
    oil. U.S. LNG, based on shale, is 40 percent now of Europe's
    LNG supply and it has been a very important answer to Mr.
    Putin.
        At this point, and I'm not a technologist, but we don't
    understand, we do not see that there is some incredible
    breakthrough like the shale revolution that will, you know,
    really transform the mineral situation. But the two things that
    can--there is obviously an enormous amount of research going on
    in battery technology, also in terms of making mines more
    efficient and so forth. And then, you know, we will see as time
    goes on, recycling will become more important, but you are
    starting from a very small base in terms of doing that, and
    just collecting and processing itself is a major industrial
    activity.
        Senator Hickenlooper. Yes. I think where there are other
    opportunities like distributed energy resources, some of those,
    you know, investments will accelerate faster than people think,
    but I agree with you, I think that we haven't seen where those
    innovations are, but they are probably there. And I guess, at
    some point, part of the role of this Committee is to figure out
    how do we incentivize and make sure that we are doing it.
        Dr. Yergin. Absolutely. You know, the research part of it
    is so important and it may well come as a surprise. It's just
    that there is not anything obvious there and that the time
    frame for mining is two or three times longer even than the
    time frame for oil and gas.
        Senator Hickenlooper. Right.
        And Mr. Compton, I'm going to make this--I'm going to leave
    out all the bulk. You obviously understand business risk and
    what mining companies are facing, in that there is always
    uncertainty when we are trying to attract investment capital
    for some of these critical projects. Do you see a role for the
    Federal Government to act as kind of a market smoother, you
    know, through stockpiling certain essential minerals or through
    commitments to buy and sell if certain conditions are triggered
    so that we don't, at least, have the roller coaster affects
    that sometimes the markets create?
        Mr. Compton. Thank you, Senator.
        I think the Federal Government has the ability to be a
    market smoother just by reducing the uncertainty over how our
    mining system operates. Perpetual threats, really, to upend our
    system when, as Dr. Yergin points out, you know, you are a good
    20 years from exploration to being able to get ore out of the
    ground. If we are going to be able to meet those growing
    mineral demands, we have to incentivize exploration and
    production now. And from the investment community standpoint,
    like when they saw the Interagency Working Group's report come
    out earlier this month, I know one of our members who is a
    consultant said he spent three days on the phone with his
    clients talking them down off the ledge. You know, he was able
    to talk them down, but how many others in the investment
    community are we not able to get that message to?
        Senator Hickenlooper. I appreciate that, and I have more
    questions I will submit in writing.
        I yield back to the Chair. Thank you. Thank you all for
    being here today.
        The Chairman. Thank you.
        And I turn to our birthday boy today, Senator Bill Cassidy.
        Senator Hoeven. Thirty-nine.
        Senator Cassidy. Some anniversary of 39, so anyway.
        Mr. Beaudreau, I'm from Louisiana. You know what question I
    am going to ask you. How is our five-year leasing plan coming
    for oil and gas development in the Gulf of Mexico?
        Mr. Beaudreau. We missed your birthday by one day. We will
    be publishing the five-year program tomorrow.
        Senator Cassidy. That is fantastic. And my birthday will
    be--no inhibitions and no restrictions by the Administration--
    that will be the birthday present?
        [Laughter.]
        Mr. Beaudreau. The birthday present to Chairman Manchin is
    that the program is definitely informed by the IRA and the
    connection that the IRA makes between offshore oil and gas
    leasing and renewable energy leasing.
        Senator Cassidy. So then, staying on the ocean bed, Dr.
    Yergin, you mentioned we need kind of this technological
    breakthrough in order to source these critical minerals, but I
    am told the ocean beds are full of it, and that we actually
    have the technology to mine off the ocean bed. And intuitively,
    to me, if you are just scraping rocks off the bottom, it is not
    the same as an open-pit mine. Are we anywhere close to
    deploying that technology as a means to address this issue?
        Dr. Yergin. I think it's very early days. There are some
    companies that are working on it and have been pursuing it for
    a couple of years--lot of minerals there--but there will be a
    lot of controversy as well about scraping the bottom of the
    ocean, I think.
        Senator Cassidy. There would be, but nonetheless, there is
    controversy about anything, right?
        So Mr. Beaudreau, is there any effort by the Administration
    to pursue the mining of minerals off the ocean floor?
        Mr. Beaudreau. So I don't want to open up a whole other can
    of worms, which was, you know, a big knock-down, drag-out,
    including during the Obama administration, but one area that
    would be helpful is Law of the Sea implementation, which
    provides a framework for accessing----
        Senator Cassidy. And I understand that we are actually
    losing territory because of our delay in implementation, or at
    least adoption of the treaty, but that if we adopted it, that
    could potentially open up the next version of the shale
    revolution to address that need.
        Mr. Beaudreau. I think that is one of the reasons to adopt
    the Law of the Sea Treaty.
        Senator Cassidy. Let me ask you, going back to lithium
    mines, and you say it will take however long in order to
    permit. In the county in Arkansas that borders Louisiana, they
    are now mining lithium from the prehistoric ocean, which is
    below the Smackover Formation. Now, of course, I am looking at
    that saying that that prehistoric ocean extends about 25 miles
    south into Louisiana. And so, I am interested in exploring
    that, intuitively, and by the way, Exxon has just made a big
    investment there, so this is more than a conversation piece,
    it's money being staked. Intuitively, to me, if you are
    extracting from deep down and you are processing above, that
    that is going to be less problematic in terms of permitting
    than if you have an open-pit mine. Knowing that I have given
    you a theoretical, but does that intuition sound good to you,
    and is there anything USGS could do to see if those
    subterranean resources are viable?
        Mr. Beaudreau. Yes, and I think this goes to an earlier
    question at Dr. Yergin. There is massive opportunity for
    technological development, especially with respect to lithium.
    And so, one of the efforts from--so mining and sourcing are
    all-important, but one of the main and most promising lines of
    effort is technological development, both brining, and there is
    a project we are working on in Southern California focused on
    deriving lithium from other activities. And I think the type of
    opportunities you are describing, while they require further
    technological development, are activities that should be
    supported----
        Senator Cassidy. But it seems as if this is already taking
    place. Again, they have been processing lithium out of this
    Smackover Formation in Arkansas for some time now. I think they
    may also be getting cobalt, but I am a little bit kind of
    having to think about that twice. So I just encourage that
    because I think in the Bipartisan Infrastructure bill, we
    actually had dollars for USGS to go out and find more
    resources. And of course, I would like them to find them in my
    state for all the reasons, not least of which is, it would
    supply the rest of the United States with a needed resource.
        Mr. Beaudreau. Yes, I understand and agree.
        Senator Cassidy. Lastly, in your analysis, on your life
    cycle analysis of greenhouse gas emissions, et cetera,
    associated with new developments in the United States, do you
    take into account the life cycle of greenhouse gas emission
    profile of a project overseas? So for example, if we are trying
    to supplant cobalt coming from the Congo that is used with
    child labor and goes to China, where they use coal as primary
    feedstock for energy, yes, we may have a little bit of a
    footprint here, but it's substantially less than the life cycle
    of the other. Is that taken into consideration, because
    sometimes it seems like we make the perfect enemy of the good?
        Mr. Beaudreau. Yes, so, I agree completely that when you
    are looking at any particular project, viewing it within a
    global context is important. And I think one of the
    opportunities and benefits for more reliable permitting of
    critical minerals in the United States is exactly what you
    described, it is reduce carbon footprint.
        Senator Cassidy. Yes, but again, are we comparing ourselves
    to that which we would be competing against or are we comparing
    ourselves to some pure standard? Because it seems oftentimes
    that we are comparing ourselves to a pure standard, not
    recognizing that we, as somebody mentioned earlier, are
    actually doing it with the lowest carbon footprint in the
    world, oftentimes.
