[House Hearing, 119 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
NOW ORE NEVER: THE IMPORTANCE
OF DOMESTIC MINING FOR U.S.
NATIONAL SECURITY
=======================================================================
OVERSIGHT HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND
MINERAL RESOURCES
of the
COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED NINETEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
Thursday, February 6, 2025
__________
Serial No. 119-4
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Natural Resources
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.govinfo.gov
or
Committee address: http://naturalresources.house.gov
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
58-754 PDF WASHINGTON : 2025
COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
BRUCE WESTERMAN, AR, Chairman
ROBERT J. WITTMAN, VA, Vice Chairman
JARED HUFFMAN, CA, Ranking Member
Robert J. Wittman, VA Raul M. Grijalva, AZ
Tom McClintock, CA Joe Neguse, CO
Paul Gosar, AZ Teresa Leger Fernandez, NM
Aumua Amata C. Radewagen, AS Melanie A. Stansbury, NM
Doug LaMalfa, CA Val T. Hoyle, OR
Daniel Webster, FL Seth Magaziner, RI
Russ Fulcher, ID Jared Golden, ME
Pete Stauber, MN Dave Min, CA
Tom Tiffany, WI Maxine Dexter, OR
Lauren Boebert, CO Pablo Jose Hernandez, PR
Cliff Bentz, OR Emily Randall, WA
Jen Kiggans, VA Yassamin Ansari, AZ
Wesley P. Hunt, TX Sarah Elfreth, MD
Mike Collins, GA Adam Gray, CA
Harriet M. Hageman, WY Luz Rivas, CA
Mark Amodei, NV Nydia M. Velazquez, NY
Tim Walberg, MI Debbie Dingell, MI
Mike Ezell, MS Darren Soto, FL
Celeste Maloy, UT Julia Brownley, CA
Addison McDowell, NC
Jeff Crank, CO
Nick Begich, AK
Jeff Hurd, CO
Mike Kennedy, UT
Vivian Moeglein, Staff Director
William David, Chief Counsel
Ana Unruh Cohen, Democratic Staff Director
http://naturalresources.house.gov
------
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES
PETE STAUBER, MN, Chairman
NICK BEGICH, AK, Vice Chair
YASSAMIN ANSARI, AZ, Ranking Member
Robert J. Wittman, VA Seth Magaziner, RI
Paul Gosar, AZ Dave Min, CA
Daniel Webster, FL Sarah Elfreth, MD
Russ Fulcher, ID Luz Rivas, CA
Tom Tiffany, WI Debbie Dingell, MI
Jen Kiggans, VA Jared Huffman, CA
Wesley P. Hunt, TX Jared Golden, ME
Mike Collins, GA Nydia M. Velazquez, NY
Harriet M. Hageman, WY Vacancy
Mike Ezell, MS Vacancy
Jeff Crank, CO Vacancy
Nick Begich, AK
Jeff Hurd, CO
Bruce Westerman, AR, ex officio
------
CONTENTS
----------
Page
Hearing Memo..................................................... v
Hearing held on Thursday, February 6, 2025....................... 1
Statement of Members:
Stauber, Hon. Pete, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Minnesota......................................... 1
Ansari, Hon. Yassamin, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Arizona........................................... 3
Westerman, Hon. Bruce, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Arkansas.......................................... 5
Huffman, Hon. Jared, a Representative in Congress from the
State of California........................................ 6
Statement of Witnesses:
Bazilian, Morgan, Director, Payne Institute for Public
Policy, Colorado School of Mines, Golden, Colorado......... 8
Prepared statement of.................................... 10
Questions submitted for the record....................... 15
Harrell, Jeremy, Chief Executive Officer, Clearpath,
Washington, D.C............................................ 17
Prepared statement of.................................... 19
Questions submitted for the record....................... 22
Mulvaney, Dustin, Professor, Environmental Studies
Department, San Jose State University, San Jose, California 23
Prepared statement of.................................... 25
Questions submitted for the record....................... 32
Lyon, Mckinsey, Vice President, External Affairs, Perpetua
Resources, Donnelly, Idaho................................. 32
Prepared statement of.................................... 33
Questions submitted for the record....................... 36
Additional Materials Submitted for the Record:
Submissions for the Record by Representative Stauber
Department of Labor, ``Forced Labor in Cobalt Mining in
the Democratic Republic of the Congo''................. 66
North America's Building Trades Unions, Letter to the
Committee.............................................. 67
American Experiment, ``Mission Impossible: Mineral
Shortages and the Broken Permitting Process Put Net
Zero Goals out of Reach''.............................. 68
Institute for Energy Research, ``The Economic and
Strategic Importance of Domestic Mineral Production''.. 69
S&P Global, ``Mine development times: The US in
perspective''.......................................... 72
CIA, ``A Survey of the World Antimony Situation''--
Declassified........................................... 81
Submissions for the Record by Representative Tiffany
American Experiment, `` `Net Zero' is a non-starter
without more minerals and better permitting,'' by Sarah
Montalbano............................................. 57
Submissions for the Record by Representative Ansari
FACT SHEET: Biden-Harris Administration Takes Further
Action to Strengthen and Secure Critical Mineral Supply
Chains................................................. 61
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
To: House Committee on Natural Resources Republican Members
From: Energy and Mineral Resources Subcommittee Staff, Rob
MacGregor: [email protected], x6-2466; Oversight
and Investigations Subcommittee Staff, Michelle Lane:
[email protected], x6-4137
Date: February 3, 2025
Subject: Oversight Hearing titled ``Now Ore Never: The Importance of
Domestic Mining for U.S. National Security''
________________________________________________________________________
_______
The Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources will hold an
oversight hearing entitled ``Now Ore Never: The Importance of Domestic
Mining for U.S. National Security'' on Thursday, February 6, 2025, at
10 a.m. in 1324 Longworth House Office Building.
Member offices are requested to notify Jacob Greenberg
(Jacob.Greenberg @mail.house.gov) by 4:30 p.m. on Wednesday, February
5, 2025, if their Member intends to participate in the hearing.
I. KEY MESSAGES
To ensure national security, the U.S. must ensure mineral
security.
The United States imports many critical minerals from
China and other adversarial nations. This import reliance
is a vulnerability that places America's domestic supply
chains at risk.
While the U.S. has many mineral deposits within its
borders, long permitting timelines and anti-mining policies
advanced by previous administrations have stymied domestic
mining activity.
Encouraging a streamlined mining process from discovery to
development for domestic mining projects and decoupling our
reliance on foreign adversaries for any segment of the
mineral supply chain will create economic certainty and
security.
China recently implemented export bans on critical
minerals essential for defense purposes, like gallium,
germanium, and antimony. China has also repeatedly used its
mineral supply to flood markets and stifle foreign
competition strategically, including U.S. attempts to
establish secure domestic supply chains.
II. WITNESSES
Dr. Morgan Bazilian, Director, Payne Institute for Public
Policy, Colorado School of Mines, Golden, CO
Mr. Jeremey Harrell, CEO, ClearPath, Washington, DC
Ms. Mckinsey Lyon, Vice President of External Affairs,
Perpetua Resources, Donnelly, ID
Dr. Dustin Mulvaney, Environmental Studies Professor, San
Jose State University, San Jose, CA (Minority Witness)
III. BACKGROUND
Minerals are essential to the U.S. economy, and most are used in
various civilian and military applications. Mineral materials consumed
by downstream industries in the U.S. created an estimated value of
$3.84 trillion in 2023 and a 6 percent increase from 2022
levels.1 Unfortunately, the U.S. is largely dependent on
hostile nations for a significant amount of critical minerals, creating
a significant threat to our national security. On December 20, 2017,
President Trump issued Executive Order (EO) 13817, entitled ``A Federal
Strategy to Ensure Secure and Reliable Supplies of Critical Minerals,''
which directed the Department of the Interior (DOI), in coordination
with other agencies, to publish a list of minerals determined to be
``critical,'' also referred to as the Critical Minerals List
(CML).2
The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) publishes and updates the CML
every three years, with the next iteration expected to be published
early this year.3 The most recent list was published in 2022
and consists of 50 hardrock minerals.4 To be classified as
``critical,'' a mineral commodity must be: (1) a nonfuel mineral or
mineral material essential to the economic and national security of the
United States; (2) produced from a supply chain that is vulnerable to
disruption; and (3) serving an essential function in the manufacturing
of a product, the absence of which would have substantial consequences
for the U.S. economy or national security.5 While the listed
minerals were especially susceptible to supply chain shocks at the time
of CML publication, policies that favor critical minerals exclusively
rather than supporting all mineral development could inadvertently
endanger unlisted mineral markets in the future. Furthermore, different
federal agencies rely on their own mineral classification methods. For
example, the Department of Energy's (DOE) Critical Materials List
focuses on commodities that are essential in energy technologies. In
contrast, the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) focuses on materials vital
to defense applications and national security.6,7
On day one of his second term, President Trump further prioritized
efforts to secure mineral supply chains by releasing EO 14154, entitled
``Unleashing American Energy,'' which directs federal agencies to
revise and rescind agency actions that impose undue burdens on domestic
mining and processing capacity and instructs the Secretary of the
Interior to consider updating the CML, including the potential for
listing uranium.8
IV. U.S. MINERAL PRODUCTION DIFFICULTIES
Mining is restricted to the location of deposits around the globe,
the concentration of desired minerals in each deposit, and the economic
feasibility of extraction. As such, no one country is fully self-
sufficient in terms of the entire critical mineral supply chain.
However, the U.S. severely lags behind competitors' mineral production
and processing capabilities.
Despite the availability of multiple material deposits, the U.S. is
disadvantaged by permitting delays and legislative restrictions that
discourage domestic investment and restrict long-term mineral
supply.9 A 2024 study by S&P Global found that U.S. critical
mineral projects take an average of 29 years from discovery to
production--the second-longest in the world.10 U.S.-based
mining projects also lose over one-third of their value due to delays
during the permitting process.11 A June 21, 2021, White
House review of President Biden's E.O. 14017 on America's Supply Chains
stated of the American critical minerals supply chain, ``[c]urrently,
the United States has limited raw material production capacity and
virtually no processing capacity. Without processing capacity, the
United States exports the limited raw materials produced today to
foreign markets . . .''12 Without significant adjustments to
this sector, the U.S. will continue to expose its resource supply
chains to foreign influence and control.
During the 118th Congress, House Committee on Natural Resource
Republicans warned that sustained reliance on adversarial nations,
especially China, for various minerals rather than domestic sources
jeopardizes U.S. supply chains and constitutes a pressing national
security threat. To address these issues, House Republicans included an
entire title on mining in H.R. 1, the Lower Energy Costs Act, which
passed in March of 2023 by a vote of 225-204.13
V. FOREIGN IMPORT RELIANCE
In 2023, the U.S. was over 50 percent import-reliant on apparent
consumption of 49 nonfuel mineral commodities and 100 percent net
import-reliant for 15 of those commodities.14
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Of the 50 minerals on the 2022 CML, the U.S. was over 50
percent import-reliant on 29 and 100 percent net import-reliant on
12.16
China and Canada supplied the most significant percentages of these
mineral commodities, with China supplying 24 mineral commodities with
greater than 50 percent net import reliance.17 Overall,
China controls 60 percent of global production, an estimated 90 percent
of processing, and over 75 percent of manufacturing of critical
minerals.18 In terms of individual minerals, China refines
72 percent of the global refined cobalt, 98 percent of the global
gallium, and 85 percent of the global refined rare earth elements
(REEs).19
While China controls large portions of mid- and downstream
operations, it lacks upstream reserves of multiple critical minerals.
For example, 70 percent of global lithium is extracted in Australia and
Chile, 70 percent of cobalt is extracted in the Democratic Republic of
the Congo (DRC), 30 percent of nickel is extracted in Indonesia--the
largest single source--and 40 percent of copper is extracted from Chile
and Peru.20 China is aggressively investing in global
suppliers to offset its natural resource deficits. China owns the
largest foreign stake in Indonesian nickel, and Chinese companies
finance 15 of 19 cobalt-producing mines in the DRC, giving them
unprecedented control over the supply of these minerals.21
Chinese mining and processing operations abroad have consistently
been linked to labor and human rights abuses, elevating concerns
regarding the ethics and stability of mineral supply chains. According
to the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL), there were over 5,000 documented
cases of child labor in DRC mines between 2018 and 2022.22
However, the potential for underestimating these figures is high due to
a lack of reliable monitoring systems.23 Human rights
organizations have also alleged that between 2018 and 2020, communities
local to a copper and cobalt mine operated by a subsidiary of the
Chinese multinational, Jinchuan Group, in the Congo ``were deprived of
their most basic rights, including the right to property, a decent
home, food, water, a healthy environment, and even life.''24
Similarly, in September, DOL added Indonesian nickel produced in
Chinese-financed industrial parks to its extensive list of foreign
products made using forced labor.25 DOL reported that
Indonesian workers face abuses like unsafe conditions, deceptive
requitement, unpaid wages, restricted movement, and even physical
violence as a means of punishment.26
While abusive labor practices abroad are well documented, a
widespread lack of transparency across various stages of the mineral
supply chain has obstructed accurate tracking of materials and end
products made with poor labor standards. In response to these unjust
practices and insufficient mineral traceability, President Trump's EO
14154 directs the Secretaries of Commerce and Homeland Security to
assess the inflow of minerals produced with forced labor into the
United States and the national and economic security implications of
relying on such imports.27
VI. EXPORT BANS
In July 2023, China curbed gallium and germanium exports, followed
by high-purity and high-quality graphite and REE mining, mineral
processing, and smelting technology later in the year.28 On
August 14, 2024, China issued export restrictions on antimony, a
mineral vital for the defense industry.29 On Tuesday,
December 3, 2024, China announced export bans on ``dual-use''
technologies explicitly targeted at the U.S. after the U.S. took steps
to limit exports of semiconductor and artificial intelligence (AI)
technologies to China.30 Chairman Westerman decried China's
December ban and the lack of the Biden administration's lack of urgency
predating the announcement, saying, ``[d]espite the concerns of elected
officials, national security experts, local communities and mineral
producers, the Biden-Harris administration has made it more difficult
to access the rich mineral resources here in America and ceded control
of the global mineral supply chain to our adversaries.''31
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
In addition to the military applications outlined in the graph
above, the remainder of the minerals on the CML are also integral to
ensuring our national security. For example, cobalt is used in smart
bombs, aircraft, and precision-guided missiles,37 nickel is
used in superalloys for jet engines, and lanthanum is used in night
vision goggles.38 According to Department of Defense (DOD),
each Virginia-class submarine requires 9,200 pounds of REEs, and a
single Aegis destroyer contains 5,200 pounds of REEs.39
Due to a recognition of the importance of resources for defense
applications, the DOD's DLA Strategic Materials Office manages the
National Defense Stockpile, comprised of 50 unique commodities stored
in nine locations throughout the U.S.40 DOD is so reliant on
secure mineral sourcing that the Ukraine Supplemental Appropriations
Act provided $600 million to DOD to secure critical minerals for
missiles and munitions.41 DOD is using these funds to issue
grants to companies like Perpetua Resources to permit its Stibnite-Gold
Project, currently the only domestic site that could produce antimony.
Reliability in the critical mineral supply chain is imperative to the
well-being of our national defense network, and without robust support
for the domestic mining industry, the U.S. will continue to cede
control of important resources to adversarial nations.
China has repeatedly used its mineral supply to strategically flood
markets and stifle foreign competition, including U.S. attempts to
establish secure domestic supply chains. In 2023, after new Chinese-
backed production in the DRC drove a steep decline in cobalt prices,
Idaho Cobalt Operations (ICO), America's only cobalt mine, was forced
to suspend construction mere weeks before it came online.42
ICO would have supported over 250 good-paying jobs and supplied 1,915
metric tons of cobalt annually,43 enough to meet about 23%
of U.S. reported consumption in 2023.44 Instead, the project
remains idle today, waiting for cobalt prices to rebound from a near
20-year low.45 Similarly, in 2015, California's Mountain
Pass mine was driven into bankruptcy as a result of Chinese dumping
practices, costing the U.S. its only domestic source of rare earth
minerals.46 Fortunately, the mine resumed operations in 2018
and has since received federal support under the Defense Production Act
(DPA) to reshore rare earth processing capacity.47
Foreign price manipulation has also had a severe impact on mineral
supplies from allied nations, particularly Australia. Notably, BHP
warned in July 2024 that ``nearly two-thirds of Australia's nickel
market is in danger of closing amid low market prices fueled by a 153%
increase in Indonesia's nickel from 2020 through the end of last
year,'' much of which was backed by China.48 With mineral
demand poised to skyrocket in the coming years, the U.S. cannot afford
to sit idly by and allow national security to be threatened as China
continues to subsidize its production around the world, dump products
onto the market, and make U.S. and allied reshoring efforts
uneconomical. This is especially pressing for commodities such as
cobalt and copper, where supply is projected to outstrip demand in the
coming years.49,50 To counter these concerning trends,
President Trump's recent EO 14154, Unleashing American Energy
Dominance, directs the United States Trade Representative to assess
whether exploitative practices and state-assisted mineral projects
abroad are unlawful or unduly burden or restrict United States commerce
and suggests comprehensive policy responses.51
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
OVERSIGHT HEARING ON NOW ORE NEVER:
THE IMPORTANCE OF DOMESTIC MINING FOR U.S. NATIONAL SECURITY
----------
Thursday, February 6, 2025
U.S. House of Representatives
Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources
Committee on Natural Resources
Washington, D.C.
----------
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:01 a.m. in
Room 1324, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Pete Stauber
[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Stauber, Wittman, Gosar, Fulcher,
Tiffany, Hunt, Collins, Hageman, Ezell, Crank, Begich, Hurd,
Westerman; Ansari, Magaziner, Min, Rivas, and Huffman.
Also present: Representative Stansbury.
Mr. Stauber. The Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral
Resources will come to order.
Without objection, the Chair is authorized to declare a
recess of the Subcommittee at any time.
Under Committee Rule 4(f), any oral opening statements at
hearings are limited to the Chairman and the Ranking Minority
Member.
I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from Nevada, Mr.
Amodei; the gentlewoman from Colorado, Ms. Boebert; and the
gentlewoman from New Mexico, Ms. Stansbury, be allowed to
participate in today's hearing.
Without objection, so ordered.
I now recognize myself for an opening statement.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. PETE STAUBER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MINNESOTA
Mr. Stauber. Today, the Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral
Resources will host an oversight hearing to examine and
emphasize the importance of domestic mining for our Nation's
security.
I would like to begin by thanking our witnesses for being
here to discuss this important topic.
By now, we all understand that hard rock minerals are
essential not only to our modern life in the United States, but
also to our future. Demand for these minerals is projected to
skyrocket in the coming years, even outpacing anticipated
global supplies in some cases.
This subject is highly personal to me. I have been fighting
for years to unleash the economic powerhouse of several
critical mining projects across northern Minnesota.
Unfortunately, the Biden administration has spent the last 4
years unfairly and unilaterally blocking dozens of important
mining projects, including those in my district. In fact, the
Biden administration finally acted at the eleventh hour last
month on Perpetua's Stibnite Gold Project that we will be
discussing today. Only after China announced a mineral export
ban, forcing the Pentagon to have to plead with the White House
to approve the project. This project should have been approved
years ago, and the Biden administration's failure to do so
earlier has put our country's national security at risk.
Given the importance of these minerals and their existence
throughout the United States, it is astonishing that we rely so
heavily on imports. The U.S. Geological Survey's own figures
show that the United States is forced to import more than 50
percent of the minerals on its critical minerals list. Wildly,
we import 100 percent of nearly a quarter of minerals that we
list as critical. Worse yet, our close allies are not the
nations upon which we rely for these key commodities. Most
notably, China controls approximately 60 percent of global
critical minerals production, 90 percent of processing, and 75
percent of manufacturing.
According to the International Energy Agency's 2024 Global
Critical Minerals Outlook, by 2030 Indonesia is also projected
to control 62 percent of global nickel mining, and the
Democratic Republic of Congo will account for 66 percent of
cobalt mining, where they mine cobalt using child slave labor.
And that is a fact. Many of these mines are directly financed
by China, which was a point highlighted in a recent report
compiled by AidData at the College of William and Mary.
According to the report, between 2000 and 2021 Chinese
financial institutions provided nearly $57 billion in loans to
19 low and middle-income countries, including copper and cobalt
from the Democratic Republic of Congo and Peru, and nickel from
Indonesia.
Not only does Chinese mineral dominance enable worldwide
labor and human rights abuses, including child and forced
labor, but it also gives the communist country of China a
stranglehold on America's economic and our national security.
Two months ago China announced a ban of critical mineral
exports to the United States to include antimony, gallium,
germanium, and other dual-use minerals vital for both civilian
and defense applications.
China also has a long track record of strategically dumping
its products onto global markets in order to stifle our
attempts to build out secure mineral supply chains. And just
this week the CCP placed new export controls on five additional
minerals that are key components in a range of industries from
energy development to cell phones to infrared missiles.
Our reliance on foreign critical minerals is completely
unacceptable. Yet, rather than heed the call of House
Republicans to combat our Nation's failure to secure our
domestic critical mineral supply chains, former President Biden
chose to kneecap America by canceling decades-old mineral
leases and withdrawing hundreds of thousands of mineral-rich
acres in States like Minnesota, Arizona, and New Mexico, among
others.
But our self-inflicted wounds do not end there. A recent
S&P global study revealed that it takes an average of 29 years
for a critical mineral project to progress from the discovery
of the mineral to production in the United States. The only
country in this world that takes longer to open up a mine is in
Zambia. This absurd timeline is driven by high cost and
uncertainty from permitting delays and the risk of litigation
initiated by radical anti-mining groups.
Fortunately, on the first day of his second term, President
Trump signed an Executive Order titled, ``Unleashing American
Energy,'' which directs Federal agencies to review and revise
or revoke any agency actions that potentially burden the
development of domestic energy sources, including critical and
other hard rock minerals.
This Committee looks forward to working with the Trump
administration to realize a golden age of American domestic
critical mineral dominance, and I hope that my colleagues on
both sides of the aisle will join me today for a dynamic
discussion about the importance of critical minerals to our
economic and our national security, and how we can secure
domestic critical minerals supply chains to propel us towards a
brighter future.
I want to thank the witnesses again for their willingness
to testify today, and I look forward to hearing about how we
can assure our national security by ensuring mineral security.
And now I want to yield to my new ranking colleague,
Representative Ansari, for her opening statement.
Representative, it is great to have you on this Committee.
You are going to do great work, and I look forward to our
conversations. Welcome.
Ms. Ansari. Thank you. Thank you so much.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. YASSAMIN ANSARI, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ARIZONA
Ms. Ansari. Thank you, Chair Stauber. It is great to join
you. I am thrilled to be here today, and I am honored to serve
as the Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral
Resources this Congress. I look forward to working
collaboratively and in a bipartisan way to get things done
whenever possible.
I was drawn to the Energy and Mineral Resources
Subcommittee because we are handling issues that touch the
daily lives of all of our constituents. When we in Congress
make decisions about mining and energy development, it impacts
everything from jobs to the cost of energy to the quality of
the air that we breathe and the water that we drink and, of
course, if we are addressing the climate crisis or making it
worse.
My constituents sent me to Washington, D.C. to fight for
them for clean air, clean water, lower prices, and safe places
to live, work, and play. Arizonans know too well what it is
like to live with the impacts of climate change. The
communities I represent are on the front lines, facing
unprecedented extreme heat and water scarcity. In fact,
hundreds of Arizonans die every summer as a result of extreme
heat, and this is driven by our dependence on polluting fossil
fuels which puts our well-being at the whims of big oil
companies and their billionaire allies.
This dependence must end. It won't be easy, but we can and
we must transition to a clean energy economy. This transition
relies on materials like copper, lithium, and cobalt to build
the transmission lines, batteries, solar panels, and wind
turbines that we need.
During my time on the Phoenix City Council, I served as a
councilwoman and vice mayor of the city, fifth-largest city in
the country. I led the charge to electrify our city fleets,
invest in renewable energy, and fast-track the transition to
clean electric vehicles. I did this to improve our air quality
and public health, while also knowing that it would require
more mineral resources and advancements in our supply chain.
Beyond clean energy, everything from the cell phones that
we use to lifesaving medical technologies rely on critical
minerals. This is what we are here to talk about today:
domestic mineral needs for national security. I agree with
Chair Stauber we should all be concerned that so many of our
critical mineral supply chains rely on unfriendly or unreliable
trading partners, and I agree that there is an opportunity to
grow a modern, responsible, sustainable domestic mining
industry that creates jobs and supports local economies.
But mining is only part of the solution, and we need to
make sure that it is done right. Mining on U.S. public lands is
still governed by the Mining Law of 1872. It is not a surprise
that a 150-year-old law that has never been reformed is not fit
to handle modern challenges. The mining law has no specific
environmental or public health protections, gives mining
priority over all other uses of public lands, and doesn't
require any royalties back to American taxpayers. If we did
have a royalty, it could fund even more jobs by cleaning up the
more than 100,000 abandoned hardrock mines across the West,
including Arizona, and 500 abandoned uranium mines on the
Navajo Nation.
The Mining law also contains no specific tribal
consultation requirement, yet 89 percent of copper, 79 percent
of lithium, 97 percent of nickel, and 68 percent of cobalt
resources are within 35 miles of tribal land. And while the
mining industry has changed a lot since 1872, it is still an
incredibly resource-intensive process that creates mountains of
toxic waste and uses trillions of gallons of water, which in
the West is becoming an increasingly scarce and unreliable
resource with climate change.
In Arizona, loopholes in water laws allow mining companies
to use groundwater without any restrictions, taking essential
resources away from communities' scarce drinking water. Because
of these issues, we need to look at national security and
propose mines holistically, with a broad view of solutions on
the table that will result in a stronger economy and more
security for all Americans.
If we all work together in good faith, we could manage many
of these problems. Together we could reform the mining law, get
serious about acknowledging and planning for the environmental
impacts of mines, and make sure mines pay the full cost of
doing business while consulting sovereign tribal nations,
ensuring communities have the water that they need and the
clean air to breathe.
And looking beyond mining, the Federal Government should
work to support a circular economy, recycling the precious
resources we already have so they don't end up in landfills. I
look forward to hearing from our witnesses about how we can
recapture and reuse minerals to fill gaps in our supply chains,
making them more nimble, resilient, and environmentally
friendly.
Thank you again for being here and I look forward to the
discussion.
I yield back.
Mr. Stauber. Thank you, Representative Ansari. I now will
recognize the Full Committee Chair, Representative Westerman,
for his opening statement.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. BRUCE WESTERMAN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ARKANSAS
Mr. Westerman. Thank you, Chairman Stauber and Ranking
Member Ansari.
And, you know, this Committee is going to address a lot of
important issues in this Congress, but I am not sure we will
address one any more important than making America more
productive when it comes to minerals and our resources. We
have, again, a lot of good things that we can do together, and
I hope that we can work together to address this issue of the
shortages of these minerals and elements that we have here in
our country.
Our reliance on hardrock minerals for everything from
transportation to communication to national security is no
secret to any of us here today. These minerals are essential
for things like cell phones, defense systems, and satellites.
The fortunate part of it is that we are blessed here in America
with some of the richest deposits of critical and hardrock
minerals. A U.S. Geological Survey national map of currently
identified potential critical mineral resources shows likely
deposits in every single State. In my home State of Arkansas,
for example, the brine from the Smackover Formation holds
millions of tons of lithium reserves that will be vital to meet
rising demands in the coming years.
Yet, for decades we have allowed our capabilities to
discover, extract, and process critical in other hardrock
minerals to languish. Not only have we allowed refineries and
processing facilities to shutter, but we have also suffocated
key prospective mining operations with red tape. Worse yet, we
have failed to effectively combat the lawfare waged by some
groups to determine further delay and devastate promising
mining projects.
Because of our inability to make efficient use of the
critical minerals in our own borders, we have become
increasingly reliant on importing these materials to meet our
ever-growing needs. And because many of the nations upon which
we rely, like China, are not allies, our mineral dependency
presents a serious national security threat.
I had a meeting just yesterday with an individual with a
graphite deposit in New York. And if you look at the USGS list
of how much graphite we use in America, I think it is 52,000
tons a year, and 100 percent of it is imported. Yet, we have
one single mine that I know of that could produce 10, 20, or
1,000 or more tons per year, but we have to be able to get that
graphite to market.
It is disheartening to know how much of our economy and our
security depends on these minerals and elements, and how much
China and other countries are pulling the strings. And we see
this happen when a new mine is announced in the U.S. Take the
lithium, for instance, in my home State. What is China doing
right now? They are dumping lithium in the world market to
lower prices. This is not going to be easy. It is going to
produce financial challenges for people trying to develop
resources, and we have to unite together as Americans to be
able to use these things that we are blessed with to make the
country better.
So, I am looking forward to the testimony today and to the
discussions that we have, and I hope we will all take this as a
serious challenge to the future of our country on how we
develop new mines, how we do it the most environmentally
friendly way possible, how we recycle more things, how we use
innovative technology.
I had a chance to visit one of our national laboratories
last summer, and I found that they are looking at ways to take
aluminum cable and recycle that cable and use different
technologies and, with the same amount of aluminum, get 20
percent more conductivity through it. So, when we talk about
need for more transmission, you know, we keep forgetting that
we have always been the world leaders on innovation, and we can
figure out how to use these resources better than anybody else
in the world.
We can also learn new ways to get these things out of the
ground, to do it in a more environmentally friendly manner, and
to do it in a way that obviously doesn't cause human rights
violations like we see in some parts of the world.
So, again, I am looking forward to not only this hearing,
but the many hearings and markups that we will have along the
way. And I hope that we can work together to do something good
for America.
I yield back.
Mr. Stauber. Thank you, Chair Westerman. I will now go to
my colleague, the Tennis co-Caucus chair with me, and the
Ranking of the Full Committee, Representative Huffman.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. JARED HUFFMAN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Mr. Huffman. I thank you, Mr. Chairman, and good to be back
with you. I want to congratulate our Ranking Member Ansari for
her new position, and for the Ranking Member and the Chairman
for calling us together to discuss a really worthwhile topic.
We can all agree that critical minerals are important for
our national security and for the future, certainly, of clean
energy. The question before us is whether we are going to take
a smart and strategic approach to address these issues or fall
for the false promise that we can simply dig our way out of
this problem.
And I have been on this Committee now for 12 years. I
assure you I have seen every possible material, including sand
and gravel, masquerading as a critical mineral that was
essential to our national security. I have seen every mine in
every location, including really special and sacred places,
represented as critical to our national security. And in the
last Congress many of my colleagues across the aisle were
saying, well, we have to do all this new mining to support
electric vehicles. Well, fast forward to now you are trying to
get rid of electric vehicles, but you still want to do the
mining.
So, look, some of these mines we need and we also need some
other strategies to address our critical mineral needs. But
some of these mines are solutions in search of a problem, and
we have to be thoughtful and careful enough to tell the
difference. I worry about whether we are heading down that path
of thoughtfulness and care because President Trump, Elon Musk,
and their allies here in Congress seem to believe that if we
just let mining companies do whatever they want wherever they
want, the problem will fix itself. And that is nonsense.
Our colleagues across the aisle blame common-sense
environmental protections and legal challenges for holding up
mining projects. Well, folks, permitting exists to ensure that
companies follow basic environmental and safety standards.
Having access to the courts is essential because sometimes you
have to protect a community's drinking water supply that is
going to be unlawfully poisoned. Or sometimes you have to
protect sacred lands that are going to be desecrated or
destroyed. The people affected in these situations should have
a voice. They should have the right to seek justice through
legal avenues.
But even if we eliminated every permitting requirement
tomorrow, we still would not have a secure, totally domestic
supply of all the materials we need. According to USGS, we
can't meet our needs with domestic reserves. This is not a
problem that the United States can solve alone.
But let's say we had every mineral that we wanted. Mining
in America doesn't mean that these minerals stay here, and we
need to talk about that, too, when we consider some of these
controversial mining proposals. Most mining in the U.S. is done
by massive, multi-national conglomerates that mine publicly-
owned minerals from our public lands, and then turn around and
sell them to the highest bidder, often shipping them overseas,
and they do it without paying a cent back to the American
taxpayer in royalties. Mining alone gets this special
exemption. Every other use of public land, including oil and
gas development, is required to return 16 percent of their
profits back to the American people.
So, let's be clear: foreign mining companies are taking
America's resources for free, selling them to the highest
bidder, often overseas, sometimes to geopolitical rivals, and
leaving American communities to deal with the pollution and the
destruction that they leave behind. And now you want to take
away those last safeguards to protect our communities.
Here is an example. Resolution Copper, a proposed mine in
Arizona, would permanently destroy Oak Flat, a sacred site of
the San Carlos Apache Tribe. Resolution Copper is owned by two
multi-national, multi-billion-dollar conglomerates, Rio Tinto
and BHP. The largest shareholder of Rio Tinto is a Chinese
state-owned company. Resolution Copper has not committed to
keeping the copper in the U.S. Most of what BHP and Rio Tinto
mines ends up in China for processing. So, that proposal would
bring no money to the U.S. taxpayers and would give away not
only American public lands but a sacred tribal site to a multi-
national, CCP-owned company to mine copper that is just going
to be sent abroad. It is a good example of the kind of giveaway
that we need to scrutinize instead of exalting, which I see all
too often in some of our deliberations here in this
Subcommittee.
So, I hope that we have an opportunity to work together to
help separate the smart, strategic decisions that can actually
make us safer, that can give us progress towards a reliable
source of these materials without compromising other important
values. And certainly, Democrats are here to work with our
Republican colleagues toward that end, if we can.
And with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Stauber. Thank you very much. We will now move to
introduce our witnesses.
Let me remind the witnesses that under Committee Rules they
must limit their oral statements to 5 minutes, but their entire
statement will appear in the hearing record.
To begin your testimony, please press the ``talk'' button
on the microphone.
We use timing lights. When you begin, the light will turn
green. When you have 1 minute remaining, the light will turn
yellow. And at the end of 5 minutes, the light will turn red,
and we will ask you to please wrap up your statement.
I will also allow all witnesses to testify before Member
questioning.
Our first witness is Dr. Morgan Bazilian, and he is the
director of the Payne Institute for Public Policy at the
Colorado School of Mines, and he is stationed in Golden,
Colorado.
Doctor, you are now recognized for 5 minutes for your
opening statement.
STATEMENT OF MORGAN BAZILIAN, DIRECTOR, PAYNE INSTITUTE FOR
PUBLIC POLICY, COLORADO SCHOOL OF MINES, GOLDEN, COLORADO
Dr. Bazilian. Chairman Stauber, Ranking Member Ansari, and
members of the Subcommittee, it is an honor to appear before
you today on this important topic of critical minerals and
national security. My name is Morgan Bazilian. I am a professor
and Director of the Payne Institute for Public Policy at the
Colorado School of Mines. I am one of the world's leading
scholars on the topics being discussed at today's hearing. The
Colorado School of Mines has an extraordinary depth of
knowledge on these topics, and has been pursuing them for over
150 years.
This area will benefit from both humility and a truly
interdisciplinary approach. Making trade-offs explicit and
acknowledging that they change over time will help you make
better policy.
This is not a new topic, especially as it relates to
security and war-fighting. Historians, geologists, and
government officials have long acknowledged the nexus between a
state's mineral resources and its economic and military power.
In 1902, historian Brooks Adams asserted that all experience
has demonstrated that the center of mineral production is
likely also to be the seat of empire.
I believe strongly that the United States should urgently
ramp up our domestic mining and refining operations in a manner
that utilizes best technical and safety practices, has a focus
on environment and community engagement, seeks transparency,
and puts our Nation in a strong position on global supply
chains. This is in the economic and security interests of the
country and will also support American workers and companies.
There are positive developments from Arkansas to Arizona,
from Nebraska to Nevada, from Minnesota to Montana that can
become world-class mining assets. But many remain stymied. It
is time to unlock this potential. The United States possesses a
wealth of these minerals in the Earth's crust, on the ocean
floor, and at the School of Mines we study it even from the
perspective of the moon and asteroids. They are also available
as co-products and through recycling.
The primary impetus for this hearing and related discussion
stems from the Chinese dominance of the sector. And I am using
that term, ``dominance,'' not as rhetorical flourish, but one
based on empirics. By 2022, China had assumed the top position
in the production of 30 out of 50 minerals listed as critical
by the USGS. This reliance exposes the United States to
disruptions and economic pain such as the recent export bans
that China imposed on antimony, gallium, and germanium.
Last year colleagues and I correctly noted that, moving
forward, China could impose export controls on other minerals
like bismuth, rubidium, and tantalum. Much of this has now come
to pass in the unproductive tit for tat between the United
States and China. We largely ceded our leadership in the sector
many decades ago to China, and they are not standing still.
They are, rather, investing tens of billions of dollars all
over the world today.