        Mr. Beaudreau. Yes, so in the realm of permitting critical
    minerals, while relevant, carbon emissions are often the less
    significant impacts compared to, in particular, impacts on
    water resources.
        Senator Cassidy. Thank you. I yield. Thank you.
        The Chairman. Senator Cortez Masto.
        Senator Cortez Masto. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you to
    the Ranking Member for this important hearing, and thank you to
    all the panelists. I appreciate all of your comments.
        I say this time and again--Nevada, my home state, has 85
    percent of federal public land and has the largest mining
    program on public land in the country. It supports nearly
    33,000 jobs in the state. It's the key contributor to our
    economy. It's a social safety net for many rural and remote
    communities in my state. So as we are having this conversation,
    and as we take the necessary steps to address climate change, I
    agree, we have to do so in a fashion that makes America more
    productive, secure, and self-reliant. At a very basic level,
    this means we have to produce minerals in the United States and
    not solely rely on foreign sources. And I think we have all
    been talking about that.
        Here's my conundrum, and I am going to ask the Deputy
    Secretary this first question--I understand the Administration
    has this all-of-government approach to addressing our future
    security needs when it comes to our clean energy, including, as
    it pertains to mining. But here's my struggle--just last week,
    the Federal Permitting Improvement Steering Council imposed new
    limits, or actually proposed imposing new limits, on eligible
    entities to be considered for the FAST-41 expedited permitting
    process. The Council's proposed limits would remove mining as a
    covered sector and limit eligibility to just critical mineral
    projects. What does that mean? That means that copper mines
    would be ineligible, despite being a critical material
    according to the Secretary of Energy.
        How can this happen just after the report that was put out
    that said mining is critical to our future and our needs? Can
    you address what is happening? It seems like the
    Administration, even though they have this all-of-government
    approach, many pillars of it are not talking to one another.
    And I don't know if you have a response, Mr. Beaudreau, but I
    would sure love to hear one.
        Mr. Beaudreau. Yes, no, thanks very much, I do have a
    response. I actually participated in a FPISC meeting yesterday,
    where we talked about, specifically, this issue. And so, on the
    one hand, the proposal to include mining as a covered activity
    under FAST-41, I think, is very positive. And that's what it
    is. It's a proposal to do that. It is a draft. And we are
    having exactly that conversation about whether these sort of
    parameters around qualification are the appropriate ones. And
    so, we do hear you on that. And it's an active conversation and
    one that I will carry forward into the steering council.
        Senator Cortez Masto. Thank you.
        And let me put one other thing out there, because I know
    the new proposal specifically identifies the USGS critical
    mineral list for utilization. But unless I am wrong, Department
    of Energy and the Department of Defense have their own lists of
    strategic and critical materials that are central to our energy
    and national security that include more minerals that are on
    that USGS critical mineral list. So how is that--hopefully
    there is a coordination around these so that all of the
    agencies are working together as well and not limiting access
    to these essential minerals that we need.
        Mr. Beaudreau. So I think part of the complexity there is
    distinctions between, you know, energy-related minerals and
    other types of minerals. So for example, on the USGS list they
    don't include, you know, uranium, plutonium, et cetera. I agree
    with you that having a multitude of lists about what is
    critical and applying, you know, that adjective creates a lot
    of confusion. And so, I do think, you know, bringing
    perspective into sourcing, as opposed to whether you are on the
    list or off the list, makes sense.
        Senator Cortez Masto. Thank you.
        And so, Mr. Compton, I only have a few seconds left, but I
    have a couple of questions with respect to the interagency
    working group mining reform report. You touched on one, the
    distinction between the claim location system and the leasing
    system. Can you talk about, also, the seven cents per ton tax
    on moving unprocessed ore, because it may sound good, but what
    does it actually mean in practical implementation?
        Mr. Compton. Thank you for the question. In all due
    respect, I am not sure that it even sounds good.
        [Laughter.]
        Mr. Compton. You know, we affectionately, or maybe not so
    affectionately, refer to that as a dirt tax. There really is no
    explanation for why there would be a tax just for moving dirt
    or how many times that dirt movement is taxed. I mean, because
    you move overburden several times throughout a mining process.
    So seven cents per ton may sound like a miniscule amount, but
    when you consider the massive amounts of earth that needs to be
    moved to uncover some of these deposits, we have estimated that
    it would cost several hundred million dollars per year to the
    mining industry, much of which, obviously, would be in Nevada.
        Senator Cortez Masto. And moving dirt is not unique, or,
    excuse me, is part of the hardrock mining process, isn't that
    correct?
        Mr. Compton. You cannot unearth these deposits without it,
    yes.
        Senator Cortez Masto. Thank you. My time is up. Thank you.
        The Chairman. Thank you, and I agree wholeheartedly with
    you, Senator.
        I can't believe I'm saying this, because it's Senator
    Hoeven's turn.
        Senator Hoeven. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
        The Chairman. You are early.
        Senator Hoeven. I came early because it was Cassidy's
    birthday.
        The Chairman. I'm sure he's pleased he stayed and listened
    to you.
        [Senator Cassidy not at the dais. Laughter ensues.]
        Senator Hoeven. You are on a roll today, I'll tell you.
        [Laughter.]
        Senator Hoeven. Isn't he, Governor?
        [Laughter.]
        Senator Hoeven. So Secretary Beaudreau, thanks for being
    here. We appreciate your willingness to come out to North
    Dakota as you have and look forward to having you out there
    again. I think it's very important for you to get out on the
    ground, so I appreciate you doing that.
        In the Fiscal Responsibility Act, we set timelines on EAs
    and EISs--one year on the EA, two years on an EIS. How are you
    coming with getting that implemented?
        Mr. Beaudreau. Yes, thanks, and I do look forward to the
    next time I get to visit North Dakota.
        We have established and, in fact, you know, components of
    this brought forward from the previous Administration a review
    process by which, at my level in the Department, we track NEPA
    documents, both for content and quality, but also timing. And
    it is through that process that we are implementing the timing
    requirements under this year's legislation.
        Senator Hoeven. Yeah, that's is going to be really
    important. I mean, we have got to bring certainty--just
    listening to all three of you--we have got to bring certainty
    to this process and that's an effort to do it. And I believe
    simplicity is really important. You know, when we talk about
    permitting reform, pretty soon it gets so confusing, and then
    everybody has their own interpretations. And that's why we
    pushed for that kind of simple regulatory requirement, you
    know, the one-year and the two-year time frame. So I think
    that's really important if we are going to get after these
    critical minerals like I think we all want to. Would you agree
    with that?
        Mr. Beaudreau. I agree. The only addition I would make to
    it is, at the end of the day, these are the documents we get
    sued on. And so, I am very focused, always, on quality. And so,
    schedule, you know, certainty on timeline is essential, but
    nothing throws a project off like protracted litigation. And so
    the quality has to be there as well.
        Senator Hoeven. Right. Precisely where I am going. I think
    it was you, Dr. Yergin, that mentioned judicial review and how
    that is slowing us down. This goes to what Mr. Compton was
    talking about where in Australia or Canada it is taking, what,
    two or three years to get these permitted and here it's seven
    to ten. In our state, you know, with--and somebody else
    mentioned the, you know, the plays, like the shale plays, and
    in the Bakken, you know, we went from less than 100,000 barrels
    a day of oil production to 1.5 million a day at peak, but we
    put the right legal tax and regulatory framework in place to do
    it. And so, we have got to do that for critical minerals.
        So to you, Dr. Yergin and then you, Mr. Compton, how do we
    get--including judicial review--how do we get that legal tax
    and regulatory structure in place? What is it going to take, or
    we are not going to get after these critical minerals and are
    we going to be dependent on places like China, right? I mean,
    isn't that really what it comes down to?