Minerals are necessary for American national defense,
economic prosperity, and energy security. Rare Earth elements
are used in Virginia-class attack submarines; copper is used in
155-millimeter artillery shells; platinum group metals are used
in catalytic converters; and gallium is used in advanced
semiconductors; tungsten is used in exploration drill bits;
copper is used in transmission lines and electric motors. In
short, minerals are foundational across the modern economy and
becoming more so.
Strengthening U.S. mineral supply chains is an important
area of bipartisan agreement, and this 119th Congress has a
chance to take action. I give you 10 areas that require
attention and prioritization.
First, improve permitting and associated regulations.
The existing national defense stockpile is insufficient for
supporting the U.S. military in a major conflict. This needs to
change, and quickly.
Third, grow the workforce and support research.
Fourth, restart the Bureau of Mines. Institutions are
important to success.
Fifth, provide well-focused financing not just for supply,
but also demand.
Sixth, think in terms of supply chains, not just ore.
Seventh, increase the viability and functioning of global
markets. That will help investment decisions.
Eighth, ensure that cutting-edge mining technologies and
processes are deployed at scale.
Ninth, engage meaningfully, early, and with respect for the
sovereignty of Native American Tribes and people.
And lastly, work with allies globally.
It is time for America to become an important mining
country again.
Thank you for having me here today.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Bazilian follows:]
Prepared Statement of Dr. Morgan D. Bazilian, Professor and Director,
Payne Institute for Public Policy at Colorado School of Mines
Chairman Stauber, Ranking Member Ansari, and Members of the
Subcommittee, it is an honor to appear before you today on the
important topic of critical minerals and national security.
My name is Morgan Bazilian, and I am a Professor and Director of
the Payne Institute for Public Policy at the Colorado School of Mines.
The Institute distills and translates cutting-edge scientific and
engineering research into insights for decisionmakers globally. I have
spent the bulk of my career in public service across three decades and
several continents--most recently as lead energy specialist at the
World Bank focused on addressing energy poverty. I am one of the
world's leading scholars on the topics being discussed at today's
Hearing.
The Colorado School of Mines has an extraordinary depth of
knowledge on these topics, with expertise ranging from mining and
metallurgy, to economics, policy, anthropology, and chemistry. While I
cannot adequately reflect the entirety of that portfolio in this
testimony, I will emphasize that this area, like most, requires both
humility and a truly interdisciplinary approach--technocratic
perspectives alone will prove myopic.
IMPETUS
Let me begin by saying that I believe strongly that the United
States should urgently and effectively ramp up our domestic mining and
refining operations in a manner that utilizes best practices for
environment and community engagement, employs sophisticated financial
tools, and puts our nation in a strong position on global supply
chains. This is in the economic and security interests of the country
and will also support American workers and companies.
There are positive developments from Arkansas, to Nebraska, to
Nevada that can become world-class mining assets. However, in designing
approaches that move us to greater economic and security benefits one
should be aware that the value add to an economy is much greater
through the production of advanced technologies than ores.
Additionally, the various supply chains are complex, dynamic, and
deeply intertwined with the wider economy.
The United States possess a wealth of these minerals--in the
Earth's crust, on the ocean floor, and possibly in space. They are also
available as co-products and recycling. That said, we largely ceded our
leadership in this sector many decades ago to China. Catching up is
unlikely to be a productive policy goal, as China is hardly standing
still. They are, in fact, investing billions all over the world, and
are more effective at building large infrastructure than our system
will (or should) allow. AidData reported last week that between 2000-
2021, Chinese Banks and their partners issued $57 billion in loans to
low- and middle-income countries for producing and processing several
critical minerals.
The primary impetus for this hearing and related discussions stems
from the Chinese dominance of the sector--and I am using that term not
as rhetorical flourish, but one based on empirics. In the late
twentieth century, China emerged as a formidable global power and the
predominant mineral producer worldwide. According to the US Geological
Survey, the most noteworthy transformation in global mineral production
from 1990 to 2018 was the exponential increase in China's mineral
output. By 2022, China had assumed the top position in the production
of 30 out of the 50 minerals listed as critical by the US. This
reliance exposes the United States to supply chain disruptions, such as
the export ban that China imposed on antimony, gallium, and germanium
to the United States last year.
Last year, we correctly noted that ``Moving forward, China could
impose export controls on other minerals--like bismuth, rubidium, and
tantalum.'' And further, ``China could expand its export bans to
include other minerals on its dual-use export control list. These
minerals include the following: aluminum, beryllium, bismuth, calcium,
graphite, hafnium, magnesium, nickel (powder), rhenium, titanium,
tungsten, zinc, and zirconium.'' Much of this has now been signaled by
China.
Minerals are necessary for American national defense, economic
prosperity, and energy security. Rare earth elements are used in
Virginia-class attack submarines, and copper is used in 155 mm
artillery shells. Platinum group metals are used in catalytic
converters, while gallium is used in advanced semiconductors. Tungsten
is used in exploration drill bits, and copper is used in transmission
lines. In short, minerals are foundational across the modern economy
and becoming more so. In a positive development last week, MP Materials
commenced commercial production of neodymium-praseodymium metal and
trial production of automotive-grade, sintered neodymium-iron-boron
magnets in Texas.
These so-called critical minerals--the once forgotten elements
crucial to modern day technology--have made it to the top of the
geopolitical agenda. They have become a common refrain and part of the
accepted lexicon in government and industry alike. While this attention
remains, it is worth trying to fundamentally shift the perception of an
industry that has suffered a poor reputation for millennia. Still,
these issues largely remain quotidian to much of the population.
My comments will focus on the national security implications, as
opposed to the more typically elucidated energy demands for these
materials. That said, I have written and researched these sometimes
disparate topics in some depth and have provided links to several of
these pieces in the References.
HISTORY
This is not a new topic--especially as it relates to security and
warfighting.
Historians, geologists, and government officials have long
acknowledged the nexus between a state's mineral resources and its
economic and military power. In 1902, historian Brooks Adams asserted
that, ``all experience has demonstrated that the centre of mineral
production is likely, also, to be the seat of empire. In 1916, US
Secretary of the Interior Franklin K. Lane prioritized minerals as the
foremost ``foundations of power,'' a sentiment echoed by US Geological
Survey Director George Otis Smith, who affirmed ``that mineral wealth
is the foundation of power.'' In 1939, geologist C. K. Leith
highlighted, ``Military power used to be measured principally by
manpower, but is coming more and more to be measured in terms of guns,
ships, automobiles, and airplanes, and the fuel to drive them. These
mean minerals.''
The Defense Production Act, which was modeled after the War Powers
Acts of 1941 and 1942, allows the federal government to begin
prioritizing national defense over private-sector needs. The current
version of the law allows the president, through executive order, to
allocate ``materials, services, and facilities'' for national defense
purposes and to offer loans or guarantees to private companies. During
the 1950s, President Truman used the act to regulate the steel and
mining industries, ensuring the U.S. military could procure adequate
wartime supplies. As the Cold War escalated, the Truman administration
employed the DPA to boost the supply of manganese, a mineral critical
for steel production and one that was put under an embargo by the
Soviet Union. Truman also invoked the DPA to establish domestic
aluminum and titanium industries through the provision of capital and
interest-free loans.
During the first decade of the Cold War, the US government
stockpiled enough minerals to cover a five-year conflict with the
Soviet Union. By 1962 this meant a reserve worth over $77 billion
adjusted for current prices. This stockpile was housed at over two
hundred locations, ranging from military depots to commercial
warehouses, and it contained large-volume minerals like aluminum,
copper, lead, and acid-grade fluorspar--some of the most commonly used
minerals by the Department of Defense. Today, the existing National
Defense Stockpile is insufficient for supporting the US military in a
major conflict. The stockpile targets enough inventories for just a
one-year conflict with China, followed by a three-year recovery. Even
so, the present reserve--which is worth only $912.3 million and stored
at just six locations--meets less than half of the military's estimated
demand in this scenario. It also lacks any inventories of critical
aluminum, copper, lead, and acid-grade fluorspar.
To reduce the risks of mineral disruptions, the US government--
across multiple administrations--has taken various actions. In his
first term, President Trump signed Executive Order 13817, which
directed the Federal Government to publish a list of critical minerals
and a federal minerals strategy.
President Biden continued and expanded the efforts of the first
Trump Administration. Backed by significant appropriations from
Congress, the Department of Energy committed billions of dollars in
loans to mineral processing projects, and the Department of Defense
awarded hundreds of millions of dollars in grants for mineral projects
in both the United States and Canada. The State Department also
established the Minerals Security Partnership--following the
development of a diplomatic effort under the first Trump Administration
known as the Energy and Resource Governance Initiative.
It is worth recalling that American jobs--in Pennsylvania,
Kentucky, West Virginia, Michigan, Indiana and across our industrial
heartland--depend on Canadian critical minerals. Nickel in particular,
a critical mineral essential for military and defense applications.
America has only one nickel mine in the entire country, and it is
slated to close within the next 10 years. We have no nickel refinery,
so everything we mine we send to Canada and then buy back. For more
than 70 years this has been a stable, reliable, affordable relationship
with our most significant ally and trading partner. Canada supplies
roughly 50% of the nickel used in our military and more than 80% of the
nickel used in our aerospace sector. Uranium is another strategic
mineral consideration for trade with our northern partners--and not an
insignificant one for either energy or security needs. Likewise,
Canadian potash is essential for our agricultural sector and food
security.
We certainly need to develop our own mines and refineries--but
working with allies will be indispensable to success in creating
robust, secure, and resilient supply chains.
While international financing is important, investing in developing
and emerging countries carries significant risk. That has been evident
in the default of US backed loans (from DFC and DOE) for a graphite
project in Mozambique due to civil unrest in that country. The graphite
was destined for processing in Louisiana. It remains important to look
for such opportunities, but the groundwork and diligence required takes
time and sharp analysis. Related, initiatives like The Copper Mark that
bring improved transparency to supply chains will expand in relevance--
they also can bring competitive advantage for the United States as we
produce these materials under strict regulations.
Finally, as a reminder, this is not an issue only being addressed
by the United States. Many countries have critical minerals lists--in
some cases with fundamentally different motivations. Our country has at
least three such unclassified lists. The DOD's efforts are perhaps the
most sophisticated, as they consider not just minerals, but processed
materials--they also consider future demand scenarios and not just a
snapshot of the present. Improving the sophistication of these
methodologies, while seemingly prosaic, would help improve decision
making. To that end, various parts of the intelligence and defense
community are undertaking regular tabletop exercises looking at
different vectors of these issues. Those games will help inform how we
can plan for, and react to, the myriad risks to national security.
ACTION
Last November, colleagues and I outlined several considerations for
furthering the vital role of critical minerals and materials in
supporting US national security.
President Trump has already issued several Executive Orders that
involved critical minerals, including the ``Unleashing American
Energy''. While previous federal actions on minerals largely sought to
increase financial support for mineral projects, the President's new EO
directs other actions too, such as tariff investigations and permitting
actions.
Most notably, the EO directs the Council on Environmental Quality
to rescind its implementing regulations for the National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA) and instead issue guidance for agencies to implement
NEPA regulations. This action could represent the most serious change
to NEPA since its inception depending on what agency-level regulations
are eventually adopted. Additionally, the next Trump administration
could permit more mines on federal lands. For example, the Biden
administration banned mining in Minnesota's Boundary Waters Canoe Area
Wilderness and surrounding watershed for 20 years--that decision may be
reversed.
Another key domestic project is the Resolution Copper project in
Arizona. I had the opportunity to visit Resolution last year, and
travel several thousand feet down their mine shaft. It is located in
the footprint of an existing mine, in an area called the ``Copper
Triangle'' of Arizona where mining has been a fabric of the rural
economy for more than 100 years. The deposit is planned be mined using
underground methods and has the potential to produce up to 25% of US
demand for copper, as well as a host of critical mineral co-products.
In addition, the managing company produces final refined copper and
critical minerals from one of two operating smelters and refineries
left in the U.S. This is down from about 20 such operations existed a
few decades ago. For a sense of scale, China operates over 50 copper
smelters and refineries.
Adopting demand-side policies that support US mineral projects--
crucial for making financing work is essential for getting to financial
investment decisions. On the upstream side, rebuilding America into a
mineral powerhouse faces a financial pitfall on the verge of
production: mineral projects often struggle to secure funding for
turning a mineral discovery into an operational mine. The reasons are
various, including the large upfront capital investment and long
payback time, as well as permitting risks and price volatility. The
United States needs a bridge over this somewhat unique ``valley of
death'' in the mineral project lifecycle.
Mineral projects have a long phase of development that entails
rigorous state and federal permitting processes, regular community
engagement, environmental studies, cultural surveys and consultation
with tribal sovereign governments. Once a `feasibility study' is
completed to assess a project's viability, mining companies seek to
secure permits and financing before they can begin construction.
This phase takes time and money and has an unpredictable timeline.
Based on an analysis of 270 active mines, the average duration from a
completed feasibility study to mine operation is three years, with 10
percent of projects taking over six years to begin operations. This
time frame includes permitting, economic assessment, and construction.
Due to permitting or financing challenges, many mining projects with
completed feasibility studies do not reach the operational stage. For
450 non-operational projects, it has been an average of seven years
since the feasibility study was conducted, with 10 percent of projects
taking longer than 11 years. This is where our critical minerals
ambitions get stuck: between exploration and construction, unable to
secure the financing needed for permitting, engineering, and
environmental reviews. It is telling that only three mines have come
online in the US over the last two decades, none of which were on
federal lands, with roughly 10 projects stuck in development.
The markets for this diverse set of minerals and chemicals are
often small, illiquid, have poor transparency and even worse price
discovery. Lithium carbonate's price (according to the excellent
Benchmark Minerals Intelligence team) rocketing from $8,500/tonne in
December 2020 to $81,000/tonne in December 2022 and now back down to
about $14,500/tonne, underlines the aggressive nature of how these
inflexible markets can flip. It also makes investment decisions
exceedingly difficult. The case of Jervois' Idaho cobalt project is
instructive here. The once only active cobalt mine in the country
halted construction because of falling cobalt prices.
Strengthening U.S. mineral supply chains is an important area of
bipartisan agreement. Thus, this 119th Congress offers a significant
opportunity for substantive action on critical minerals. Several areas
stand out.
Congress could pass legislation increasing funds for mineral
stockpiling, including for minerals used heavily in conflict but
presently absent from the U.S. stockpile, such as copper. Mineral
stockpiling already receives bipartisan support in Congress, as
evidenced by pending FY 25 legislation to allocate $600 million to the
National Defense Stockpile Transaction Fund. Congress could also
explore expanding the purpose of the National Defense Stockpile from
``national defense only'' to include economic security, such as
stockpiling minerals from domestic mineral producers at above-market
prices amid price slumps. China already uses its own stockpiles this
way, allowing it to exert a powerful influence on market prices. As I
noted, the frailty of current markets makes it even easier for China to
exert this control.
Congress could fund more educational and research programs, too,
including grants for recruiting and educating mineral-focused
students--as the bipartisan Mining Schools Act, advanced last Congress
by this committee, would provide. Mining and geological engineers are
expected to have modest employment growth of 2 percent from 2023 to
2033, but more than half of the current U.S. mining workforce is
expected to retire by 2029, leaving a workforce gap. And the workforce
pipeline is bottlenecked: The number of mining-related graduates has
dropped 39 percent since 2016. Today, there are 14 mining engineering
programs in the U.S.--down from 25 in 1982. Last year, these mining
schools collectively enrolled 590 undergraduate students, graduating
just 162 students for an industry demand of 400-600 new mining
engineers each year. In comparison, China's 45 mining engineering
programs currently enroll about 12,000 students and graduate
approximately 3,000 a year--about 18.5 times the number of graduates in
the United States. Increased R&D investments in next generation mining
technologies for identifying, mining, recycling, and processing
minerals and to reclaim, remediate, and reuse existing mines would be
an important complement to this training.
Congress could pass legislation seeking to streamline the
permitting process for mineral projects. Specifically, the legislation
could modify the litigation process for mineral projects. A team at the
Institute for Progress recommended establishing a time limit for
injunctive relief--that is, a court order preventing construction--for
projects subject to review under the National Environmental Policy Act.
The time limit would begin with the initiation of the NEPA review and
end shortly after the conclusion of the NEPA review.
Another area for improved legislation is enhancing the industry's
supply chain reporting in government procurement, especially by the
Defense Department. In previous years, the National Defense
Authorization Act has included reporting requirements on the provenance
of minerals in permanent magnets. These reporting requirements could be
expanded to other defense goods, such as munitions and platforms like
naval vessels.
Lastly, institutions are part of the solution set as well. Congress
could pass legislation reviving the Bureau of Mines or creating a
similar entity, such as a proposed National Critical Minerals Council.
Established in 1910, the Bureau of Mines initially worked on addressing
mine health and safety issues, eventually expanding into information
gathering on the domestic and global mineral industries as well as
research on mining and processing technology. As its functions were
largely absorbed by other federal agencies over time, the bureau was
dissolved in 1996 amid budgetary battles in Congress.
All of these actions could be included in the development and
implementation of a national critical mineral strategy.
LAND
My final comment is on a topic often overlooked in these
proceedings. That is: critical minerals security and success in the
United States is intimately tied to Indian Country.
Native American Tribes stand to benefit greatly from mining and
processing the critical minerals needed to drive the energy transition
in the United States--but only if we acknowledge the sordid history of
mining on Tribal lands and properly remediate legacy issues while
forging a new approach that is transparent, fair, and centered on
Tribal sovereignty and creating vibrant economies.
Mining offers Tribes a major opportunity. Tribal lands hold roughly
50% of US uranium reserves. And, approximately 97% of U.S. nickel
reserves, 89% of its copper reserves and 79% of its lithium reserves
lie on or within 35 miles of Native American reservations (MSCI).
Tribes could also benefit from choosing to become better networked and
integrated into domestic and global supply chains. To wit, a deal was
inked last week allowing the US company Energy Fuels Ltd. to transit
uranium across the Navajo Nation, and also engage in the cleanup of
abandoned mines.
If the federal government respects Tribal sovereignty, resource
extraction and related projects such as natural gas development, power
plants, and data centers on Tribal lands can help create economic
prosperity.
Thank you very much for the privilege of speaking in this august
chamber today.