        Dr. Yergin. I think that's right. And I mean, at the end of
    the day, nothing happens if you don't have capital that is
    invested. And people are not going to invest capital if there
    is that high degree of uncertainty. I mean----
        Senator Hoeven. So even if Secretary Beaudreau gets those
    things implemented and we knock that down to say, a two-year or
    three-year time frame, like Canada or Australia, if you get
    tied up in court for the next seven, it's still ten years,
    isn't it?
        Dr. Yergin. That's right. I mean, yes, so I don't know what
    you do about the judicial review side of it, but it isn't just
    the permitting, it's what goes on after that, and stage after
    stage after stage. And some of you know very well how some of
    these projects just go on as judicial review.
        Senator Hoeven. The point is, we have to do both if we are
    going to get this done.
        Dr. Yergin. Yes.
        Senator Hoeven. Mr. Compton.
        Mr. Compton. Yes, thank you, Senator. If I could jump in on
    that too. You know, you are absolutely right. Litigation
    reform, I think, needs to be a central component of further
    permitting talks, and I am confident that that is going to be
    part of further meaningful permitting reform. But I can give
    you several ideas to include in that as well. You know, the
    2020 NEPA regulations, put in place by the prior
    Administration, actually contain some very helpful litigation
    reforms. Those have been rolled back. But some things that
    could be done legislatively, you know, lowering the statute of
    limitations----
        Senator Hoeven. Well, isn't that it? We almost have to do
    it legislatively because otherwise new regulations get put in
    place that defeat the whole effort.
        Mr. Compton. Yes, it certainly needs to be in statute. You
    know, limiting the agency's time to act on remand would be
    helpful.
        Senator Hoeven. So it's instructive, if we actually want to
    develop the mining here in this country, we'd better get after
    it statutorily or we are going to be subject to more regulatory
    burden that's going to stop it in its tracks.
        Mr. Compton. Yes, sir.
        Senator Hoeven. Thank you.
        The Chairman. Senator King.
        Senator King. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I want to just put this hearing in a little bit of
    perspective. We are not talking about rolling back mining
    regulations or shortening statute of limitations in order to
    have somebody make more money. We are trying to beat climate
    change. And we are in a race, and it's a race in a matter of
    months and years. I just heard on the radio this morning that
    glaciers in Switzerland have declined ten percent in the last
    two years. That is astounding if you think about that. These
    are glaciers that have been there for thousands of years. So we
    have to--this is an urgent environmental priority. And it
    strikes me that one of the problems is that we are treating
    this as sort of environmental growth or environmental
    protection, as if green energy is over here and permitting
    reform is over here and they are not related. They are
    intimately related.
        For example, one of the things we haven't talked about
    today is grid access. We have environmental projects--wind and
    solar projects--that can't get on the grid because of the
    inadequacy of the grid. Well, that means there is going to have
    to be transmission. I was at a meeting last week on
    transmission. There are three major transmission projects in
    the West, the shortest of which has been at it 21 years from
    the time of the inception of the project to the time it's going
    to go online. The longer, I think, is about 25 years. That is
    another example of exactly what we are talking about.
        So I guess what I would like, and perhaps we could take
    this for the record, is some specificity about what makes it
    take 14 years to do a mine. In other words, how much is NEPA?
    How much is local permitting? How much is state? How much is
    litigation? Do you see what I am asking, Mr. Compton? It would
    help us, I think, if we knew exactly where the bottlenecks were
    and then we can move to try to address them. By the way, the
    comment about litigation reminded me of ``Jarndyce v.
    Jarndyce,'' Dickens' famous case in Bleak House, where the
    lawyers passed the litigation on from generation to generation.
    You said half of a person's life could be spent permitting one
    project.
        How about the role of state and local permitting, because
    we are all talking about federal permitting and NEPA, but
    aren't state and local permitting issues also at stake here,
    Mr. Compton?
        Mr. Compton. They absolutely are, and we need better
    coordination between federal and state and local permitting and
    being able to, when one or the other has completed analysis,
    for the others to be able to use that analysis. But you are
    absolutely right, I mean, if we are truly going to tackle
    climate change, we have to get serious about this now. And to
    your point about the various phases of mining and the mining
    life cycle, every bit of those phases need to be constricted.
    You know, exploration can take up to ten years or more before
    we even get to the start of permitting. Having the USGS doing
    additional research and mapping and sharing that information
    with mining companies can help shorten that period of time.
        Senator King. That's a good example. I mean, I think what
    we need is a little bit of urgency on this issue because we are
    in a race with the warming climate and the catastrophic effects
    that is going to have on us, and it just can't be the sort of
    plodding--oh, it takes a long time to do a transmission
    project.
        Let me change the subject a bit from mining. What about
    processing? There is a major production of lithium in
    Australia, which is a pretty friendly country, but 85 percent
    of the processing is in China. Do the permitting delays we are
    talking about here also apply to processing? Because that is
    where--it seems to me we need to be discussing that as well as
    getting the material out of the ground. Processing--it's no
    good unless it's processed.
        Mr. Yergin, talk to me about processing.
        Dr. Yergin. Yes, I mean, processing often is a very
    intense, and in China, pretty environmentally heavy activity to
    do that. And so, you know, we used to have, I think, 12 copper
    smelters in the United States. I think we are down to two now.
    I think it would be pretty hard to actually build a new copper
    smelter and also go through the permitting of that. So it's not
    just the mining that we need to think about, but the, you know,
    the real choke point on the minerals beyond mining is where the
    processing is. And that is, you know, it does not get as much
    attention, but also needs to be looked at really carefully,
    because physically what is involved in building this, and are
    people willing to commit the capital to do it.
        Senator King. I do think that is an important subject that
    we should be talking about, Mr. Chairman, is processing as well
    as extraction.
        Finally, I want to submit for the record an article by Bill
    McKibben in Mother Jones where the title of the article says a
    lot about what the article says. It's called ``Yes in Our
    Backyards.'' And it's Bill McKibben's account of his journey
    from a strong environmental activist whose primary job was to
    stop things to the realization that in order to achieve a green
    energy future, we need to build things. That you can't--this is
    me, not Bill McKibben--you can't love EVs and hate lithium. And
    you can't love solar and wind projects and hate transmission.
    This is absolutely a part of it. And what bothers me sometimes
    is, that you will have a hundred units of environmental benefit
    from a project and eight units of environmental detriment and
    it doesn't get built, and you are missing--we are missing a
    major environmental benefit.
        [The article referred to follows:]

        Senator King. So thank you all for your testimony today.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman. Thank you, Senator.
        Now we have Senator Murkowski.
        Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Great hearing,
    a great panel. Thank you for this.
        You know, we have all recognized that when it comes to
    minerals, we can't define or pick where the location is. The
    location is where they are. And so, often, part of the
    challenge as we are trying to access minerals is how do we
    access them? How do we get them to the processing facilities?
    And in Alaska, of course, we are particularly challenged
    because of our vast distances. We have got a community in the
    interior of Alaska--Fairbanks. You are probably not going to
    find a more pro-mining community, but that community is divided
    right down the middle right now because there is a very
    significant mining prospect about 250 miles from Fairbanks and
    they are moving forward. There will be great benefits to the
    native village that is situated nearby. But they are going to
    be trucking that rock 240 miles to another mine site for the
    processing.
        And it's the access that has really confounded folks. And
    as I have shared with some in the Administration, I read
    articles where, here in the Biden Administration, we are
    proposing to send $150 million, working with an Australian
    mining company, for a mine in Africa. And to help advance that
    mine, we are putting forward $250 million to help advance a
    rail line to Tidewater to help facilitate that. I can tell you
    the people of interior Alaska would certainly appreciate some
    assistance from our own government with how we might be able to
    do a rail extension to get those resources more safely out. We
    have other mining projects, and the Deputy Secretary and I have
    had multiple conversations about Ambler--again, a very
    lucrative and prospective mineral deposit in the interior of
    the state, but in order to access it, it will require a mine of
    several hundred miles, and that has faced its own challenges.