*************************
References alluded to in the Testimony:
1. https://foreignpolicy.com/2022/09/16/inflation-reduction-act-
critical-mineral-chains-congress-biden/
2. https://foreignpolicy.com/2023/03/16/us-military-china-minerals-
supply-chain/
3. https://www.foreignaffairs.com/united-states/missing-minerals-clean-
energy-supply-chains
4. https://www.realclearenergy.org/articles/2024/12/19/
leveraging_the_defense_
production_act_to_stockpile_minerals_1079522.html
5. https://mwi.westpoint.edu/as-americas-military-rearms-it-needs-
minerals-and-lots-of-them/
6. https://mwi.westpoint.edu/what-if-americas-mineral-intensive-
military-runs-out-of-minerals/
7. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2214790X24001539
8. https://www.ciphernews.com/articles/changing-the-relationship-
between-mining-and-native-american-tribes/
9. https://www.csis.org/analysis/pathway-responsible-mining-indian-
country
10. https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/energysource/the-us-
government-should-build-a-resilient-resource-reserve-for-wartime-and-
peacetime/
11. https://www.weforum.org/stories/2023/05/critical-minerals-
technology-geopolitical-greener-future/
12. https://www.cfr.org/podcasts/critical-minerals-and-china-morgan-
bazilian
13. https://foreignpolicy.com/2024/11/18/united-states-mining-critical-
minerals-congress-supple-chains/
14. https://media.defense.gov/2024/mar/11/2003410998/-1/-1/1/view%20-
%20 wischer%20&%20bazilian.pdf
15. https://www.airuniversity.af.edu/Portals/10/AEtherJournal/Journals/
Volume-3_Number-2/Wischer_et_al.pdf
16. https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/the-defense-production-act-s-
role-in-the-clean-energy
17. https://www.energy.senate.gov/services/files/57CA4D91-142C-44A7-
9CE4-583456056FDF
18. https://source.benchmarkminerals.com/article/opinion-what-could-
the-trump-administrations-mineral-policy-look-like
19. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/
S2214790X23001909
20. https://www.msci.com/www/blog-posts/mining-energy-transition-
metals/02531033947
______
Questions Submitted for the Record to Morgan D. Bazilian, Director,
Payne Institute for Public Policy, Colorado School of Mines
Questions Submitted by Representative Westerman
Question 1. During the hearing, you discussed ways to improve
coordination between federal agencies that maintain separate lists of
critical minerals and materials.
1a) Can you elaborate on how Congress can streamline processes
between agencies like DOD, DOE, and DOI when it comes to determining
criticality?
1b) How would H.R. 8446, the Critical Minerals Consistency Act of
2024, which passed through the House last Congress, contribute to these
goals? Do you recommend any additional policies to accompany this bill
specifically in the 119th Congress?
Answer. Three non-classified lists for critical minerals exist in
the US. Each list has a different system boundary, a different focus,
and a different methodology. These differences stem from the missions
and goals of the various agencies and their stakeholders. The resulting
lists are thus very different, albeit with some overlap. The DOD list
is the only one with a forward-looking methodology, and the one with a
mix of minerals and various materials. Likely the best way to increase
coordination is through increased transparency of methods and reporting
timelines.
This is not an issue only being addressed by the United States.
Many countries have critical minerals lists--in some cases with
fundamentally different motivations. Our country has at least three
such unclassified lists. The DOD's efforts are perhaps the most
sophisticated, as they consider not just minerals, but processed
materials--they also consider future demand scenarios and not just a
snapshot of the present. Improving the sophistication of these
methodologies, while seemingly prosaic, would help improve decision
making. To that end, various parts of the intelligence and defense
community are undertaking regular tabletop exercises looking at
different vectors of these issues. Those games will help inform how we
can plan for, and react to, the myriad risks to national security.
I am not familiar with the HR 8446 legislation in detail, but it
seems to suggest including the materials designated in the DOE list to
be included in the USGS list. That may bring some clarity to the
confusion created by having multiple lists, but the methodologies will
likewise have to be aligned in some manner.
*Our recent paper on the topic is here: https://
www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2214790X23001909
Questions Submitted by Representative Fulcher
Question 1. How critical is it that land management agencies, the
Department of Defense, and other key departments work together to
streamline timelines and cut through bureaucratic delays? When it comes
to permitting, how can these agencies better engage with industry-both
to understand their challenges and to collaborate on solutions that
ensure we meet permitting milestones efficiently, from exploration to
full-scale development?
Answer. With domestic mineral demand forecasted to soar due to
America's burgeoning reindustrialization and overseas mineral supplies
imperiled by jurisdictional and shipping risks, members of the U.S.
executive branch and Congress increasingly support a modernized
permitting system that facilitates the development of domestic mining
projects. They also generally back high permitting standards for
safety, health, labor, emissions, and the environment, as well as
Tribal consultation and community engagement. This emerging bipartisan
consensus presents an opportunity for federal agencies to update rules
and for Congress to pass laws streamlining permitting for new mines
that are environmentally and socially responsible. Better coordination
between the many departments, regulatory bodies, and agencies would
certainly improve permitting efficiency.
Mineral projects have a long phase of development that entails
rigorous state and federal permitting processes, regular community
engagement, environmental studies, cultural surveys and consultation
with tribal sovereign governments. Once a `feasibility study' is
completed to assess a project's viability, mining companies seek to
secure permits and financing before they can begin construction.
This phase takes time and money and has an unpredictable timeline.
Based on an analysis of 270 active mines, the average duration from a
completed feasibility study to mine operation is three years, with 10
percent of projects taking over six years to begin operations. This
time frame includes permitting, economic assessment, and construction.
Due to permitting or financing challenges, many mining projects with
completed feasibility studies do not reach the operational stage. This
is where our critical minerals ambitions get stuck: between exploration
and construction, unable to secure the financing needed for permitting,
engineering, and environmental reviews. It is telling that only three
mines have come online in the US over the last two decades, none of
which were on federal lands, with roughly 10 projects stuck in
development.
*Our recent paper on the topic is in this book on page 78: https://
csis-website-prod.s3.amazonaws.com/s3fs-public/2025-02/
250210_Baskaran_Critical_Minerals.pdf
?VersionId=Tfu2TnNrQGlN7ol8HSCakMUT8HTwYukd
Questions Submitted by Representative Ezell
Question 1. Semiconductors, critical to autos, military, and other
key national security applications rely on palladium supply for their
fabrication. We saw the disruption to many of our key national
industries due to the semiconductor supply chain disruption during the
early onset of the pandemic. Will we see this again if palladium
supplies are withheld from the U.S.?
Answer. Palladium, like gallium and germanium, are essential for
semiconductors. They all face supply chain risks, but palladium risk is
more from Russia and possibly South Africa--whereas the others have
risks largely from China. The US produces a small amount of global
demand from mines in Montana.
On December 3, 2024, China's Ministry of Commerce announced that
``the export of dual-use items such as gallium, germanium, antimony,
and superhard materials to the United States will not be permitted.''
This announcement likely means that over 20 mineral items--encompassing
both metals and chemicals--are banned from being exported from China to
the United States.
Critically, China--the United States' ``most consequential
strategic competitor'' according to the 2022 National Defense
Strategy--is the largest source of U.S. imports for antimony metal and
oxide, as well as germanium metal. China is also the second largest
source of U.S. imports for gallium. Since China's export ban takes
immediate effect, the U.S. defense industrial base could experience
short-term mineral shortages and higher prices. This should not be
taken lightly: mineral shortages can impede defense manufacturing and
undermine the strength of the military, just as the United States
experienced during World War II.
The resulting supply disruptions from China's new export ban could
also have a multi-billion-dollar impact on the U.S. economy. For
example, the U.S. Geological Survey recently calculated that if China
blocked all exports of gallium alone, U.S. gross domestic product could
decline by up to $8.2 billion.
*One of our papers on gallium and germanium is here: https://
thediplomat.com/2024/12/chinas-mineral-export-ban-strikes-at-the-us-
defense-industrial-base/
______
Mr. Stauber. Thank you, Dr. Bazilian. I will now recognize
my colleague, the gentleman from Arizona, Dr. Gosar, for 30
seconds to introduce our next witness.
Dr. Gosar. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to
introduce Jeremy Harrell, the Chief Executive Officer of
ClearPath. I am excited to introduce Jeremy today, as he is a
proud alumni of my staff. From 2011 to 2013, Jeremy served as
my Legislative Director before moving over to the U.S. Senate
and then onto ClearPath, first as their policy director and
then eventually moving up to the ranks of CEO. I am proud to
see a great Capitol Hill staffer succeed and join us here today
on the other side of the dais.
Welcome, Jeremy.
I yield.
Mr. Stauber. Thank you.
Mr. Harrell, you are now recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF JEREMY HARRELL, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER,
CLEARPATH, WASHINGTON, D.C.
Mr. Harrell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, Dr. Gosar, for the very kind introduction. It is
great to be back here at the Committee.
Thank you, Ranking Member. I am excited to discuss this
important topic today. My name is Jeremy Harrell, and I am the
Chief Executive Officer of ClearPath.
Securing mineral supply chains is paramount to our Nation's
economic competitiveness. Global demand is rapidly increasing,
and our Nation's dependence on foreign supply chains is a
significant risk to our national security. We often take for
granted the materials in everyday consumer products and the
clean energy that powers our Nation. Estimates show the U.S.
may need to double grid capacity over the coming decades to
meet rising demand. Expanding this capacity requires
substantial infrastructure that relies on various materials.
The International Energy Agency predicts that by 2040,
global demand for minerals like lithium, cobalt, graphite, and
nickel could grow 20 to 40 times. Our Nation needs a strategy
that synchronizes U.S. R&D capabilities with targeted free-
market incentives, regulatory modernization, and proactive
trade policies. That strategy should start with three key
objectives: one, restore predictability to the permitting
process; two, streamline judicial review of administrative
actions; and three, de-risk private investment in domestic
mining and processing.
First, predictability is essential. Never has the phrase
``time is money'' been more appropriate. A typical mining
project loses more than one-third of its value because of
permitting delays. Far too often these delays make a project
financially unviable. The energy and infrastructure projects
most often impacted by this permitting purgatory offer the
greatest benefits to our Nation. Take the largest proven
lithium reserve in the U.S., Nevada's Thacker Pass mine.
Initial exploration began in 2007, but it didn't receive
approval until 2021. Several permitting issues delayed the
project, and it is now slated to begin production in 2028.
Twenty-one years later is simply unacceptable.
The U.S. must eliminate unnecessary bureaucracy where the
economic and environmental benefits outweigh the opportunity
cost. The National Environmental Policy Act, or NEPA, has been
contorted far beyond Congress' initial intent. NEPA is intended
to be a procedural law that requires Federal agencies to assess
the environmental impact of their actions, not one that imposes
new, substantial requirements. The NEPA process is just the
start to letting America build. Agencies ranging from the EPA
to Interior need to also issue relevant permits such as
Endangered Species Act permits, Clean Water Act permits, and
others before construction.
New reforms should expedite the approval process for
projects that bring net benefits and comply with laws to ensure
clean water and clean air. This can be done faster without
sacrificing environmental outcomes.
Second, the judicial review of agency actions must be
reformed. The current system is tilted towards those who seek
to delay or block projects. It is simple. Once approved, legal
challenges should be addressed, yet nearly every major mining
project faces litigation that drags on for years. This results
in years of delays that change little to nothing about the
project. Litigants exploit these delays, aiming to stretch the
process until developers run out of funding and ultimately
abandon projects.
Congress could consider limiting legal challenges to plain
errors related to the natural resources laws, narrowing the
scope, and setting strict review timelines. Without changes,
our Nation is needlessly undermining our own mineral supply
chain goals.
And third, the Federal Government could leverage its
financial tools to de-risk private-sector investment. Chinese
state-owned enterprises use heavy subsidies to undercut
American companies, distort prices, and dominate markets,
leading to shortages of critical minerals and increased prices.
Out-subsidizing China is not an effective strategy, but
targeted incentives like the 45X tax credit, public-private
partnerships, and low-cost debt financing can foster investment
and protect American industries from unfair competition. The
45X tax credit could be strengthened to support U.S. production
goals. The credit should provide meaningful incentives for
domestic mines that send mineral concentrates to the U.S. or
allied refineries, and it should allow domestic refiners to
claim the credit. Leveraging these types of tools can
accelerate new mines and processing facilities.
These are just a few common-sense reforms that Congress
could consider to further American mineral security and
manufacturing competitiveness. As global demand for minerals
increases, the U.S. will either responsibly develop resources
at home and alongside of our allies, or continue to rely on
foreign sources, many of which pose human rights concerns,
national security risks, and significant environmental
consequences. ClearPath believes the U.S. should lead from the
front.
I look forward to working with this Committee to push
common-sense reforms across the finish line. Thank you for the
opportunity.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Harrell follows:]
Prepared Statement of Jeremy Harrell, Chief Executive Officer,
ClearPath, Inc.
Good Morning, Chairman Stauber, Ranking Member Ansari and members
of the Subcommittee. My name is Jeremy Harrell, and I am the Chief
Executive Officer of ClearPath, a 501(c)(3) organization that works to
accelerate American innovation to reduce global energy emissions.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify today and for holding this
important hearing. It is exciting to see that the Committee
prioritizing, in one of its first hearings of the 119th Congress, the
urgent need to secure the mineral supply chains for our nation's energy
and manufacturing future . Reducing our vulnerabilities are paramount
to U.S. competitiveness, and it is essential that our nation makes
progress over the next two years.
U.S. energy demand is rapidly increasing, and our nation's current
dependence on foreign adversaries to supply these critical materials
poses a significant risk to national security and economic growth.
Critical materials are used in products like cell phones, computers,
appliances, vehicles, and batteries that American families rely on.
Strengthening the U.S. domestic supply chain will ensure that the
American people have secure access to these essential technologies.
Some estimates show the U.S. will need to double the capacity \1\
of its bulk power system over the coming decades to meet expected
energy demand. Expanding this capacity requires substantial
infrastructure--batteries, transmission systems and more--all of which
rely on various materials. Consequently, the International Energy
Agency (IEA) predicts that demand for energy-related minerals like
lithium, cobalt, graphite and nickel could grow 20 to 40 times by
2040.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ https://liftoff.energy.gov/demandgrowth/
\2\ https://www.iea.org/reports/the-role-of-critical-minerals-in-
clean-energy-transitions/executive-summary
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As demand for energy and materials increases, the choice for
American policymakers is clear: the U.S. will either responsibly
develop these resources here at home, or continue to rely on foreign
adversaries like China, which pose national security, human rights, and
environmental concerns. Our nation needs a comprehensive strategy that
synchronizes U.S. R&D capabilities with targeted free market
incentives, regulatory modernization, and proactive trade policies to
put the U.S. back in a leadership role. In my testimony, I will outline
a strategy that expedites American production.
But first, we need to be clear eyed about U.S. dependence on
foreign supply chains.
In the just released USGS Mineral Commodity Summaries
2025, the U.S. remains 100 percent reliant on imports for
12 of the 50 minerals deemed ``critical'' by USGS.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ https://pubs.usgs.gov/periodicals/mcs2025/mcs2025.pdf
In 2024, the United States was 100 percent net import
reliant for 15 minerals, unchanged from 2023, and imports
made up more than one-half of the U.S. apparent consumption
for 46 nonfuel mineral commodities, down slightly from 49
in 2023.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Ibid.
Meanwhile, China was the leading country producing 30 of
44 critical minerals.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Ibid.
Of the 50 mineral commodities identified in the ``2022
Final List of Critical Minerals,'' the United States was
100% net import reliant for 12, unchanged from 2023, and an
additional 28 (down from 29 in 2023) had a net import
reliance of greater than 50 percent.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Ibid.
Breaking down the processing even more, China processes
90% of global rare earth element supply and 60-70% of
global lithium and cobalt supply.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ https://www.iea.org/reports/energy-technology-perspectives-
2023/clean-energy-supply-chains-vulnerabilities
In 2023, the United States was ranked 78th among 87
countries in manufacturing cost competitiveness by US News
& World Report.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ U.S. News & World Report. 2023. ``These Countries Have the
Cheapest Manufacturing Costs.''
A bold three-step American strategy
Exploration of materials within U.S. borders will form the basis of
a secure supply chain. Investment in modern exploration techniques and
streamlining accreditation processes can identify viable deposits more
quickly and efficiently. However, the U.S. must also prioritize
extraction capabilities to convert these identified resources into
viable supplies.
Regulatory approvals for mines at home have fallen to the lowest
level in decades, coinciding with substantial demand growth for
essential raw materials for key grid and transportation infrastructure.
Increasing domestic mining and materials capacity is crucial to meeting
demand and reducing foreign control over the critical materials supply
chain.
Even when the United States makes headway on mining for more
domestic materials and minerals, processing remains a major bottleneck
because China controls global refining. Establishing U.S.-based
processing facilities will reduce raw materials sent abroad, allowing
the U.S. to add value domestically and create a resilient supply chain.
For example, copper and zinc, essential electric grid components, and
nickel and lithium, critical for battery storage technologies, are
foundational to energy infrastructure. Dependence on China will become
a critical vulnerability when the United States needs to build
essential infrastructure and cannot proceed because China refuses to
sell us the materials the American people rely on.
President Trump's Executive Order ``Unleashing American Energy''
\9\ takes initial steps to address this issue by revising or rescinding
regulatory barriers that hinder domestic mining and production. Failure
to scale up domestic production of minerals and materials undercuts our
nation's ability to compete globally. While recycling plays a role in
supplementing raw material supply, it cannot meet the scale of surging
demand caused by manufacturing, data centers, and artificial
intelligence (AI) infrastructure growth.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/
unleashing-american-energy/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Without robust domestic production and processing capabilities, the
U.S. remains exposed to potential export restrictions or geopolitical
leverage. Investing in the domestic critical materials supply chain--
exploration, extraction, and refining--will ensure that the United
States can meet future infrastructure demands without being at the
mercy of foreign adversaries. Building this capacity now is essential
to safeguarding America's energy independence.
To fix this urgent problem, policymakers could focus on three key
objectives:
One, restore predictability to the permitting process;
Two, streamline judicial review; and
Three, derisk private investment in domestic mining and
processing with targeted incentives and public-private
partnerships.
First, restoring regulatory predictability is essential. Never has
the phrase ``time is money'' been more appropriate. Regulatory delays
greatly increase project costs. For example, Nevada contains the
largest proven lithium reserve in the United States. The Thacker Pass
lithium mine in Humboldt County will produce an initial 40,000 metric
tons of battery-grade lithium carbonate per year for use in lithium-ion
batteries for vehicle, electronics and energy storage. However,
lawsuits and delays have plagued the construction for years. Initial
exploration of the mine began in 2007, and the Bureau of Land
Management issued a Record of Decision approving the project in 2021.
The mine was initially planned for production by 2026, but several
permitting issues and litigation delayed the project. The mine is now
expected to be at full capacity by 2028. The projects most likely to be
held up in the permitting purgatory are those that offer the greatest
benefits to our nation.
Overall, a typical mining project loses more than one-third of its
value, as a result of bureaucratic delays in receiving the numerous
permits needed to begin production.\10\ The higher costs and increased
risk that often arise from a prolonged permitting process can cut the
expected value of a mine in half before production even begins. The
combined impact of open-ended delays can lead to mining projects
becoming altogether financially unviable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ https://nma.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/
Infographic_SNL_minerals_permitting_5.7_ updated.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States must eliminate unnecessary bureaucracy in areas
where the economic and environmental benefits outweigh opportunity
costs. The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) is a procedural law
that requires federal agencies to assess the environmental impact of
their actions.
Furthermore, NEPA is just the start of the process of building
major infrastructure projects, including mines. Federal agencies will
also most likely need to issue permits under several other relevant
statutes, including, among many others, the Endangered Species Act, the
Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, the National Forest Management
Act, the Solid Waste Disposal Act, and the National Historic
Preservation Act.
It is essential to understand what NEPA really is. NEPA imposes no
substantive requirements to help protect the environment, such as
emissions standards or new technology requirements. NEPA requires that
federal agencies provide the public with what the law describes as a
``detailed statement'' on the potential environmental impacts of
actions such as distributing grants and issuing permits.
Reforms should change the paradigm to expedite the approval process
for projects that bring net benefits and comply with laws meant to
ensure clean water and clean air.
Federal action can also no longer vacillate according to political
whims. Developers must be able to rely on decisions from one
Administration to the next. The last time I testified before you at a
field hearing in July 2023 I talked about two critical mines in Arizona
and Minnesota, and both are still stuck in the wheel of litigation and
administrative actions, despite Congress taking specific legislative
action to drive them forward. U.S. policy must provide certainty for
projects such as these with Congressional action to stop reliance on
materials sourced from overseas.
Instead, the system should create jobs here, promote American
innovation, and foster better global environmental outcomes.
Second, the judicial review of agency actions must be reformed. The
current system is overwhelmingly tilted toward those who seek to delay
or block projects. Once a project is approved, further legal challenges
should be addressed expeditiously, yet nearly every major mining
project faces litigation that often drags on for years.
These legal challenges rarely contest the decision to allow a
project to proceed but instead target the tens of thousands of pages of
analysis that accompany the approval. Judges, often without subject
matter expertise, focus on minor details, suggesting that if only the
agency had done slightly more--maybe 11,000 pages of review instead of
10,000--the project might proceed. This results in years of additional
analysis that often changes little to nothing about the project.
Meanwhile, injunctions halt progress, paralyzing the project and
jeopardizing investments.
Litigants exploit these delays, knowing that time is money. By
repeatedly filing lawsuits, they aim to stretch the process until
developers run out of funding and abandon their projects. These issues
affect all energy projects but are especially troubling for mining
projects, where development costs often reach billions, and the design
and construction process takes years, even under ideal circumstances.
Last Congress, this body passed H.R. 1, the Lower Energy Costs
Act--important legislation with a number of key provisions, including
one to require legal disputes be resolved in less than one year. Other
major House and Senate permitting proposals include injunctive relief,
standing clarifications, and deadlines on the statute of limitations.
These reforms represent progress, but judicial unpredictability is
among the biggest wildcards in the current permitting system.
Congress should limit legal challenges to plain and obvious errors
related to the natural resources laws, narrow the scope, and adhere to
a strict review timeline. Without these changes, billions in investment
and years of progress will continue to be wasted, undermining the
nation's ability to build critical infrastructure and secure a reliable
supply chain for essential minerals.
Lastly, the U.S. must allow mining and refining entities equal
access to certain financial incentives to compete globally. Chinese
state-owned enterprises use heavy subsidies to undercut American
companies,\11\ distort prices, and dominate markets. These actions have
led to shortages of critical minerals and increased prices, disrupting
supply chains and exposing the U.S. economy to risk. The U.S. defense
industrial base,\12\ for example, faces potential delays in
manufacturing munitions and weapons systems due to Chinese export bans
on gallium, germanium, antimony, and superhard materials.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ https://naturalresources.house.gov/news/
documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=416731&utm
\12\ https://thediplomat.com/2024/12/chinas-mineral-export-ban-
strikes-at-the-us-defense-industrial-base/?utm_source=chatgpt.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
``Out subsidizing'' foreign state-owned enterprises is not an
effective strategy, but tax incentives, like the 45X advancing
manufacturing production tax credit, can help foster additional private
sector investment in responsible U.S. mining and refining while
protecting our nation's industries from unfair competition. However,
45X, as interpreted by the Biden Administration, fell short in two key
areas. First, it fails to provide meaningful incentives for domestic
mines that send mineral concentrates to U.S. or allied refineries, a
step necessary to achieve economies of scale and competitive costs.
Second, it allows domestic refiners to claim the credit even when
sourcing feedstock from foreign entities of concern, effectively
feeding our nation's vulnerability.
These adjustments to 45X could strengthen its impact to better
support domestic production. This tool, if updated, can help America
build the mines and processing facilities needed to compete with China
and Russia and reclaim control of U.S. resources. Other targeted
public-private partnerships, for example at the Department of Energy,
can also help derisk private investment in nationally significant
projects. New mines and facilities succeed by embedding their supply
chains, ensuring buyers are in place before production begins.
As global demand for critical minerals and materials increases, the
U.S. will either responsibly develop these resources here at home or
continue to rely on foreign sources that, in many cases, pose human
rights challenges, present national security risks, and result in
increased environmental impacts.
In conclusion, reliance on foreign minerals supply chains threatens
U.S. national security, the American people, and their economic future.
Congress can implement a national strategy to maximize public and
private sector investments in critical minerals supply chains.
ClearPath looks forward to working with this Subcommittee to
further American minerals independence, and I look forward to today's
discussion.
______
Questions Submitted for the Record to Jeremy Harrell,
CEO of ClearPath, Inc.
Questions Submitted by Representative Ezell
Question 1. Key lifesaving industries like pharmaceuticals, drug
formation, and farming would be impacted by such disruptions in supply
of palladium. Have any of you looked at these industries to evaluate
the nation's security threat to our health and basic nutritional needs
if the flow of these critical minerals was disrupted?
Answer. While palladium has not been a primary focus of study for
ClearPath, disruptions in the critical minerals supply chain present a
significant risk to national security, including essential industries
such as pharmaceuticals, drug formulation, and agriculture. Critical
minerals serve as the foundation for modern manufacturing, and any
supply chain instability could lead to shortages in life-saving
medications, disrupt food production, and hinder medical and
technological advancements.
Palladium, a platinum-group metal, is classified as a critical raw
material and plays an essential role in catalytic converters for
reducing emissions, as well as in the chemical and electronics
industries. Additionally, its properties are crucial in pharmaceutical
drug formation and agricultural processes. The global palladium supply
is highly concentrated, with Russia historically controlling
approximately 40% of global mine production and 30% of total exports by
value. Following Russia's invasion of Ukraine, concerns over supply
disruptions have intensified, as Western markets remain heavily
dependent on Russian palladium. While some alternative sources exist in
South Africa, Zimbabwe, Canada, and the United States, the flexibility
to accommodate shortages remains limited.
China, while not a dominant producer of palladium, remains a major
refiner and importer, exerting significant influence over supply
chains. China's strategic use of state-owned enterprises to manipulate
global markets has been demonstrated in other critical minerals, such
as rare earth elements, lithium, and cobalt. The risk of geopolitical
leverage remains a pressing concern. Similar disruptions have already
affected semiconductor production, defense supply chains, and advanced
energy technologies. If applied to palladium, such actions could result
in substantial shortages in the automotive industry, pharmaceutical
manufacturing, and key agricultural applications, ultimately impacting
public health and food security.
Given these risks, strengthening domestic mining, refining, and
supply chain resilience is a necessary priority. Without proactive
measures to secure critical materials, the United States and its allies
will remain vulnerable to external supply shocks that threaten economic
stability, technological leadership, and essential public services.
Addressing these challenges requires a focus on three key areas:
restoring predictability to the permitting process, streamlining
judicial review, and de-risking private investment. Without these
reforms, domestic projects will struggle to compete, and the U.S. will
remain dependent on foreign-controlled supply chains, undermining
national security and long-term economic resilience.
Questions Submitted by Representative Dingell
Question 1. Mr. Harrell, do you agree that the direct loans from
the Biden Administration for domestic critical mineral processing
projects are a benefit to our domestic supply chains?
Answer. Debt-financing for large-scale domestic critical mineral
processing projects can help de-risk private investment and expand U.S.
refining capacity. However, the U.S. remains heavily reliant on foreign
processing, with China controlling over 60% of global refining. To
compete globally, mining and refining entities must have equal access
to certain financial incentives that support domestic production.
The 45X advanced manufacturing tax credit has the potential to
strengthen domestic mining and refining, fostering private sector
investment while reducing reliance on foreign-controlled supply chains.
Targeted improvements--such as stronger incentives for domestic mines
supplying U.S.-sourced materials--would enhance its impact. Expanding
public-private partnerships, like those at the Department of Energy,
alongside a strengthened 45X credit can help de-risk investment in
nationally significant projects, ensuring new mines and refineries
integrate into resilient domestic supply chains and support long-term
economic growth.
Beyond financial incentives, permitting delays remain one of the
biggest barriers to domestic production. Mining projects face an
average 7-10 year permitting timeline, with approvals often stalled by
duplicative reviews and lengthy litigation. Even after permits are
issued, legal challenges can drag projects into years of uncertainty,
deterring private capital investment.
Without permitting reform, domestic projects will struggle to
compete, leaving the U.S. vulnerable to supply chain disruptions and
geopolitical leverage.
To build a resilient supply chain, the U.S. must align financing
tools with comprehensive permitting reform, including clear review
timelines, streamlined judicial processes, and coordinated federal-
state approval processes to provide certainty needed for domestic
projects to move forward.
Question 2. Mr. Harrell, similarly, do you agree that federal
support for battery recycling is vital for U.S. manufacturing and the
jobs that will come with it?
Answer. Battery recycling plays an important role in supplementing
domestic critical mineral supply and reducing reliance on foreign
sources. However, while recycling can help alleviate supply chain
vulnerabilities, it cannot meet the scale of surging demand driven by
manufacturing, data centers, and AI infrastructure. Federal support for
battery recycling can contribute to U.S. manufacturing and job
creation, but it must be complemented by expanded domestic mining and
processing to ensure a secure and resilient supply chain for critical
materials.
______
Mr. Stauber. Thank you, Mr. Harrell. Our next witness is
Dr. Dustin Mulvaney, and he is a Professor of Environmental
Studies at San Jose State University, and he is stationed in
San Jose, California.
Dr. Mulvaney, you are now recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF DUSTIN MULVANEY, PROFESSOR, ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES
DEPARTMENT, SAN JOSE STATE UNIVERSITY, SAN JOSE, CALIFORNIA
Dr. Mulvaney. Thank you to the esteemed members of this
Committee. It is a great privilege to be here to speak before
you today. I am a professor of environmental studies, as was
said, at San Jose State University, where I study supply
chains, life cycle assessment, land use change, and recycling
and waste impacts of energy technologies and infrastructures.
Supply chain disruptions from bottlenecks, geographic
concentration, and trade restrictions have shown
vulnerabilities to the domestic economy and energy systems, and
why securing adequate supplies are crucial to national
security, economic prosperity, and safeguarding the planet we
share. But there are a few important considerations I would
like to raise in these opening remarks.
One, mining's legacy of water contamination and waste
warrants a more sustainable approach to mining and mineral
extraction. New sites of mineral extraction cannot come at the
expense of our wildlife, water-dependent ecosystems, and
riparian habitats. Half of known critical mineral deposits in
the U.S. are within trout and salmon habitat, and 1 in 10
deposits are in protected public land areas like wildernesses.
Many critical minerals overlap with sage grouse habitat and big
game wildlife corridors across the West. One lithium mine being
proposed by an Australian mining company has potential impacts
to an entire population of an endangered buckwheat plant that
only exists in that particular spot. Most land-based critical
minerals are located in areas already facing high or extreme
high levels of water stress.
Two, domestic critical minerals development should protect
Native American sovereignty, self-determination, and provide
meaningful consultation on cultural resources. It is not
uncommon to hear that the Federal consultation process for the
National Historic Preservation Act, for example, is failing
Tribes on adequate and meaningful consultation. The United
States should strengthen tribal consultation around ideas of
self-determination and free, prior, and informed consent as
described by the International Labor Organization's Convention
169. The Department of the Interior's new pre-plan coordination
is a step in the right direction, bringing stakeholders
together to understand others' priorities and concerns.
Public policy should also encourage the United States to
move away from the take, make, waste economy towards a circular
economy. More progress is needed to move towards a circular
economy. The U.S. lacks a comprehensive Federal policy to
encourage electronics and electrical equipment recovery and
recycling. These are critical mineral resources in our hands
that we let slip through our fingers. Analysts emphasize the
need to develop new copper mines, for example, yet less than 40
percent of copper is currently recycled, and the rest is
landfilled. A circular economy approach means extracting more
critical minerals from mine waste streams, end-of-life
products, and reducing demand through resource efficiency and
material substitution.
The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act directs the
Secretary of Energy, in coordination with the Director of the
National Science Foundation, to issue grants to support
research on critical minerals, mining, recycling, reclamation
strategies, and technologies.
Four, undermining environmental laws will increase the time
to build mines by making it harder for mine developers to
obtain social license to operate. A social license to operate
in trust is something gained through notification,
consultation, listening, providing community benefits, and
offering ownership stake, et cetera. This becomes extremely
difficult to do under circumstances such as fast-tracking
without substantial coordination. And no doubt there are
idiosyncratic and frustrating situations in mine developments,
but the reality is the time to permit a hardrock mine is closer
to 2 years, according to the GAO, and where delays occur, they
are overwhelmingly caused by the applicant.
Predictability is often emphasized in describing
environmental review of mining, but predictability is also
important to environmental groups and Tribes to know what land,
water, and air is predictable. More predictability on all sides
will help avoid the most intractable controversies.
Five, the U.S. should build a modern critical minerals
program around a modern mining law, not a 153-year-old law
signed by Ulysses S Grant. The 1872 law was intended for
settlement of the American West. Without key reforms, this
antiquated mining law will continue to cause unnecessary
environmental degradation and environmental inequality. The
mining law is a bad deal for U.S. taxpayers as well, as
developers get these minerals royalty-free, sometimes being
exported to other countries to be processed. These royalties
also could be used to pay to finance some of the cleanup and
remediation of legacy mine pollution.
Finally, reshoring domestic supply chains while undermining
incentives for electric vehicles sends mixed signals and is a
recipe for contradictory outcomes. Developing critical mineral
supplies would be strengthened by maintaining policies to
encourage electric vehicles, including the Clean Car Rule and
Inflation Reduction Act incentives. Uncertainty about the fate
of these laws and policies sends signals to buyers that perhaps
demand might not materialize. Certainty is crucial for major
infrastructure investments, and mixed signals does not inspire
certainty.
In closing, we have a responsibility to steward the lands
and waters where critical minerals will be extracted, and some
places should be off limits to development. Responsible and
sustainable mine development, paired with efforts to close the
loop and waste streams, will be needed to meet critical mineral
demands in coming decades. At the end of the day, critical
minerals are exhaustible. Earth will not endlessly provide
these natural resources.
Thank you, and I look forward to a productive conversation.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Mulvaney follows:]
Prepared Statement of Dustin Mulvaney, Professor, Environmental
Studies, San Jose State University
To the esteemed members of this committee, it is a great privilege
to speak before you today.
I am a Professor of Environmental Studies at San Jose State
University. This testimony reflects my views and expertise on the
topics herein, and I am not speaking on behalf of my affiliated
organizations or anyone but myself.
My areas of expertise and research are on land use change, life
cycle analysis, and recycling & waste impacts of energy technologies,
supply chains, and infrastructures with an extensive emphasis on the
life cycle impacts of solar photovoltaics and lithium-ion batteries. I
have a Ph.D. in Environmental Studies from the University of
California, Santa Cruz, a Master's of Science degree in Environmental
Policy Studies, and a Bachelor's of Science degree in Chemical
Engineering, the latter two from the New Jersey Institute of
Technology. Professional private sector experience includes work in
chemical manufacturing, environmental remediation, and environmental
consulting. I have been an expert witness at the California, New York
and Utah Public Utilities/Service Commissions, and have participated in
the development of waste, land use, and energy policy with legislators,
across federal, state, county, and service agencies and commissions
over the past decade and a half. I serve on the Technical Advisory
Committee to the Recycling and Waste Reduction Commission of Santa
Clara County, the Technical Committee for Sustainability and Ultra-Low
Carbon Solar standards for photovoltaics developed by the Green
Electronics Council, advisor to the PV Perovskite Accelerator for
Commercial Technologies hosted by Sandia National Labs/National
Renewable Energy Laboratory, and was selected to be an author of the
southwest chapter of the 6th National Climate Assessment of the U.S.
Global Change Program. I am also part of the Lithium Valley Equity
Technical Advisory Group advising Comite Civico del Valle on issues
related to the development of geothermal and lithium near the Salton
Sea in Imperial County, California.
Introduction
The development of domestic supply chains for critical minerals is
crucial to energy, technology, and military applications. We are in the
midst of a low carbon energy transition--one where solar, wind,
batteries, and electric vehicles are outpacing even the expectations of
professional analysts. This means high demand for materials like
lithium, nickel, graphite, cobalt, rare earth elements, and others.
Supply chain disruptions from bottlenecks, geographic
concentration, and trade restrictions in recent years have shown
vulnerabilities to the domestic economy and energy systems. The
dependence on critical minerals of many key technologies to the U.S.
economy make securing adequate supplies crucial to national security,
economic prosperity, and safeguarding this planet we share.
1. Mining's legacy of water contamination and waste warrants a more
sustainable approach to mining and mineral extraction.
From acid mine drainage and heavy metal tailings pollution, to
groundwater overextraction and stream dewatering, mineral extraction
has impacted to groundwater and freshwater across the U.S. Water
contamination from mining can impact drinking water and affect aquatic
plants, fish, and wildlife. Groundwater depletion can occur from over-
extraction. Using global data from the U.S. Geological Survey, the
World Resource Institute found that ``at least 16% of the world's land-
based critical mineral mines, deposits and districts are located in
areas already facing high or extremely high levels of water stress.''
\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ WRI. 2024. Critical Minerals Mining Water Impacts. https://
www.wri.org/insights/critical-minerals-mining-water-impacts
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Thacker Pass mine under construction in Nevada will use 2,500-
acre feet per year for 41 years, which is about 104,000 acre-feet of
water total, posing threat to over-drafting the Kings River aquifer.