        So Deputy Secretary, I would like to ask you for the record
    just for a confirmation here on the Ambler project. When we had
    Secretary Haaland before this Committee, May 16th of 2023, and
    I asked her when we should expect to see the Record of Decision
    finalized, she indicated--she said, yes, the ROD by 2023, that
    continues to be the plan. Then, a few days later, on May 19, we
    have a DOJ attorney submit to the U.S. District Court a court-
    ordered update that now claims that a final SEIS is not
    anticipated until 2024--not expected to be signed until the
    second quarter of 2024. So again, Alaskans want to know, you
    know, you are talking about how we are going to do a better job
    of expedited permitting. That's what this working group was
    kind of designed to do. And yet, in a matter of four days, we
    see a six-month slippage. So for the record, if you can just
    share where we are with the Record of Decision on Ambler?
        Mr. Beaudreau. Yes, thanks very much. We will be publishing
    the Draft Supplemental EIS in the coming weeks. We are still on
    that timeline to complete that process and issue a Record of
    Decision in the second quarter of next year.
        Senator Murkowski. The second quarter of 2024. So what the
    Secretary stated before the Committee that it would be the end
    of 2023 is not accurate. It is now second quarter of 2024.
        Mr. Beaudreau. The updated schedule we submitted in the
    litigation, which is why we have to do the supplemental
    analysis, is still the schedule that we are on.
        Senator Murkowski. Let me ask about the Department's
    Interagency Working Group. The Chairman has raised that and
    apparently there is a little bit of back and forth in terms of
    what has been produced by this report. The report acknowledges
    its requirements under the infrastructure bill, but when you
    parse through the pages of it--169 pages--it's tough to find
    where the report actually addresses many of the issues that are
    required by the law, whether it's the period of time that is
    typically required to complete each step, the processing of
    applications, operating plans, leases, license, permits. And
    so, I think we were pretty clear in the infrastructure bill
    that this is what we expected. We didn't just expect a report
    saying this is in response to your query, but we actually asked
    for some time frames for these activities. So can you give me
    some more clarity on the time frames and kind of what the
    Department is doing to address some of these data gaps?
        Mr. Beaudreau. Yes, I am happy to have a follow-up
    conversation on all of that, those questions. Fundamentally,
    one of the challenges we have, which is the reason why one of
    the core recommendations is a leasing program, understanding
    that a lot would have to be thought through for a program like
    that, is we don't have a lot of control over the process. We
    don't have control over when we can expect to receive a mine
    plan of operations. We don't have control over diligence
    requirements, et cetera, that we do have in other contexts,
    including oil and gas, including renewable energy. And so part
    of what I would like to see is a permitting structure that can
    hold us accountable, but also hold operators accountable for
    responsible development.
        And I will just note that anyone who thinks Canada is the
    perfect model for this activity should talk to Senator
    Murkowski.
        Senator Murkowski. Yes, thank you for that. We do have a
    couple little issues there.
        Mr. Chairman----
        Senator King [presiding]. I am the acting Chair.
        Senator Murkowski. Okay, Mr. Acting Chairman, I will direct
    to you. I would like to do some follow-on with regards to the
    working group, but I was going to ask Dr. Yergin. My time is
    expired, but the big question here is how we move the needle
    now. We are all talking about the urgency. We can talk about
    how it's going to be 35 percent more, it's two times more, it's
    17 times more--the urgency is clearly there. We recognize that.
    And yet, we are not moving the needle like we need to. And we
    can say we have got to legislate on the permitting side, and we
    have to do that, but we have to recognize that we have got
    litigation that we have to deal with. But we also have this
    issue of social license to operate. And that kind of drives the
    litigation piece of it, and in fairness, it influences the
    politics on the permitting side and all that goes on there.
        And so I don't want it as a question for the record, but--
    --
        Senator King. Senator, could you defer the answer? Can you
    defer the answer until we let our two remaining Senators----
        Senator Murkowski. Yes. No, no, no--I'm not going to ask
    the question. I'm just going to put it out there because I
    would like somebody else to ask that because I'm going to be
    waiting around because the conversation is just too good.
        Senator King. Thank you.
        Senator Kelly.
        Senator Kelly. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Dr. Yergin, so we have a few companies in Arizona. One in
    particular is a business called Urbix that does processing of
    graphite. And I am concerned that some of the joint ventures
    that are currently being formed in some of these free trade
    jurisdictions with Chinese partners are skirting the intent of
    the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law and the Inflation Reduction
    Act. And it is potentially subsidizing our competitors instead
    of helping businesses like the one I mentioned, Urbix, who is
    in Maricopa County, who processes graphite.
        So Dr. Yergin, have you seen these joint ventures? What do
    you know about them, and what impact do you expect that they
    have on U.S. domestic jobs and U.S. production?
        Dr. Yergin. Well, I have not studied them in detail, but
    the fact is that, you know, the reality was that until about
    2019, 2020, people just were not paying attention much to this
    issue at all and the way that industry developed globally is,
    with China being a very important, you know, important,
    predominant player. And so, I think the reality is that those
    entities exist. I don't know whether the specific ones are
    competing with the companies that you are talking about, but
    this issue of critical minerals is so entangled with our
    changing relationships with China and they are not what they
    were four or five years ago. And it is not going to get easily
    untangled at this point. But you can try and, you know,
    continue to shift the balance, which is what the recent
    legislation is aiming to do.
        Senator Kelly. Yes, we have heard that, you know, as Urbix
    and companies like them try to sign contracts, it's often
    challenging because of, you know, the joint ventures that exist
    in these free trade jurisdictions.
        Dr. Yergin. Right.
        Senator Kelly. So it does need to be addressed and we have
    to get this back on track.
        Mr. Compton, so Arizona is leading the way in resource
    development that is going to help power this clean energy
    economy for decades. And the first and only mine in the FAST-41
    process is a mine called South32, the Hermosa project. It's in
    Santa Cruz County. And this is the only domestic advanced mine
    development project that can produce two critical minerals--
    zinc and manganese. So Mr. Compton, I am sure many of your
    members are watching this FAST-41 process closely, and what
    outcomes do you feel will make the process more appealing to
    your members?
        Mr. Compton. Well, thank you for that question, Senator.
        Yes, actually, South32 and their Hermosa project is a
    member of ours as well. And so we have been watching that very
    closely, as I am sure many of our members are. You know, we
    were very pleased to have mining added as a covered sector a
    couple of years ago. As you note, the Hermosa project is the
    first one to be on the permitting dashboard. You know,
    ultimately, the whole FAST-41 process was implemented to permit
    large infrastructure projects in a more timely manner. And so
    that is what we need to see out of this process, is expedited
    permitting, and doing so, by the way, in a way that does not
    take, you know, short shrift to our environmental regulations.
        And so, one of the things for me is if we can do it for
    these large infrastructure projects without short-changing our
    environmental laws and regulations, why can't we do that for
    all projects? So that's why it--you know, the process with
    FAST-41, with more transparency, better agency coordination,
    it's all things that we need in permitting for all projects.
    That's why it was frustrating, and this came up a little
    earlier in the hearing, that FPISC, last week, proposed to now
    limit the mining projects that would be available under FAST-41
    to only those designated as critical mineral projects. I
    understand that the Hermosa project is, and that is great, but
    we have an awful lot of projects out there that may not be
    necessarily deemed critical according to the USGS, but I would
    submit that the entire periodic table is critical.
        Senator Kelly. Thank you, and thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman [presiding]. Thank you.