There are several new gold mines under development and proposed in
Nevada not far from Death Valley National Park, that are using
substantial amounts of water, including one mining operation that will
use water from a spring in the park, which receives about two inches of
rain per year.
Even alternative extraction techniques can impact groundwater.
Direct Lithium Extraction (DLE) for example near the Salton Sea, where
several pilot projects are underway to extract lithium from brines in
the Salton Sea geothermal anomaly. DLE project proposed near the Salton
Sea has raised questions about where water will come from, as the
region already is the largest customer of Colorado River water, and
impacts such as wastewater reinjection and subsidence, and was fined by
the USEPA in 2024 for 1,200 dewatering 1,200 acres of wetlands.\2\ The
dead vegetation made fuel for a wildfire in the wetland in November
2024.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ USEPA. 2024. EPA Settles with Hell's Kitchen Geothermal over
Wetlands Discharge, Impact on Salton Sea. https://www.epa.gov/
newsreleases/epa-settles-hells-kitchen-geothermal-over-wetlands-
discharge-impact-salton-sea
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The extraction of metals and minerals can be made cleaner. Even the
most controversial mining projects today, when comparing old versus new
techniques and best practices, the difference could not be more stark.
New mines are cleaner and better, more efficient, and less polluting,
and produce less waste. However, questions about mining can be more
complicated by impacts to specific places indigenous communities,
wildlife, landscapes, and water. One can have the most sustainable
mining practices in the world, but if the site is a place people value,
it will face opposition. To build infrastructure projects, getting
community support in a collaborative way that provides communities with
benefits is imperative. Finding a way to get communities, NGOs, and
Tribes involved from the start can help ensure the community accepts
and gives consent to the project, an makes it more likely benefits from
the project recirculate in the community.
2. The development of new sites of mineral extraction cannot come at
the expense of our wildlife, water-dependent ecosystem, and
riparian habitat.
The impacts of mining to water resources and riparian habitat
across the United States cannot be understated. According to an
analysis from Trout Unlimited, ``half of the known critical mineral
deposits in the U.S. are within trout and salmon habitat, and one in
ten deposits are in protected public land areas like wilderness.'' \3\
The same report notes that many critical minerals overlap with sage
grouse habitat and major big game wildlife corridors. Rhyolite Ridge is
a lithium mining project being developed by an Australian mining
company that will impact Tiehm's buckwheat (Eriogonum tiehmii), a
species that only exists on that particular site.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Trout Unlimited.2023. Critical Minerals Report. A Path Forward.
https://www.tu.org/cmr-a-path-forward/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In Nevada's Amargosa Valley near the Ash Meadows reserve, an
exploratory lithium development project was almost allowed under that
1872 law to drill 30 boreholes without any environmental review, within
2,000 feet of springs that are critical habitat for the endangered Ash
Meadows Amargosa pupfish. If not for the community and an environmental
group recognizing the BLM mistake, this critical habitat could have
been comprised by a speculative venture.
Things we all agree on is the importance of our nation's water,
wildlife, and other natural resources. The question is what approaches
help to achieve that. Some say we need to reform the Endangered Species
Act or National Environmental Act or take away community inputs. But
this would be counterproductive and runs contrary to the best practices
for mining or any energy infrastructure development. Public policy
efforts to develop critical minerals should do so responsibly and
should not undermine bedrock environmental laws.
Predictability to developers is often emphasized when describing
environmental oversight of mining, but predictability is also important
to environmental groups and Tribes to know what land, water, and air is
protected, and that there are community safeguards like strong
environmental rules and opportunities for public participation. More
predictability on all sides will help avoid the most intractable
controversies.
3. Domestic critical minerals development should protect Native
American sovereignty, self-determination, and meaningful
consultation cultural resources.
Critical minerals development is likely to be significantly
impactful to Native American tribes. Most mining activity in the United
States is in the American West, and within close proximity to Native
American communities. Morgan Stanley Capital International states that
79% of lithium mining claims, 89% of copper deposits, and 97% of nickel
deposits are within 35 miles of a Native American reservation.
Furthermore, the Bureau of Land Management has an obligation to conduct
prior consultation on projects proposed across public lands because of
important sacred sites off-reservation on their ancestral territories.
Mining activities that put drinking water and cultural resources at
risk, making it crucially important to ensure community acceptance and
respect for tribal sovereignty and cultural resources. It is not
uncommon to hear that the federal consultation process for National
Historic Preservation Act to take one example is ``failing tribes'' on
adequate and meaningful consultation. Instead of looking for ways to
short circuit environmental and cultural resource review--by
undermining nation-to-nation consultation or fast-tracking review--the
United States should strengthen Tribal consultation around the ideas of
self-determination and ``Free, Prior and Informed Consent'' as
described by International Labour Organization's Convention number 169,
the United Nation Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.
It is frequently stated that the United States' mining practices
are the best in the world because they have the strongest global
environmental regulations. That may be true. But the issue of Tribal
consultation needs significant improvement to catch up with
international norms and standards on relations between mining
activities and Indigenous peoples. The Department of the Interior's
Interagency Working Group report makes a variety of recommendations to
improve the permitting process for mining projects, including
prioritizing mine plans that maximize environmental and social best
practices, and developing clear procedures for engaging stakeholders
earlier in the process and in a more meaningful way. The Department of
the Interior's new ``pre-plan coordination'' is a step in the right
direction by bringing stakeholders together to understand each other's
priorities and concerns.\4\ Several projects proposed in recent years
including the Oak Flat-Resolution Copper case study, show that Tribal
concerns are still not adequately considered in the decision-making
process. We have to respect that some places are sacred to Indigenous
communities and should not be developed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ BLM. 2024. BLM announces actions to improve mine permitting,
early engagement. https://www.blm.gov/press-release/blm-announces-
actions-improve-mine-permitting-early-engagement
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Domestic critical mineral supply chain resilience means reshoring
the entire supply chain
Importantly, it is crucial to realize that without ensuring the
entire supply chain is domestic, it is still vulnerable to disruption.
Domestic mining that still requires overseas smelting or chemical
processing before returning to domestic manufacturing is still a system
vulnerable to disruption and geopolitical tensions. Increased mining
alone will not solve this. If the entire supply chain is not reshored,
it is not a domestic supply chain, and it is still vulnerable to global
geopolitical or trade issues. Not that reshoring should be the goal,
but that national security risks from supply chain disruption do not
simply go away because the extraction phase of the commodity chain is
located in the U.S.
The fact that the U.S. lacks many of the processing, separation and
production steps in the critical minerals supply chain, is why there
were so many investments in the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act
and Inflation Reduction Act intended to increase domestic production,
separation, and processing.
5. Move away from the ``take-make-waste'' economy, toward a circular
economy
We cannot recycle our way out of critical minerals challenges. But
more progress is needed away from take-make-waste and toward a circular
economy. The U.S. lacks a comprehensive federal policy to encourage
electronics and electrical equipment recovery and recycling, leaving
states to patch together policies. These are critical mineral resources
in our hands that we let slip through our fingers.
It is common hear about the urgency to develop mines for the
materials that are foundational to our technological development and
energy technologies. Copper for example is crucial to modern economies
and energy systems and forecasted supplies risk falling short and may
be subject to price volatility, leading analysts to emphasize the need
to develop new copper mines. Yet, according to the Copper Alliance,
less than 40% of global copper is currently recycled. Research from
Fraunhofer Institute for Systems and Innovation finds similarly that 2/
3rds of end-of-life copper are sent to landfills annually.
Building a circular economy means developing resources, but
ensuring those resources stay in the economy after the end-of-life.
This means extracting critical minerals from waste streams, end-of-life
products, reduce demand through resource efficiency and material
substitution.
Waste flows from end-of-life electronic products often have
significantly more critical minerals by percent than the ores they are
obtained from in mining. Rare earth elements in end-of-life electronics
are almost all lost through waste flows in the United States. Less than
5% of rare earth elements globally are recycled according to the trade
press Recycling International. Recycling consumer electronic products
and utilizing byproducts of other materials processing could yield
double to ten times the rare earth elements that could be extracted
through processing the raw materials. Three to four times more
dysprosium can be obtained from recycling headphones than from rare
earth element ores. An iPhone touch screen has more lanthanum to make
those bright colors, than is typically found in rare earth element
ores. Similarly, there is a higher percent of neodymium obtained from
recycling wind turbine magnets, than are found in those rare earth
element ores. In an era of declining ore grades, these waste flows
should be seen as resources to boost critical mineral supplies.
Critical minerals from mine waste
Here is an example from today's headlines. Tellurium is critical to
the development of thin film photovoltaics. US-based thin film
photovoltaic manufacturer First Solar--arguably the only solar
manufacturing company that has successfully fought off competition from
China over the past decade and a half--uses about 40% of the global
supply of tellurium.
On Tuesday February 4th 2025, China announced tellurium and four
other key critical minerals would be subject to tariffs and export
controls. USGS reports that China supplies about 67% of global
tellurium. First Solar's tellurium supplier 5NPlus doesn't disclose
their tellurium suppliers, but First Solar's conflict minerals SEC
disclosure says a quarter of the smelters and refineries in their
supply chains are in China.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ M. Copley. 2021. First Solar's growth plans hinge on opaque
market. SBC Global. https://www.spglobal.com/market-intelligence/en/
news-insights/articles/2021/12/first-solar-s-growth-plans-hinge-on-
opaque-market-for-tellurium-68010925
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tellurium is found with copper but not profitable enough to extract
at most copper mines. Rio Tinto partnered with First Solar and 5NPlus
in 2021 to invest $2.9 million in a tellurium plant to produce about 20
tons annually, or about 4% of estimated global production last year, at
its Kennecott mine near Salt Lake City, Utah. This production did not
require opening new mines or changing environmental laws. The
production is the mines waste stream. Waste and ``tailings
valorization'' approaches like these are another strategy to augment
critical mineral supplies.
Critical minerals from recycling and resource efficiency
First Solar also recycles their photovoltaic modules and can
recover 95% of the tellurium from their process. These materials are
recovered and sent to their supplier who can make new tellurium
feedstock for cadmium telluride semiconductors.
First Solar also has worked to reduce the material intensity of
tellurium in First Solar's modules has been reduced by over 50% in the
past decade.
The government has an important role to play. A recent partnership
between First Solar and the Department of Energy created the Cadmium
Telluride Accelerator Consortium and intends to make solar more
affordable and develop and ``Maintain or increase domestic CdTe PV
material and module production through 2030.'' \6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ First Tellurium. 2022. China Mineral Export Restrictions Could
Restrict Future Tellurium Supply. https://firsttellurium.com/china-
mineral-export-restrictions-could-restrict-future-tellurium-supply/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A well-supported National Science Foundation can also play an
important role. The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act section
40210 on critical minerals mining and recycling research, directs the
Secretary of Energy, in coordination with the Director of the National
Science Foundation to issue grants to support research on critical
minerals mining, recycling, and reclamation strategies and technologies
to make better use of domestic resources and to eliminate national
reliance on minerals and mineral materials that are subject to supply
disruptions.
Critical minerals research and development
A circular economy approach to tellurium involves (1) recovering
the critical mineral from mine waste, (2) recycling end-of-life
products that contain critical minerals, and (3) reducing demand for
critical materials through greater material utilization and resource
efficiency.
Materials recovery in mining and downstream processing is optimized
for profitability not maximizing materials or biproducts. More
incentives to develop biproducts, recover materials at smelters, or
increase recovery rates could help drive up recycling of materials.
Smelters in the United States are not designed to recover many critical
minerals. For example, there are no smelters that can recover cobalt in
the United States.
There are also excellent examples of resource efficiency avoiding
significant amounts of materials. A photovoltaic module today, thanks
to increased resource efficiencies, uses about five times less silver
than a photovoltaic module yesterday. Similar, semiconductor wafers in
the same technology are two to three times thinner than just a decade
ago. This has translated to lower energy inputs and silicon feedstocks
needed for the solar industry.
Other ways to increase resource efficiency across society as well.
In a recent report from the Climate and Community Project they found up
to 90% of lithium demand can be reduced by encouraging public
transportation and more lightweight electric vehicles and other modes
of transportation.
To date, much of the conversation and public policy effort on
critical minerals has focused solely on mining. But recycling,
alternative extraction techniques, resource efficiency, and harvesting
materials from waste streams offer significant promise for enhancing
the nation's supply of critical minerals, and lessening the risks of
and exposures to supply chain disruptions. It seems profoundly wasteful
that we would allow critical materials be landfilled at the same time
we talk about the dire national security consequences of a lack of
supply and promote greenfield mine vdevelopment elsewhere.
The United States has some of the premier research institutions in
the world that could be working on these. My friend and colleague here
from the Colorado School of Mines for example, can tell you more about
work that's happening at the nation's premier mining university. They
are ahead of the game, and working on projects from recovering minerals
from mining waste to mining asteroids. More emphasis on research and
development will help close the loop for a circular economy in critical
minerals. This wouldn't preclude the development of mines of course, no
one is saying that recycling will meet the future demand for all the
materials we need. Multiple resource streams including wastes will be
required to for a holistic approach to ensuring resilient supply
chains.
6. Undermining environmental laws will increase the time to build mines
Ask any scholar or mining executive and they will tell you the most
important thing to help a mine move forward is a social license to
operate. This trust is something gained through notification,
consultation, listening, providing community benefits, offering an
ownership stake, etc. This becomes extremely difficult to do under
circumstances such as ``fast-tracking'' without substantial
coordination.
The need to prioritize development of domestic minerals supplies
should not undermine meaningful environmental review. Conservation
groups, Indigenous peoples, and local communities feel that
environmental review, even where an environmental impact statement
might be required, is a foregone conclusion. Many communities view the
NEPA process as a ``decide-announce-defend'' development strategy where
developers and investors decide where they want to propose a project,
announce it to the public, and then spend the review process defending
the project.
I disagree with the sentiment of advocates of ``permitting reform''
that we can wave a magic wand and make mine approvals move faster. This
a bipartisan sentiment shared by climate hawks and energy dominance
narratives alike, and unfortunately it is not based in fact. Instead,
more collaborative approaches are shown to be effective at gaining
community support and trust--the social license to operate. Transparent
and meaningful public participation processes should result in
responsible mine development and reduced community opposition to new
mines.
It is often claimed that it takes 7 to 10 years or more to permit a
new mine. The memo for this hearing says it takes 27 years to develop a
mine from idea to production. But most of this time is exploring and
making business decisions, not permitting.
The reality is the time to permit a hard rock mine is two years
according to the Government Accountability Office. The GAO found some
mines take up to 11 years, but their interviews with agencies and mine
operators found delays were overwhelming caused by the applicant. More
broadly, another GAO report found only 1% of NEPA covered projects need
an Environmental Impact Statement. Only 5% of covered projects require
an Environmental Assessment, a shorter environmental disclosure
document that typically is completed in nine months or so.
Critical minerals designations are used to develop resources with
fewer safeguards, less community engagement and Tribal consultation,
and shorter time for public review. Designation of certain minerals as
critical minerals simply to have the ability to fast-track projects
does not help ensure we have domestic supply chains and undermines
efforts to gain the social license to operate.
The US already has tools to expedite mine permitting like FAST-41.
The IRA made the FAST-41 Act permanent, extended the provisions of the
law to mining, and provided significant funding for agencies to process
permits.
What appears to some to be an industry stalled by ``red tape and
bureaucracy'' is probably better explained by low commodities prices
and business decisions in the face of uncertainty.
7. Build a modern critical minerals program around a modern mining law
The 1872 mining law makes mining the highest and best use of public
lands and reflects a time long since passed. The 1872 law was intended
for settler colonialism on the western frontier not for mining in a
modern high-tech economy. Federal and public lands should not be new
sacrifice zones for critical minerals. Without key reforms, the
antiquated mining law will continue to cause unnecessary environmental
degradation and environmental inequality.
The exploratory claims-based system is outdated, with most other
parts of the world having lease-based systems that are more competitive
and result in better decision-making on land uses.
Mining law needs a better plan to pay for remediation of old mines.
The 1872 mining law set the bar too low for bonding mine sites for
reclamation and cleanup. The Government Accountability Office (GAO)
estimates that federal agencies spent $2.9 billion in the decade from
2008 to 2017 on cleanup activities, and this could cost taxpayers up to
$54 billion to clean up the nation's 400,000 to 500,000 abandoned mine
sites that pose hazardous threats to communities.
The Initiative for Responsible Mining Assurance (IRMA) could be a
model for reforming the 1872 law. IRMA allows for independent audits of
mines to ensure environmental and social performance. Even the White
House refereed to IMRA as a ``method for U.S. companies and the Federal
Government to ensure that minerals are being sourced from mines with
robust environmental, social, and financial responsibility policies.''
\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ The White House, Building Resilient Supply Chains, Revitalizing
American Manufacturing, and Fostering Broad-Based Growth: 100-Day
Reviews Under Executive Order 14017, June 2021, https://
www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/100-day-supply-chain-
review-report.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The mining law also is a bad deal for U.S. taxpayers. Because of an
outdated mining law, developers of these minerals get them royalty
free. This is not a deal just for American companies, foreign companies
can also mine materials before shipping them to be processed overseas.
Reforming the mining law signed by Ulysses S. Grant would go far to
bring the law into conformance for what is needed in a modern economy.
Reform to the royalty system would benefit taxpayers, given there are
no royalties for hard rock mining under the law today. Reform of the
royalty program could raise substantial revenues to help finance the
clean up and remediation of legacy mine pollution.
8. Provide community benefits for developing critical minerals
Where mines will be developed, bringing community benefits to the
table will be important tools for public support, buy-in, and trust.
Furthermore, to reap more community benefits, more value-added
industries to support the development of critical minerals supplies can
ensure more jobs and local revenues are generated. Mining tends to have
a very low value added without these downstream manufacturing
activities.
Community benefits should be broadly construed to benefit as many
as possible. The widely celebrated community benefits agreement between
Lithium Americas and Thacker Pass and the Fort McDermitt Paiute and
Shoshone Tribe is a one example worth looking at closely. While
benefits accrue to some communities from this project, other tribes
with ancestral claims to the landscape such as the People of Red
Mountain feel their voices were not acknowledged and will receive no
benefits.
Other examples that could be a model for how to build in community
benefits is the approach used in the Salton Sea and suggested by the
Blue Ribbon Commission on Lithium Extraction in California. That
process is early on, but will be worth watching closely.
Community benefits will help gain local acceptance and
collaboration with project development.
9. Reshoring domestic supply chains while undermining incentives for
electric vehicles will result in contradictory outcomes
What many mistake for an investors lack of commitment to mining
projects is more about ensuring projects are economically viable. This
often requires partnerships. China's state-backed enterprises mean that
mine developers there have a backstop to ensure projects are completed.