        And now we have Senator Hawley.
        Senator Hawley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Beaudreau, let me start with you. Are you aware that
    there is currently a strike going on nationwide by auto workers
    in this country?
        Mr. Beaudreau. I am aware of the auto workers strike.
        Senator Hawley. So I just returned from my home State of
    Missouri, where in Wentzville, Missouri--that is right outside
    St. Louis--about 4,000 workers are striking. I was on the
    picket line with them on Monday, talking to them about their
    concerns, what it is they hope for, for their future. I talked
    to folks who were as young as 20 and had been there for a
    couple of months and folks who had been there for 40 years and
    were nearing retirement. And one thing I heard consistently is
    they are worried about the future of their jobs, you know, the
    younger workers--are there going to be autoworking jobs in this
    country after this Administration finishes forcing the auto
    industry into an electric vehicle production that is made
    predominately overseas? I'm sure you know where most electric
    vehicles are made in the world.
        Mr. Beaudreau. It is an enormous priority for the
    Administration and part of the reason why the President himself
    joined auto workers in the strike to----
        Senator Hawley. Where are most--where are 54 percent of
    electric vehicles made globally?
        Mr. Beaudreau. The entire point of----
        Senator Hawley. Where are 54 percent of electric vehicles
    made globally?
        Mr. Beaudreau. The whole point is----
        Senator Hawley. No, I am asking you a question. Where are
    54 percent of electric vehicles made globally?
        Mr. Beaudreau. I don't know.
        Senator Hawley. You don't know?
        Mr. Beaudreau. I don't know about that number. I know
    that----
        Senator Hawley. The answer is China. Where is the
    critical----
        Mr. Beaudreau. And the point----
        Senator Hawley. Wait, hold on a minute, hold on a minute.
    Where is 73 percent of cobalt refining? Where does it take
    place globally?
        Mr. Beaudreau. Overseas.
        Senator Hawley. Where specifically?
        Mr. Beaudreau. Probably China.
        Senator Hawley. Yes, China. Where is most cobalt mining
    performed? Who owns most of the cobalt mines in the world?
        Mr. Beaudreau. Probably most of that sourcing is in Africa.
        Senator Hawley. China has the majority. Seventy-seven
    percent of electric vehicle cathodes are made in China. Ninety-
    two percent of anodes are made in China. Sixty-six percent of
    battery cells are assembled in China. The New York Times
    recently did a report on this. The New York Times, not a
    notably right-wing publication. They said, can the world make
    an electric car battery without China? Their conclusion--the
    only winner so far is China.
        My question is, why would we want to make our auto industry
    dependent on supply chains in China? Why is that a good idea?
        Mr. Beaudreau. We don't.
        Senator Hawley. Then why are you doing it?
        Mr. Beaudreau. The entire point of this conversation, the
    entire point of this hearing, is to domesticate and make more
    reliable the sourcing of the materials----
        Senator Hawley. Then why are you shutting down critical
    mining in the United States?
        Mr. Beaudreau. We are not.
        Senator Hawley. You are. Why did you close the Twin Metals
    Mine in this country earlier this year, 225,000 acres in
    Minnesota, which mines critical minerals like copper, nickel,
    cobalt?
        Mr. Beaudreau. Again, the entire point of this conversation
    is to do mining in a responsible way that also reconciles
    with----
        Senator Hawley. In a responsible way? First of all, answer
    my question. Why did you close the Twin Metals Mine?
        Mr. Beaudreau. Because of the threat to the Boundary
    Waters, which is one of the largest economic drivers in
    Minnesota.
        Senator Hawley. So you think that we shouldn't have
    critical supply chains in the United States, jobs, good-paying
    jobs, with labor protections in the United States?
        Mr. Beaudreau. Not at the expense of one of the richest
    fisheries in the United States, in the world, such as in Alaska
    and the Pebble Mine, not at that----
        Senator Hawley. The Twin Metals Mine isn't in Alaska. It's
    in Minnesota. It's 225,000 acres in Minnesota.
        Mr. Beaudreau. Correct. And my point is, as we look to
    accelerate the development of domestic critical mineral mining,
    we have to do it in a way that does not conflict with and
    deplete other important aspects of the economy. In northern
    Minnesota, that includes the recreation economy and the
    Boundary Waters, which is one of the main drivers of tourism--
    --
        Senator Hawley. So you are going to prioritize recreation
    over good-paying jobs here in this country for mining? You are
    going to withdraw this mine that has been online and now
    shutter it?
        Mr. Beaudreau. The number of jobs generated by the Boundary
    Waters and tourism dramatically outpaces the potential of that
    mine.
        Senator Hawley. I thought it was critical that we had
    supply chains in this country, and yet you are shutting down
    critical mineral production in this country. Do you know
    instead what that is making us reliant on? Do you know what
    China's labor practices are, for instance, at their cobalt mine
    in the Democratic Republic of the Congo? Have you seen the
    reporting on this?
        Mr. Beaudreau. You will get no argument from me that
    domestic sourcing----
        Senator Hawley. They use child labor, is the answer to my
    question. Child labor in harrowing conditions.
        Mr. Beaudreau. Child labor and also religious minorities.
        Senator Hawley. China uses Uyghur labor, slave labor.
        Mr. Beaudreau. Yes, yes, they do. Yes, they do.
        Senator Hawley. And yet you are making us dependent on
    imports from the Democratic Republic of the Congo, controlled
    by China, from Chinese-controlled and owned mines all across
    the world. You are shutting down our mines here in the United
    States.
        Mr. Beaudreau. Well, we disagree about all of that.
        Senator Hawley. Would you support--well, facts are facts,
    and sometimes they are tough, but what's going to be really
    tough is when we don't have any auto jobs left in this country
    because you shipped them all overseas, when we can't mine
    anything in this country because you are shutting it all down.
    And we all know why, it's in pursuit of your radical
    environmentalist agenda. That's the real answer here.
        The Chairman. Senator, your time is up.
        Let me just say this, Senator, that first of all, the Twin
    Metals project has never operated. It has never been
    operational.
        Senator Hawley. You know, Senator, with due respect, I have
    sat here and listened to my colleagues who went two and three
    minutes over. So I have been very patient. I think I am the
    last person to question. Maybe it's Senator Lee.
        The Chairman. No, you are not. Senator Lee is waiting for
    you.
        Senator Hawley. Okay. Well, I would be happy----
        The Chairman. You can come back and we'll have a second
    round.
        Senator Hawley. That would be fine. I will sit here. I am
    happy to do it. I am sure you will give me some time.
        The Chairman. Sure. We are not here to berate. We are
    basically here to try to get information on how to do it. We
    have passed legislation, which I don't think you voted for,
    that gave us more dependency as far as----
        Senator Hawley. Senator, I am here to ask questions and to
    get answers.
        The Chairman. Well, you are here to--it's demagoguery. I
    mean, you are basically attacking every witness we have. You
    always have. I'm sorry, we just disagree, okay? I will come
    back to you.
        Senator Lee.
        Senator Lee. Mr. Beaudreau, thank you for being here today.
    I want to get to some issues about mining here in just a
    moment, but before I do that, I need to ask you very quickly
    about a couple of things. First of all, Interior's contingency
    plan for the potential government shutdown this weekend. I am
    frustrated, surprised, upset, if not angry that Interior still
    hasn't published its plan for the national parks. You know,
    communities rely on that plan for what will potentially happen
    here in just a few days if the government shuts down--
    communities surrounding our national park units--and it's
    important.
        So you must understand the huge economic impact that
    shutting down national parks would have on individuals and
    communities across the country, but especially in Utah, where
    we have a lot of national park units. So just yes or no,
    because I don't have a whole lot of time here. Does the
    Interior Department plan to keep national park units open in
    the event of a shutdown?
        Mr. Beaudreau. So to answer the question, I spoke with
    Governor Cox this morning. I spoke with Governor Gordon last
    night from Wyoming. We are aware of the potential for a
    shutdown. Obviously, the best thing that could happen is not to
    shut down the government, not to shut down our parks, but we
    will work with the State of Utah, as we always have, to ensure
    that we minimize that type of economic disruption.
        Senator Lee. Okay, I appreciate that.
        Mr. Beaudreau. And there are mechanisms to do that.
        Senator Lee. I appreciate that and I appreciate you
    reaching out to Governor Cox around that. We do have plenty of
    ways to do this, as I pointed out in a letter that I sent to
    Secretary Haaland just a few days ago. You should be
    designating as essential as many park and land management
    employees as possible and using FLREA fee revenues to fund
    essential operations. Unfortunately, it sounds like some
    states, including Utah, may be forced yet again to use state
    funds to keep our national parks open. We are grateful to have
    lots of national parks in Utah. It's one of the things that
    goes along with that. I introduced legislation this week to
    make sure that these states that utilize state resources to
    keep those open in the event of a shutdown, in the event that
    you decide to shut down the park units, to make sure that those
    states are repaid by the Federal Government in a timely manner
    just as we repay in a timely manner federal workers for work
    during a shutdown.
        Yes or no--will Interior support that effort on that bill?
        Mr. Beaudreau. Again, the best thing that could possibly
    happen is that we avoid this by avoiding a shutdown. And I know
    folks in the Senate are working very hard in that way. I don't
    have any pending legislation in front of me on that. I think
    there is a history of that type of legislation, however.
        Senator Lee. Okay, I would ask you to take a look at that.
    And my hope and my request is that you not oppose it.
        Now, let's talk about the recent decision by Interior to
    lock up 960,000 acres in Northern Arizona, a shameless abuse of
    the Antiquities Act. This land contains the purest uranium
    deposits in North America, a critical fuel for nuclear power,
    which, in turn, is going to be vital for the objective of
    achieving a so-called carbon-free future. Instead of accessing
    our pure reserves here at home, the Biden Administration would
    rather, apparently, have us be completely dependent on Russia,
    which supplies almost half of our enriched uranium supply
    today. Mr. Beaudreau, do you realize--do you really believe
    that restricting and blocking up access to highly mineralized
    federal lands in the U.S. will help counter Russian and Chinese
    control of mineral supply chains?
        Mr. Beaudreau. So the example you are pointing to, I think,
    really highlights the challenge we have in this space. So the
    example you are pointing to is the recent national monument
    designated by President Biden to protect the watershed around
    the Grand Canyon, one of the most iconic places in the world,
    one of the most important national parks outside of Utah. And
    it was a monument proposal sponsored by a coalition of tribes
    which have borne the brunt of uranium development and other
    types of mineral development. And so those are exactly the
    types of issues that, in order to--consistent with what Senator
    Hawley is advocating for--centralize and make more sound supply
    chains in the United States, we have to deal with.
        Senator Lee. We do have to deal with it, but you have a
    whole lot more to deal with now that you have abused the
    Antiquities Act yet again in this manner. It baffles me,
    absolutely baffles me that the Biden Administration, on one
    hand, thinks it can magically change the weather by pushing for
    a rapid energy transition where the United States becomes a
    green wonderland full of solar panels and big batteries and
    everyone drives around in a $60,000 SUV. But then on the other
    hand, at the very same time, you are doing everything you can
    to lock up uranium in Arizona, nickel in Minnesota, copper in
    Alaska, thinking that if you stop mining from happening here in
    the U.S. and leave it to the child laborers in Congo, you will
    have magically saved the climate and the planet. This madness
    needs to stop.
        The Chairman. Thank you, Senator.
        And we are going to go with our second round. Let me just
    say this to Senator Hawley. I am sorry if you believe I have
    been differential, but on that, I know the busy schedules you
    have and other different committees. Everything that you were
    saying, we feel the same, and it has been bipartisan on both
    sides.
        And I am going to go to Senator Murkowski first, for her
    second round and then come right back----
        Senator Hawley. At this time, Mr. Chairman, I have to say
    this though. Let's not--don't characterize my questions as
    demagoguery when I am trying to get answers.
        The Chairman. Sir----
        Senator Hawley. We have had people in front of here up at
    this Committee----
        The Chairman. We have been through this because everybody,
    basically, has asked the same questions you were on that----
        Senator Hawley. Senator, you don't get to control what
    questions I ask or don't ask.
        The Chairman. No, no, I understand----
        Senator Hawley. And quite frankly, I think what you are
    doing is abusive and I am going to call you out on it. Okay?
        The Chairman. Oh, I'm going to call you out many times too.
        Senator Hawley. Well, that's fine.
        The Chairman. That's not a problem, but I am the Chairman
    right now and you are out of order.
        Senator Murkowski.
        Senator Murkowski. Mr. Chairman, this is a Committee that,
    historically--I have been on this Committee now for 20 years,
    maybe 21, I don't know. But we are a Committee that I think has
    been viewed both internally here in the Senate and externally
    as a Committee that really likes to focus on policy. We really
    like to focus on the hard things because there are hard things
    when it comes to how we power, how we move our country, how we
    can be competitive. And so, I think the good debate, the hard
    questions are good, are fair, and I would just encourage all of
    us that how we approach our questions--there is a level of
    respect that comes with all of it. We're really trying to get
    answers to the hard questions, it's how we treat one another,
    how we treat our witnesses with respect, and how we really try
    to get good value from this.
        I want to go back to the question that I asked, and I do
    apologize, Senator Hawley, because I had gone over my time.
    Well, I think we kind of took advantage of the fact that the
    Chairman was not in his chair at that time. That's my bad. But
    I really do want to know the answer. And it may not be
    answerable, but Dr. Yergin, you have more expertise in these
    areas than anybody I know. You have seen us move from a country
    of vulnerability--great vulnerability and exposure when it came
    to our oil resources, to figuring out how we then become that
    lead country, exercising that extraordinarily global position
    where we can influence what goes on with the markets. We have a
    role that we should be proud of in this country and we should
    all--Republicans and Democrats, I don't care what
    administration you are part of--should want to try to encourage
    and continue. And unfortunately, with critical minerals, it's a
    little bit of deja vu all over again. We can see ourselves
    getting trapped in that same place where we have the resource
    here, but for a multitude of different reasons, far too often,
    it just comes down to the politics of it. We lock it off from
    ourselves. We make ourselves vulnerable on others. And that's a
    dangerous place to be, particularly at a time when we see China
    eating our lunch in many of these areas when it comes to the
    ability to process.
        Really, when it comes to mining in places where--and I
    agree with you, Deputy Secretary, there are places that we
    should not be mining, and I think we know that. But we also
    know that we do it better, safer, cleaner here in this country.
    So let's figure out how we make it happen as we did with oil
    and the success that fracking brought. So I raise the question.
    You have heard it already. We stall ourselves out by permitting
    issues that we haven't been able to get on top of, and despite
    what we did in the last measure, where we said, okay, we are
    going to put some timelines here on EAs. That's not enough.
    It's not enough. And if we think that that's good enough, we
    are fooling ourselves. The litigation piece of it is, you talk
    to anybody that's trying to develop oil, gas, minerals, they
    are baking litigation time into their project planning, into
    their base budget. It is a reality that is just awful. But so
    much of that then comes from--you have to get the social
    license to operate.
        So we are talking about it all the time. Are we just
    talking to ourselves? Why can't we get people in this country,
    young people, particularly, to get what Senator King was
    pointing to, which was that the environmental considerations
    here are equally important. What do we have to do? I guess I am
    asking you to be the marketing man here.