In the US, extractive industry developments around critical minerals
often seek out OEM partners, including many automobile manufacturers.
Developing critical minerals supplies would be strengthened by
maintaining policies to encourage electric vehicles include the Clean
Car rule and Inflation Reduction Act incentives. But uncertainty about
the fate of these laws and policies sends signals to buyers that
perhaps demand for lithium and other key battery parts do not
materialize.
In summary, we need to be strategic and thoughtful about how to
grow domestic extractive industries, especially mining industries, and
build a low carbon economy. Failure to do so will undermine the
benefits that critical minerals development and an energy transition
will bring and risk leaving vulnerable and historically marginalized
communities behind, and falling short of meeting broader national
security and technological development imperatives. I believe we can
responsibly safeguard environmental protections, cultural resources,
respect Native American self-determination and sovereignty, and create
quality high-road domestic jobs in a critical minerals circular
economy. Durable due diligence and risk management grounded in
international best practice to evaluate impacts and make good decisions
can reduce potential harms to communities, maintains companies' social
license to operate, and protects US investments.
Critical minerals are exhaustible. Earth will not endlessly provide
these resources. We have to steward the lands and water where critical
minerals are extracted, and close the loop to keep them in our economy.
Thank you again to this committee for hosting this discussion and I
look forward to any questions and a productive conversation.
______
Questions Submitted for the Record to Dr. Dustin Mulvaney, Professor of
Environmental Studies at San Jose State University
Dr. Mulvaney did not submit responses to the Committee by the
appropriate deadline for inclusion in the printed record.
Questions Submitted by Representative Huffman
Question 1. Could you clarify the potential for recycled critical
minerals to meet by demand by 2030 versus by 2050? What role has
federal research played in achieving those goals?
Question 2. Are there examples of policies, standards, and
certifications that would more rapidly facilitate a circular economy in
critical minerals?
Question 3. Could you provide a few more examples of where early
collaboration resulted in better outcomes with critical minerals mining
projects?
Question 4. What are the key characteristics of a critical minerals
extraction project that has social license?
Question 5. What are the key characteristics of a critical minerals
extraction project using best practices that can be built quickly?
______
Mr. Stauber. Thank you for your testimony. Our final
witness is Ms. Mckinsey Lyon, and she is the Vice President of
External Affairs at Perpetua Resources, and she is based in
Donnelly, Idaho.
Ms. Lyon, you are now recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF MCKINSEY LYON, VICE PRESIDENT, EXTERNAL AFFAIRS,
PERPETUA RESOURCES, DONNELLY, IDAHO
Ms. Lyon. Good morning, Chairman Stauber, Ranking Member
Ansari, and members of the Subcommittee. My name is Mackenzie
Lyon. I am an Idahoan and I am Vice President of External
Affairs for Perpetua Resources.
In the heart of central Idaho, the Stibnite Gold Project is
designed to return to and to restore an abandoned mining site,
to breathe economic vitality into our rural communities, to
responsibly produce gold, and provide the only domestically-
mined source of the critical mineral antimony. And it is
actually the history of this site that I think is so relevant
to our conversation today, because on the eve of World War II
it was the blockade in the Pacific that meant the United States
no longer had access to the antimony and the tungsten we
needed. So, the U.S. Government turned to Stibnite, Idaho that
then produced the majority of the antimony and tungsten used
during the war effort. At the end of the war the U.S. Munitions
Board then credited the men and women of Stibnite, Idaho for
having shortened World War II by a year, thus saving a million
American lives. So, the minerals in my backyard changed the
course of history.
But after World War II and the Korean War, our sources of
antimony here domestically went offline. And once again, our
industrial base became completely reliant on China for a source
of antimony. Today, antimony has a huge array of commercial
applications, from semiconductors to solar panels, lubricants,
and fire retardant. The Department of Defense today uses a
specific form of antimony called antimony trisulfide as a
unique, non-replaceable component in over 300 types of
ammunition.
Despite antimony's importance in America's defense and
manufacturing base, we are almost entirely dependent on non-
allied nations. All told, China, Russia, and Tajikistan control
90 percent of global antimony, 80 percent of which goes through
Chinese processing facilities. With this level of dominance, in
2021 China was able to cut off America's sole supply of
military-spec antimony trisulfide for the Department of
Defense, wounding our defense readiness. Taking it further,
just last year the Chinese Government struck our exposed
Achilles heel, turning off and completely banning all antimony
products being exported to the United States. And today, a once
very little paid-attention-to supply chain is now unable to
provide antimony.
The good news is the Stibnite Gold Project is the nearest-
term solution to this urgent challenge. We hold a reserve of
148 million pounds of antimony, the only reserve of antimony
identified in this country. And last month, we received our
final record of decision from the U.S. Forest Service.
For us, 8 years of permitting came after 6 years of early
community engagement and environmental planning. Getting to
this point, however, represents a $400 million investment that
includes up to $75 million in Defense Production Act funding
and Army research funds. We need to begin our 3-year
construction process this summer if we are going to produce
antimony by 2028. However, we do still wait on one Federal
authorization.
We also hope to utilize debt financing from the U.S.
Export-Import Bank under the Make More in America program and
the China Transformational Exports Program. Our anticipated 18-
year timeline from prospecting to production is just too long.
Our Nation can't wait 18 years to bring critical resources
online, especially for vital technology, energy, and
manufacturing needs that put our security and our economy at
risk when China decides to turn off the tap.
When we choose to control our critical minerals, we protect
our future. I am often reminded of a quote from Benjamin
Franklin saying, ``But for want of a nail, the kingdom fell.''
And critical minerals, while they may be sometimes obscure or
used in small volumes, are our proverbial nail. They are the
foundation of our economic, energy, and national security. And
it is time to learn from our history, and it is time to bring
back the American mining industry by choosing to bring
responsible mining home.
Mr. Chairman, thank you and I look forward to the
discussion.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Lyon follows:]
Prepared Statement of Mckinsey M. Lyon, VP of External Affairs,
Perpetua Resources
The Stibnite Gold Project:
Our Nearest-Term Solution to China's Antimony Crackdown
Good morning Chairman Stauber, Ranking Member Ansari, and members
of the subcommittee. My name is Mckinsey Lyon, I am an Idahoan, and I
serve as Vice President of External Affairs for Perpetua Resources.
My road to becoming a miner was unconventional. When this company
came to my office in 2012, they said they wanted help making sure they
did this ``right from the start''--and saw community and stakeholder
communication as a pillar of that vision. However, I started out as a
skeptic, not wanting to see mining return to my backyard. Then I met
the people in mining and saw that we shared values. Quickly, I then
learned more about the regulatory system that shapes the safety and
environmental rigor of the industry. But, I truly became a miner when I
came to recognize that I was more comfortable with mining in my
backyard than I was with the reality of pushing these impacts to places
I will never go, to people I will never meet, under conditions I can
never control. I joined this team fully in 2017 and see the Stibnite
Gold Project as the right project for my backyard and for my country.
Located in the heart of central Idaho, our Stibnite Gold Project is
designed to return to and restore an abandoned mine site, breathe
economic vitality into our rural communities, responsibly produce gold,
and provide the only domestically mined source of the critical mineral
antimony.
Our site's history is particularly important to today's discussion.
It goes back to the eve of World War II when blockades in the Pacific
cut off America's supply of antimony and tungsten being sourced from
China. The Stibnite Mining District in Idaho was then tapped to supply
antimony and tungsten for the war effort. At the conclusion of war, the
US Munitions Board credited the men and women of Stibnite with
shortening World War II by a year and saving one million American
lives. But following the Allied victory, all domestically mined sources
of antimony were taken offline. And once again, our industrial base
became reliant on Chinese-sourced antimony.
Today, antimony has a huge array of commercial applications, from
semiconductors and batteries to lubricants and fire retardants. The
Department of Defense uses antimony trisulfide as a key, non-
replaceable component in the primer for hundreds of munition types.
Despite antimony's importance to America's defense and manufacturing
base, we are almost entirely dependent on non-allied nations.
All told, China, Russia, and Tajikistan control 90% of mined
antimony, up to 80% of which is distributed through China's processing
facilities.
With this level of dominance, in 2021, China was able to cut off
America's supply of military grade antimony trisulfide--wounding our
defense readiness. Taking it further, last year, the Chinese government
struck our exposed Achilles heel, completely banning all antimony
exports to the US, expanding the impact to all industrial and
manufacturing uses of antimony. Today, US manufacturers are receiving
force majeure notices that supply chains, once paid little attention
to, are now unable to provide antimony.
The Stibnite Gold Project is the best and nearest-term solution to
this urgent challenge. We hold a reserve of 148 million pounds of
antimony, and last month, we received our Final Record of Decision from
the U.S. Forest Service, capping eight years of NEPA review.
Our 8 years in permitting came after 6 years in early community
engagement and environmental planning--in total representing over $400
million in investment to-date--including nearly $75 million in Defense
Production Act funding and army research funds.
And to be clear, we have not yet been able to put a shovel in the
ground. We still need a few more authorizations before we can begin the
3-year construction process this summer. We also hope to utilize debt
financing from US EXIM under the Make More in America and China
Transformational Exports Programs. Getting into construction this year
is vital to meet the DOD's need for antimony by 2028.
Without a secure source of antimony trisulfide soon, our
warfighters may be at risk. While we are new to the industrial base, we
are taking our role as a potential supplier with utmost urgency.
Without DOD's focus on antimony, and the Defense Production Act funds
made available, we would not be here today.
This 18-year timeline from prospecting to production is far too
long--our nation cannot wait 18 years to bring critical resources
online--especially for vital technology, energy and manufacturing
inputs that put our security and economy at risk when China decides to
turn off the tap.
When we control our access to critical minerals, we control our
prosperity and protect our future. Benjamin Franklin is quoted as
saying ``but for want of a nail, the kingdom fell.'' Critical minerals,
while they may be obscure or used in small volumes, are our proverbial
nail--the foundation of our economic, energy and national security. It
is time to learn from our history and reaffirm our commitment to
building back American industry by bringing responsible mining home.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I look forward to our discussion.
BACKGROUND on the STIBNITE GOLD PROJECT
The Stibnite Gold Project (Project) is in the abandoned Stibnite
Mining District in central Idaho. The site produced 90% of the antimony
and 50% of the tungsten used by the US war efforts during World War II
and the Korean War. Gold production occurred intermittently until the
mid-1990's. Between 2000-2012, the site was officially abandoned by
former operators and government parties.
Today, Perpetua Resources is nearing final permitting approvals to
redevelop the site for the remaining 4.8 million ounce gold reserve and
148 million pound antimony reserve. With gold as the economic driver,
the Project is also designed to repair environmental legacies left
behind from mining activities that started over a century ago, leaving
the environment better than it is today.
The Stibnite Gold Project is the only identified domestic reserve
of antimony (USGS 2025) and the only domestic source of mil-spec
antimony trisulfide.
Project:
Perpetua Resources, earlier known as Midas Gold, began
investigating the site for redevelopment in 2010 and submitted the Plan
of Restoration and Operations to the U.S. Forest Service for evaluation
under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process in September
of 2016.
Altogether, the Stibnite Gold Project has undergone 14 years of
scientific study, community engagement, and engineering (2010-2024); 8
years in the National Environmental Policy Act (``NEPA'') permitting
process (2016-2024); 150 days of formal public comment in which 28,000
letters were received, with approximately 85% expressing support for
the Project; and a 90-day objection and resolution period led by the
U.S. Forest Service.
Through the long and detailed permitting process, Perpetua has
worked with stakeholders and regulators to improve the environmental
outcomes of the project to reach the ultimate vision of being able to
``restore the site.'' From the original plan submitted in 2016 to the
Draft EIS in 2020 and then the Supplemental Draft EIS in 2022, the
project when through a number of design changes and improved outcomes,
including:
13% reduction in project footprint over original design.
70% reduction in Hangar Flats Pit over original design.
20+ miles of habitat opened for migrating fish.
96% reduction in arsenic in Meadow Creek vs. existing
conditions.
40% reduction in arsenic in EFSF Salmon River (below Sugar
Creek) vs. existing conditions.
140% uplift in wetlands quality (wetland functional
units).
63% net increase in wetland acres vs. existing conditions.
Water temperature reduced to be at, or below, existing
conditions.
60% reduction in mercury emissions over original design to
be less than 20% of applicable EPA standards.
9.5% uplift in stream habitat quality (stream functional
units).
Significantly, the 2022 Supplemental EIS found ``The restoration
activities, particularly providing volitional passage in the East Fork
SFSR, would result in major, permanent, regional, and beneficial effect
on Chinook salmon, steelhead, bull trout, and westslope cutthroat trout
within the vicinity of the mine.'' (US Forest Service, 2022 SDEIS)
In the Final Record of Decision published in January 2025, the US
Forest Service conditioned approval on a number of mitigation measures
specific to tribal interests. These mandatory mitigations include a
Tribal Monitoring program and a Tribal Observation program in addition
to a Tribal Member Access program to ensure tribal members can access
the site.
Antimony:
Antimony, a listed critical mineral, is essential for national
defense, technology, and energy applications. It is a primer in
hundreds of munition types, a doping agent in semiconductors and
printed circuit boards, and a central component in solar panels and
wind turbines. However, today, no domestically mined supply of antimony
currently exists. The United States meets 18 percent of demand through
the recycling of lead-acid batteries, but is otherwise import reliant
on China (63 percent), Belgium (8 percent), India (6 percent), and
Bolivia (4 percent). (CSIS, 8.20)
Globally, 50 percent of antimony usage goes to flame retardants,
20 percent in photovoltaic glass to improve solar cell performance and
the remainder goes to products like lead-acid batteries, break pads,
lubricants, and defense applications such as ammunition, infrared
missiles, nuclear weapons and night vision goggles.
Antimony is a listed critical mineral, not only because of its
essential role in defense and energy products, but also because access
to the mineral is constrained. In August 2024, the Chinese government
announced the intent to restrict antimony exports and in December 2024
moved to ban the export of all antimony products. As a result, some
analysts believe that 97 percent of antimony has stopped moving out of
China. Recent reporting has also illuminated that over the last 20
years, China spent over $57 billion on securing critical mineral
resources worldwide (Mining, 1.25).
In the US, the leading uses of antimony include antimonial lead and
ammunition, as well as flame retardants, according to US Geological
Survey in 2024 (South China Morning Post, 8.15) and flame retardants,
as well as ceramics, glass and rubber products (Bloomberg, 8.15).
Antimony products will typically rely on either antimony
trisulfide, antimony oxides or antimony metal. Antimony trioxide is
arguably one of the most important of the antimony compounds--it is
primarily used in flame-retardant formulations. (South China Morning
Post, 8.15). And the use of antimony trioxide as a clarifying agent in
photovoltaic glass has been on the rise in the past years (South China
Morning Post, 8.15). About a fifth of antimony was used to make
photovoltaic glass to improve the performance of solar cells (Reuters,
8.16). Antimony hydride is used in the semiconductor industry to dope
silicon with small quantities of antimony via the chemical vapor
deposition (CVD) process.
The defense industrial base uses many types of antimony but the
most critical is antimony trisulfide, which is a non-replaceable
component for more than 300 types of munitions (Wall Street Journal,
8.20). Antimony is used in bullets, nuclear weapons production and
lead-acid batteries. Antimony is used in military equipment such as
infrared missiles, nuclear weapons, products requiring lead-free
solder, night vision goggles, and as a hardening agent for bullets and
tanks (Asia Times, 8.17).
Perpetua Resources' 2020 Feasibility Study estimated 115 million
pounds of antimony will be produced from the 148 million pound reserve.
This is enough to meet about 35 percent of US demand in the first six
years of operations. Perpetua's Feasibility Study in 2020 assumed a
price of about $7,700 per ton. Prices in 2024 reached a peak of
$33,000 per ton after the export ban announcement from China.
Price fluctuation and foreign manipulation of critical mineral
prices is often a liability to the long-term stability and economic
feasibility critical mineral projects domestically. In this case
however, 95 percent of the project economics are based on gold, helping
to insulate the production of antimony from price drops related to
market flooding or changing market conditions.
*****
Ms. Lyon's testimony contained an attachment. The full document is
available for viewing at:
https://docs.house.gov/meetings/II/II06/20250206/117845/HHRG-119-II06-
Wstate-LyonM-20250206.pdf
______
Questions Submitted for the Record to Ms. Lyon, VP of External Affairs,
Perpetua Resources
Questions Submitted by Representative Stauber
Question 1. While the permitting process for domestic mining
projects is far too slow and convoluted, in an effort to better
understand what has worked well for your project, what federal
government entities, tools, or processes have been helpful to advancing
Perpetua's project, outside of financing through the Export-Import
Bank's China Transformational Export Program/Make More In America
initiatives or funding through the Department of Defense's Defense
Production Act (DPA) Title III program?
Answer. While the path has certainly been lengthy and complex,
several factors within the federal government's purview were vital to
our ultimate success in spite of the statutory and regulatory issues
that require reform. Ultimately, the unique circumstances of an
abandoned mine in need of restoration coupled with our critical mineral
resource necessary for national security helped underscore the
project's public and national interest value.
Our project shows that the lead agency must actively take the lead
in coordinating the multiple other agencies, setting schedules, and
identifying solutions in order to navigate the process. The U.S. Forest
Service approached this task with a genuine commitment to its multiple-
use mandate. In the last few years, leadership of the Payette National
Forest and U.S. Department of Agriculture drove collaboration among
federal agencies. These leaders rose to the challenge of leading the
Department and Forest Service in producing a robust, defensible final
Record of Decision for an immensely complex project.
While interagency coordination is essential for any project, given
the many veto points and potential for ``cooperating agencies'' to be
far from cooperative, we have seen that a clear lead agency must set
the tone, maintain momentum, and ensure that all contributing agencies
remain focused on shared objectives. In our case, the Forest Service
was highly effective in this regard, given the wide range of agencies
involved in approving a project of this nature (such as the Fish and
Wildlife Service, NOAA's National Marine Fisheries Service, the Army
Corps of Engineers, the Environmental Protection Agency, and more).
The Forest Service also recognized how the Stibnite Gold Project
can deliver meaningful environmental benefits by remediating legacy
environmental damage at an abandoned mine site. While we initially
believed that the restoration at the heart of our plan would streamline
review, the reality proved more complicated. Nonetheless, the agency's
approach ultimately confirmed the long-term environmental benefits that
will result from restoring this historic mining district--and this
required leading agencies that were not inclined to come to the table
looking for solutions to participate in a constructive manner, rather
than enabling delay through inaction.