        Dr. Yergin. I think that is a pretty big question. I think
    it's, you know, I think it's a question--I was thinking as you
    were pointing this out--it's late to the party. I mean, until a
    few years ago, mining was something that did not attract
    capital. It was not very interesting in the United States. It
    has really changed because of the discussion about energy
    transition and EVs, but also because of the geopolitics. So
    it's really an effort of catching up. And I think it is a
    communications thing to understand that, you know, as the IMF,
    as I quoted at the beginning, says you are not going to have
    the energy transition if you don't have the minerals. And that
    is just a fundamental factor. And I think----
        Senator Murkowski. But we have the minerals.
        Dr. Yergin. Yes.
        Senator Murkowski. We just need to access them.
        Dr. Yergin. Yes. And I think it was interesting, I think
    Senator Hoeven mentioned the seven to ten, you know, delays.
    That actually comes from a study that one of our predecessor
    companies did in 2015. I think it's really time that we have to
    really look at that again because I suspect that it's actually
    a longer time frame now. But I think this Committee and what
    you are doing is trying--is reversing it, but it's just
    something that's not going to happen overnight and mining is a
    long-time-horizon industry.
        The Chairman. Thank you, Sir.
        Senator Hawley.
        Senator Hawley. Mr. Beaudreau, let's come back to the
    question of the Congo that we were talking about. So if you are
    opposed to the child labor practices of China in the Congo,
    will you support the legislation introduced by some of our
    colleagues in the House that would prohibit all imports of
    cobalt mined using child or forced labor?
        Mr. Beaudreau. I'm sorry, I'm not familiar with that
    legislation.
        The Chairman. Mr. Beaudreau, if you could put on your
    microphone so we could--just put it over toward you because I
    think--there you go, like that.
        Mr. Beaudreau. I am not familiar with that legislation. I
    do agree with you that those types of practices are practices
    that we need to eliminate from our sourcing of critical
    minerals.
        Senator Hawley. So you would support a prohibition? You
    would support a ban on imports, in principle, of any of these
    critical minerals that have been mined using child labor?
        Mr. Beaudreau. No, I support working hard----
        Senator Hawley. Why not?
        Mr. Beaudreau [continuing]. To transition away from sources
    that use those types of practices.
        Senator Hawley. Well, why not ban it? Why not say if it's
    got child labor in the supply chain, we are not going to import
    it in this country. We are not going to----
        Mr. Beaudreau. I think that would have massive
    implications----
        Senator Hawley. Wait, I'm not done yet. We are not going to
    prop up child labor in this country or fund it.
        Mr. Beaudreau. I think an abrupt ban would, again, I
    haven't studied this issue. One of the questions I would ask in
    connection with a ban like that would be what the impacts,
    including economic disruption of such a ban would be.
        Senator Hawley. Well, the impact would make slave labor and
    child labor extremely expensive. It would make American labor a
    lot more attractive. That's what it would do. It would
    incentivize jobs with labor protections in this country.
    Shouldn't we want that?
        Mr. Beaudreau. Again, I haven't reviewed that legislation.
    I don't know what the impacts of it would be. I agree with you
    that getting reliable sourcing that does not associate with
    those types of practices should be the goal of the United
    States.
        Senator Hawley. But you can't agree that we should ban it?
        Mr. Beaudreau. Again, I haven't studied the legislation.
    It's hard for me to answer that question.
        Senator Hawley. Well then, what, I guess--let me just ask
    you a broader question then. What steps are you taking to
    decouple American mineral production from slave labor then?
        Mr. Beaudreau. Slave labor is completely illegal in the
    United States; has been since the 19th century. And so the
    domestic sourcing in the United States is preferable over
    activities like you are describing in the Congo.
        Senator Hawley. But, yeah, obviously, but our--we are
    reliant, as you and I talked about in our first round of
    questioning--we are heavily reliant on supply chains that is
    shot through with slave labor and child labor--in China, in the
    Congo, elsewhere. So my question is, what are you doing to
    decouple us from those supply chains? You won't support a ban
    on child labor, so what do you propose now?
        Mr. Beaudreau. This was the purpose of the interagency
    working group that I chaired. This is the entire thrust of the
    report that we issued earlier this month, is how do we increase
    the reliable sourcing of these materials? I think Dr. Yergin
    makes an excellent point about refining as well, to decouple,
    again, our reliance on sources that involve practices that are
    abhorrent to us.
        Senator Hawley. Well, all I can say is, I don't know why it
    makes any sense to be shutting down critical mineral supply
    chains in this country, shutting down mines in this country,
    mandating further reliance on China and other overseas supply
    chains that are dependent on slave labor and child labor while
    workers in our country are facing the loss of their jobs. I
    think it's just crazy, to be honest with you. I think it's just
    crazy.
        And Mr. Chairman, I have to say, in conclusion, you may not
    like my questions, but I am going to keep asking them. I made a
    commitment to the people of my state. I am going to come right
    here. I am going to be a bulldog. I am going to ask the
    questions. And you can interrupt me as much as you want, cut me
    off, take my time away, but I promise you, I am not going to
    stop.
        The Chairman. I would never--let me just tell you one
    thing. I agree with what you are saying, I just don't like the
    way you say it. How is that?
        Senator Hawley. That's your right, but you know----
        The Chairman. We have a different----
        Senator Hawley. I am going to keep on keeping on.
        The Chairman. Here's the thing: we all agree, you know, if
    you would have been able to be here, and I know because of
    other committee assignments, but we were going through all of
    these things. That was the only thing I got frustrated on.
        So with that being said, there is not a person here who
    doesn't understand. We are absolutely upset. This whole thing
    about the Congo, I have been speaking to people down there.
    It's horrible what's going on. They want to change. They are
    going to have our help. And I agree with you, we should not
    accept any child labor. I am on the bill, I think. But with all
    that being said, we have to do more permitting here. We have
    got to do it because basically we are allowing our whole EV
    dependency now, moving that market quicker than what we can
    ever supply. And my whole reason to basically fight this
    Administration is because I don't want to become dependent--
    basically our transportation mode--on an unreliable supply
    chain. That's what will happen. I have waited for--I was old
    enough in '74--we talked about that oil embargo. I had to wait
    in line to buy gas to go to work. I don't want to wait in line
    to buy a battery from China to go to work.
        So I agree. We are on the same path, I think. We just have
    a different way of approaching it, that's all. And I respect
    that.
        Okay, with that, we have Professor Daines, who is going to
    explain to us exactly why we are messed up.
        Senator Daines. I have been promoted to professor.
        The Chairman. Well, I am going to because I see you have a
    chart.
        Senator Daines. Tell you what----
        The Chairman. I feel like I am in a classroom now.
        Senator Daines. Yes, so I get to geek out from my old days
    of being a chemical engineer here today. So Chairman Manchin,
    thank you.
        Behind me is the U.S. Geological Survey's most recent graph
    showing the United States' mineral import reliance. And this
    comes right out of the report, the U.S. Department of the
    Interior, U.S. Geological Survey here, which is a really good
    report.
        [The chart referred to follows:]

        Senator Daines. I want everyone to take note of the
    highlighted portions that show--and I recognize this is an eye
    chart--but just to summarize it, look at everywhere it's
    highlighted--that's Russia or China. So the yellow is China.
    The orange is Russia. Of the 65 minerals on that list, we rely
    on China or Russia for over half of them. That should be a
    wake-up call for all of us.
        I remember, as I think everybody here is old enough to
    remember 1973, and we were going through, you know, with the
    Jewish religious calendar, we just came through Yom Kippur. The
    War of Yom Kippur, 1973, was a wake-up call to the world, as it
    exposed the dependencies we had and kind of our single point of
    failure on the Middle East for oil. And of course, the Strait
    of Hormuz, it was blockaded. We saw oil prices skyrocket. And
    in fact, those skyrocketing oil prices contributed to some of
    the inflationary pressures we saw that, by 1981, a 30-year
    fixed mortgage was 18.6 percent. What I am concerned about is
    we are headed down a path where we could repeat the same
    mistakes that were made back in the '70s as we look forward in
    terms of a more renewable type of economy, more dependencies on
    electricity as supply for cars and so forth, that China and
    Russia become the ``OPEC'' of critical minerals.
        Simply put, we need to be mining more in the U.S., because
    what came out of the War of 1973, the War of Yom Kippur, was a
    rallying cry--we need energy independence. And you know, we
    have been working on that now in the United States to develop
    more made-in-America oil, gas, and coal, to ensure we are
    decoupled from dependencies in terms of kind of the ultimate
    supply chain failure, and that is an energy supply chain
    failure. This could be another situation that faces us if we
    don't find ways to bring more of these critical mineral mining
    operations to the United States or to friendly countries.
        Deputy Secretary Beaudreau, the Department of the Interior
    recently released their recommendations to reform mining. In
    it, you suggested raising taxes, lengthening the permitting
    process, withdrawing more land from development, and slapping a
    new royalty on mining operations. All these recommendations are
    not going to make it easier to mine domestically, it will make
    it harder. They will drive us further in a dependence on China
    and Russia rather than promoting and incentivizing U.S. mineral
    independence.
        Mr. Beaudreau, do you agree that your recent
    recommendations are a step backward for mineral independence,
    and why would the Department think that creating more costs and
    more regulatory hurdles for mining projects is the best idea
    when we are faced with the reality of Chinese and Russian
    mineral dominance?
        Mr. Beaudreau. So the goal of the report and the
    recommendations in the report is to combat exactly the
    situation that your chart depicts. In order to do that, there
    are fundamental things that have to be addressed. One is the
    legacy and history of conflict that the mining activities in
    the United States have posed for communities across the United
    States. Some of that is reflected in the over 500,000 abandoned
    hardrock mines that dot the United States, especially in the
    American West. So any discussion about royalties reflected in
    the report is meant to help address that. It's the same thing
    that we do with mine reclamation for the coal industry. It's
    the same thing we do with decommissioning and reclamation with
    the oil and gas industry. And so, again, that is to build a
    sustainable system for mining in the United States that has
    social license.
        Senator Daines. Mr. Compton, one of the great things about
    democracy----
        Mr. Beaudreau. He disagrees with me on some of that.
        Senator Daines. Right. Well, I was going to say one of the
    great things about democracy is that we allow to have different
    points of view, and by the way, you know, Mr. Beaudreau, I have
    great respect for you and I am grateful for what you do in
    Interior, and I was supportive of you in your nomination and I
    am glad you are where you are at, but I think we can also
    respectfully disagree.
        And Mr. Compton, you may have a different view, but what do
    you think?
        Mr. Beaudreau. He and I have that same relationship, by the
    way.
        [Laughter.]
        Mr. Compton. Yes, with all due respect to the Deputy
    Secretary, I do disagree with him on the outcome or the
    proposed outcomes in the working group's report. And you know,
    unfortunately, I think it's just consistent with what we have
    seen from the Administration. We talk a really good game about
    securing our mineral supply chains, beginning with the
    President's America's Supply Chains executive order within a
    month of coming into office. All too often what we are seeing
    with actions on the ground, they are decidedly anti-mining.
        And you know, I get where the Deputy Secretary is coming
    from in changing the dynamic on how mining is conducted here,
    but we have done that. The industry has been committed for a
    long time to early and proactive engagement with stakeholders,
    communities, tribes. As a matter of fact, I think the Federal
    Government, through their formal consultation process, can
    learn a lot from the mining industry. But we are never going
    to, as much as we are all for early engagement, we are never
    going to deconflict every mineral project. There are those out
    there that are just simply opposed to mining. It came up
    earlier, you know, ``yes, in my backyard,'' but we have an
    awful lot of ``no, in my backyard.''
        And so the fact is that all the early engagement, we are
    all for that. But we are not going to deconflict this. We are
    still going to be facing litigation. And that's why I look
    forward to additional permitting reforms from this Committee
    that can address that.
        Senator Daines. Yes.
        Mr. Chairman, I know, but just on the litigation, I am
    going to make a final comment and then----
        The Chairman. I am just glad Senator Hawley is not here.
        Senator Daines. You hit on another topic here that I don't
    have time to continue the dialogue here, which I think has been
    thoughtful, but we have been trying to get a copper mine
    permitted in Montana for 30 years and they have been through
    one EIS. I used to be an old Procter & Gamble manager and we
    used to make shampoo and mouthwash and toothpaste. It was just
    lather, rinse, repeat. It's lather, rinse, repeat right now on
    the litigation because we are in the Ninth Circuit Court. And I
    think without--I know the Chairman has been as passionate as I
    am about permitting reform. It is badly needed.
        The Chairman. We're getting there.
        Senator Daines. But it is necessary, but I would argue not
    sufficient without litigation reform and a change and just more
    better balance in our courts, particularly starting with the
    Ninth Circuit.
        The Chairman. Senator, before you came, before you were
    here----
        Senator Daines. Yes.
        The Chairman. I know you had other assignments and----
        Senator Daines. Right.
        The Chairman. But we talked about that. I brought the
    Committee up to state that both our Republican staff and our
    Democrat staff have been working very close and we are getting
    agreement and then we know where our challenges are and we are
    going to try to overcome those to have something I think that
    both sides will be very pleased with, and some permitting
    reform. We are very hopeful for that.
        Senator Daines. Well, and I just want to commend----
        The Chairman. But what you are saying right now, judicial
    reform is something that is----
        Senator Daines. It is, because it becomes--that Article III
    jumps in here and suddenly undercuts everything we have done. I
    mean, 30 years with state-of-the-art mining practices in
    Montana.
        The Chairman. You have the Ninth Circuit. I have the
    Fourth.
        Senator Daines. Yes, we call it the ``ninth circus'' out
    there in Montana, Mr. Chairman.
        Thank you.
        The Chairman. Okay. Let me just say this to all of you. I
    think you know how interesting this is and how essential it is
    for our country to move forward. I can always talk about the
    passion that people have for where we are going and what,
    basically, what we need for our country to be more self-reliant
    and not dependent on foreign supply chains. I'm sorry for
    sometimes the dialogue and everything. I can't speak to that. I
    can try to control it the best I can.
        But with that being said, we all have the same, I think,
    commitment, intent, both Democrats and Republicans, to be more
    self-reliant, not to be dependent, and basically make sure we
    can do what we can do. We can't ask other countries to do what
    we won't do for ourselves. That is the biggest challenge that
    we have. And hopefully we can get permitting reform that,
    Secretary Beaudreau, that will help your agency give a clear
    pathway forward to what needs to be done and why we are behind
    you to get it done. And hopefully we can make that change.
        But with that being said, I have a letter from the American
    Critical Minerals Association, as well as a statement from the
    National Mining Association addressed to this Committee. I
    would like to enter into the record these two pieces of
    testimony without objection.
        I don't see any and I don't hear any.
        So both organizations commend the bipartisan efforts of the
    Committee, recommend some common-sense solutions such as
    permitting reform, and highlight the need to act with urgency
    to address critical mineral supply chains.
        [The letter and statement referred to follow:]

        The Chairman. You all have been great and very helpful
    today and we are very grateful for that and I appreciate it. I
    know you made efforts to be here and I appreciate that more
    than you know.
        So the members are going to have until the close of
    business tomorrow to submit additional questions for the
    record.
         And with that, the meeting is adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 12:18 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]

                          APPENDIX MATERIAL SUBMITTED

                                  ----------