Additionally, our nation's need for a reliable domestic source of
antimony--a mineral vital to national defense and other strategic
industries--helped focus agency interest and support for timely
decision-making. Use of the Department of Defense's Defense Production
Act Title III program funding not only provided the capital infusion
the company needed to continue to progress through permitting and
toward development, but it highlighted the need for all areas of
government to take the review of the Project with seriousness and
priority status.
Lastly, clarity on the national security objectives of the project
ultimately fostered a more streamlined interagency review where
dedicated agency leadership helped provide the information, attention,
and comfort to move the project forward.
We hope these insights provide a clearer picture of the processes
and partnerships that helped advance the Stibnite Gold Project--and
perhaps can illustrate key lessons for future projects. Even as
Congress takes on necessary permitting reforms, and the Trump
administration makes key regulatory improvements, we feel that
successful projects will still require strong leadership from the lead
agency, interagency coordination, improved cooperating agency
approaches, and political will to move projects in a timely fashion. As
we move forward with the Stibnite Gold Project, we remain committed to
demonstrating how responsible mining can yield critical minerals while
performing transformative environmental restoration.
Questions Submitted by Representative Fulcher
Question 1. Ms. Lyon, your project represents an important
investment in my district--can you speak to the jobs it will create and
how Perpetua has made sure there is outreach to the community?
Answer. Thank you for your question, Congressman Fulcher. We are
proud that the Stibnite Gold Project will provide family-wage jobs,
infrastructure, and generational investment to rural Idaho for years to
come.
Over the lifespan of the Stibnite Gold Project, we will employ
hundreds annually. During our three-year construction period, we
anticipate employing up to 1,000 workers. Once we commence operations,
we expect to create approximately 500-600 jobs, supporting economic
diversity and family wages in rural Idaho.
Opportunities will be available for professionals in an array of
fields, from craft and trade jobs to highly specialized roles. While we
believe the Project will attract talented individuals from across the
region, especially given our competitive compensation and two-week on/
two-week off schedule, we are focused on looking to Idaho first for
team members and vendors wherever possible. Already, we have created
partnerships with local schools through funding Career Technical
Education programs in Valley County and worked with a number of truly
fantastic student apprentices from the College of Western Idaho. We are
also excited to see Idaho's Universities build programs of study in
geology, engineering, computer sciences, and material sciences that
will support the in-demand roles that come with mining projects.
Clear, accountable, and transparent communication with our
communities is central to our actions as a company. Our team has
designed the Stibnite Gold Project so it benefits our local community
as well as the environment. Together with our neighboring cities and
counties, we developed a community agreement that creates a
collaborative environment for us to work with local communities
throughout the life of the project and provides a venue for residents
to address concerns and opportunities directly with the company.
We have also worked diligently to build a transformational
investment in our region's future. Over the life of the Project, we
have committed to a multi-million-dollar investment in our communities
through the Stibnite Foundation, which was created as a part of our
community agreement.
In addition, we have spent over $108 million in Idaho since 2014.
We have made $3.2 million total community contributions since 2014 and
volunteered in excess of 15,000 hours since 2015. We will invest
approximately $2.2 billion in Idaho just to construct the Stibnite Gold
Project. An economic impact study estimates we will spend more than
$232 million each year we are in operation. We will generate millions
in new revenues through state and local taxes and our employees will
contribute additional money for schools and local governments through
local property taxes.
Additionally, the Project is designed to take on abandoned
environmental legacies that degrade water and habitat today. Through
private investment and redevelopment of this historic site, Perpetua is
offering to take on the restoration cost that would otherwise be the
burden of the taxpayer and has already invested $19 million in early
cleanup activities.
We are excited to be an engine of Idaho's economy and woven into
the fabric of our communities for many years to come.
______
Mr. Stauber. Thank you for your comments, Ms. Lyon. I want
to thank all the witnesses for their testimony today. The Chair
will now recognize Members for 5 minutes of questions, and I
will recognize myself for 5 minutes.
Mr. Harrell, the Twin Metals project in the 8th
congressional district of Minnesota that I represent, it stands
to generate substantial economic benefits and create thousands
of jobs. Unfortunately, the Biden administration sided with the
anti-mining and anti-jobs activists and unilaterally blocked
this project from moving forward, refusing to examine the
science. How can Congress provide greater certainty for
domestic mining projects and ensure that critical mineral
development is not derailed by shifting political priorities?
Mr. Harrell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the question, and
thank you for your leadership on these mining issues. I think
it really drives forward the need to restore some regulatory
predictability, and the Twin Metals project is a great example;
the previous administration unilaterally took those lands out
of play for consideration.
We need to balance speed and safety. We need to do
environmental analysis on these things. But when we have an
immense resource that is available here it should be reviewed
on its environmental merits, and we should ultimately get to a
yes or no answer based on those merits. So, we have to restore
more predictability. We can't have the regulatory environment
hopping back and forth between administrations and transitions.
Mr. Stauber. Thank you very much. And I will remind you
that on that specific project the former Secretary of the
Interior was asked by the Senate, if there were critical
minerals, why she shut that down. And her words were, ``I
didn't think there were critical minerals in there.'' It is the
biggest copper nickel find in the world.
I will just add that yesterday I reintroduced the Superior
National Forest Restoration Act, which will reverse the Biden
administration's actions to block this project and finally
provide the legal and regulatory certainty for this important
mine to move forward. This will prevent future anti-mining
administrations from shutting it down.
Ms. Lyon, how large of a role will reclamation play in
Perpetua's plans to develop the Stibnite Gold Project?
Ms. Lyon. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The vision of the
Stibnite Gold Project was to go back to an abandoned mine site
that had been mined for over a century, and to use the
resources of redevelopment to improve the environmental
conditions.
Today, one ton of arsenic leaches into the river every
single year. We can improve that. We can improve water quality
through mining, getting Meadow Creek at Stibnite down to a
reduction of 90 percent of arsenic. So, by looking at the
challenges of Stibnite today, millions of tons of legacy
tailings remain, water quality is impaired, the East Fork-South
Fork of the Salmon River flows into an abandoned mining pit,
and salmon are blocked from miles of habitat.
Now, after 8 years of permitting, I can sit here and tell
you that we will restore this site. We can improve water
quality. We will improve and reconnect fish habitats so that
once again salmon can reach up to 20 miles of habitat and
overall be able to uplift the environmental conditions of
Stibnite.
Mr. Stauber. So, it is safe to say that, when all is said
and done, you will leave the mine site in a better condition
than it is today?
Ms. Lyon. Yes, sir.
Mr. Stauber. You know, you brought up the antimony in your
testimony. I believe that the only reason at the eleventh hour
that the Biden administration approved your mine was because
the Chinese communist country decided not to export antimony,
which they know we need. So, by politics they were forced. They
weren't using the science and the facts. It was political in
nature. Yet, we are here today.
Before I yield, I want to ask a quick yes or no of each of
our witnesses. Do you agree that domestic mineral extraction
and production using the American workers, the American
environmental standards, and the American labor standards is
superior to overseas mining operations?
Dr. Bazilian?
Dr. Bazilian. It certainly is, you can never ask an
academic yes-or-no question.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Stauber. Can you turn on your mic?
Dr. Bazilian. Thank you very much.
Mr. Stauber. There you go.
Dr. Bazilian. Yes. In general, the standards in the United
States are superior to many other countries, not all countries.
Mr. Stauber. Thank you.
Mr. Harrell?
Mr. Harrell. Yes. That is why U.S. leadership is so
important.
Mr. Stauber. Yes. Mr. Mulvaney?
Dr. Mulvaney. I would echo Dr. Bazilian.
Mr. Stauber. Ms. Lyon?
Ms. Lyon. Yes, I will always bet on the American miner.
Mr. Stauber. Thank you very much. I will now yield to the
Ranking Member, Representative, oh, all right. OK, sorry. I
will now yield to the Ranker of the Full Committee, Mr. Huffman
from California for 5 minutes.
Mr. Huffman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thanks to the
witnesses.
We have been talking about the mining law of 1872, a law
that was codified to reflect Gold-Rush-era values when we
wanted to incentivize mining on public lands and promote
settlement of the West. Of course, this ancient law, this
anachronistic law holds no regard for the values that we that
we have today, things like environmental responsibility and
respect for Indigenous sovereignty and treaty rights. So,
relying on this ancient law from 1872 to guide a modern,
responsible domestic mining industry, all the things we say we
want to do today is a little bit like asking President Ulysses
S. Grant to come back and regulate artificial intelligence. It
is tough to do.
The mining law prioritizes mining over everything else on
our public lands. It does nothing to protect the environment or
to direct consultation with Tribes who are disproportionately
impacted often by mining projects. And on top of all this,
mining corporations are not expected to pay anything in
royalties for using our Federal land. They can hold on to
mining claims for as little as $10 per acre per year.
So, Dr. Mulvaney, we say we want to evolve into a modern,
responsible, sustainable mining industry to meet these
challenges. That is a pretty generous framework from that 1872
law. Do you know of any other industries that enjoy sweetheart
terms like that?
Dr. Mulvaney. No. In fact, on private lands or in State
lands, for example in Utah, there are much higher royalties
paid to the State of Utah on adjacent properties that would be
mined on the Federal side. Oil and gas industries pay 16.67
percent, I believe, for their leases. A solar development is
going to pay somewhere between $1,000 and $5,000 an acre for
public lands on an annual basis to lease that. So, it is a
pretty good deal, I would say, for mining companies, including
multi-national companies that have no base here in the United
States.
Mr. Huffman. Yes, I am just surprised because we say that
we are looking for savings, we are looking to address the
deficit and the debt. Elon Musk and his tech bro fake public
officials are rummaging through databases and crashing through
the doors of Federal agencies and trying to break things in
search of efficiency and savings, but they haven't found their
way to this 1872 law. And I am just wondering why that would
be.
I mean, if hardrock mining paid the same royalties as just
oil and gas, what would that do to the U.S. Treasury? Yes.
Dr. Mulvaney. Well, I think when we think about the legacy
contamination from mining industries, you could use those
revenues to help clean up and restore sites, so that is
something that would otherwise come out of taxpayer pockets,
so----
Mr. Huffman. But if they paid the same royalties as oil and
gas, we are talking about hundreds of millions, if not billions
of dollars----
Dr. Mulvaney. Yes.
Mr. Huffman [continuing]. Into the United States Treasury,
right, at a time when we say we are really looking under every
sofa cushion for that kind of savings.
So, I am hoping Elon and your tech bros, if you are
listening, maybe find your way to the 1872 Mining Law and take
a look at that instead of rummaging through our most sensitive
personal taxpayer records and all other things that you really
shouldn't have your hands on.
Dr. Mulvaney, can you explain the environmental
consequences of a mad rush to a mining free-for-all rather than
a measured, thoughtful approach? What happens when you do it
that way?
Dr. Mulvaney. Well, what could happen is if you approve a
bunch of mines hastily and they are all competing with each
other, you might end up with a couple of bankrupt mines that
start to develop sites and don't actually produce anything
before they go bankrupt. So, it does take a measured response
to figuring out which mines to develop, because every proposed
mine shouldn't be developed. We should screen for impacts to
Tribes and environmental impacts, and really try to choose the
least conflicted sites that are also productive.
Mr. Huffman. Thank you.
And Dr. Bazilian, you at the Colorado School of Mines are
doing a lot of important research into these areas, trying to
help us find the right strategies, the right mix of
technologies and minerals, and I just want to ask you about the
funding that the Colorado School of Mines receives from the
Inflation Reduction Act and the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law,
both of which are in the crosshairs right now of President
Trump. He has issued Executive Orders purporting to freeze
funding and has said he wants to claw it back.
My understanding is programs like the Department of
Energy's Loan Program Office funding have really been important
to the research and the good work that you and your colleagues
are doing. Can you tell us what this uncertainty means for your
university and the critical mineral supply chains work that you
are doing more broadly?
Dr. Bazilian. Thank you, Congressman. I am afraid I don't
have that data for you. I am not aware of the quantum, nor the
details of the funding we get from those specific mechanisms.
Thank you.
Mr. Huffman. Yes. You might want to take a look at that.
And with that, I will yield back, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.
Mr. Stauber. Thank you very much. The Chair will now
recognize Representative Wittman for 5 minutes.
Dr. Wittman. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to
thank our witnesses for joining us today. I want to focus on
what is happening with China.
As you know, they are laser-focused on critical minerals
and rare Earth elements, and we know that they have just now
issued their third round of export controls. Exporters are now
required to get CCP approval for a list of minerals now
including tungsten, tellurium, bismuth, indium, molybdenum, and
the list continues to grow. This is the third round of growing
that list. And last week, the International Trade Commission
told us what we already know, and that is China is doing
everything they can to prevent an American graphite industry
from emerging. Again, unfair trade practices, we see that.
We also know too that they own 100 percent of the world's
source of gallium, 98 percent of the world's source of
germanium. They are using that for both their strategic and
economic advantage. We know by the U.S. Geological Survey and
their modeling that this could create up to a $3.4 billion hole
in our GDP by these unfair trade practices. That is why I am
very honored to lead the Critical Minerals Working Group for
the Select Committee on the Strategic Competition between the
United States and the Chinese Communist Party.
This is a priority for our Nation to get back into not just
the mining business, but also the refining and smelting
business because China is also looking to dominate in those
areas. So, I would like to go to our witnesses and, Mr.
Harrell, I will start with you. Can you give me your thoughts
about the things that we can do to combat these unfair trade
practices?
And I have a number of bills that we are putting in to try
to create some structure there for U.S. producers and for U.S.
consumers, especially in critical national security industries,
to make sure there is an assured and reliable source of these
critical minerals and rare Earth elements and to make sure,
too, that they are operating within a free market, not in a
government-restricted place that China wants the world market
to operate within.
Mr. Harrell. Thank you, Congressman, for the question. And
thank you for your leadership on this critical minerals issue
and national security issues as a whole.
You are underscoring a critical vulnerability here. And if
I had to oversimplify kind of three key points that I think we
have to do, we are competing globally on price, and we struggle
because of some of the labor issues with some of our
competitors, Chinese subsidies and foreign subsidies. So, I
would say we need to innovate here, we need to find ways to
ultimately do these mining processes in a lower-cost way and in
a more environmentally sustainable way.
We need to drive down the cost of those mechanisms. We need
to use innovative financing tools not to out subsidize China
because we are never going to win that fight, but to catalyze
some of these early investments in processing and in the
infrastructure that we need.
And then three, we need to use the world-class innovators
here in the United States to ultimately make products that
aren't going to need some of these things, as well. We need to
innovate on batteries and energy storage that use Earth-
abundant resources, because in the end there is a wide variety
of defense applications that we are going to need these
critical minerals.
Dr. Wittman. Very good. Dr. Mulvaney, I will go to you and
just get your perspective. How do we combat these unfair trade
practices? How does the United States create and sustain an
industry that includes extraction, refining, and smelting?
Dr. Mulvaney. Well, I think one of the reasons that China
is able to compete is because they have had sustained
partnership between their government and those developments.
So, we probably need to strengthen partnerships with OEMs, for
example, to make sure that automakers are also investing in
mines or defense industries are also investing in mines. And
for that to happen we need to have a stable policy environment
and send signals to the market that, you know, we are planning
on developing certain resources.
Dr. Wittman. Very good, thank you. I want to emphasize too
that by the United States buying minerals from these mines,
remember, 16 of the 18 mines in Africa are owned by China, they
use forced labor, and they destroy the environment. So, for us
to sanctimoniously say that we are for all these things and yet
we buy and we enable the Chinese to exploit human beings and
destroy the environment is unbelievably, unbelievably
unacceptable for the United States to do that.
Ms. Lyon, I would like to get your perspective in the last
30 seconds.
Ms. Lyon. Absolutely, Congressman, and thank you. We need
long-term strategy that enables the left hand of government to
understand what the right hand needs.
We also need to reconfirm on the short-term tools that we
can utilize as an industry today to be competitive against that
$57 billion China is using to support while it takes us 29
years to get to the finish line. Those resources include things
that helped us, like title three of the Defense Production Act
or the U.S. Export-Import Bank's China and Transformational
Export Programs. We need these programs today to be sustained
in order to move forward.
Dr. Wittman. Thank you, Ms. Lyon.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Stauber. Thank you very much. The Chair recognizes the
Ranking Member of this Committee, Representative Ansari, for 5
minutes.
Ms. Ansari. Thank you all very much for the informative
testimony.
As we have discussed, mining can be part of the solution to
our mineral needs, but it won't be the only solution. Recycling
and reuse can help reduce the demand for mined materials and
can make our supply chains more adaptive to demand, which, with
technology, as we know, is always changing. So, my first
question is for Dr. Mulvaney.
Could you give us a ballpark for the quantity of minerals
we are losing to landfills each year, compared to the amount of
minerals that we take out of the ground?
Dr. Mulvaney. Yes, and there are not a lot of studies of
how much gets diverted into landfills, because it is not
something we track, obviously. It is, you know, everybody is
putting stuff into their garbage. But one study that is
frequently cited by the USGS from 2004 found that in the United
States, about 1.1 million tons of copper are landfilled
annually, and that matches roughly about with how much is
extracted in the United States on an annual basis.
That is just copper. Other materials would have to be
looked at. We don't have a lot of information, partly, I mean,
you think about cell phones, right? People stockpile cell
phones in their closets and drawers and things like that. So,
everything that doesn't always make it into the landfill right
away, but that is roughly the numbers that I could have.
Ms. Ansari. Thank you. And how much can recycling
contribute to our mineral needs if systems are set up properly
and products are actually designed to be recycled at the end of
their lives?
Dr. Mulvaney. The metals that I am most familiar with are
the ones in batteries, and I see nickel, cobalt, and manganese
numbers in the 10 to 20 to 30 percent amount.
It requires, I think, having recycled content standards.
So, in Europe they have recycled content standards for
batteries, and that requires that purchasers of batteries are
buying materials that have some recovered content. You have to
send signals to waste industries to build the equipment to
recover the materials, and having strong recycling laws is one
way to do that.
Ms. Ansari. And on that can you talk a little bit about the
challenges that we face to get there, and how the Federal
Government could possibly support these efforts?
Dr. Mulvaney. Yes. Well, in Europe they have a
comprehensive waste recovery law, and we do not have a Federal
policy like that. We leave electronic waste, we regulate
hazardous waste, we don't regulate all electrical equipment,
and we leave e-waste management, which is where we are going to
find a lot of these metals, to the States. And then we end up
with a patchwork of laws that are a little different in every
State.
So, I think, you know, working through the Federal
Government to make sure those laws are harmonized would be one
pathway to ensuring that we have a robust and resilient
recycling infrastructure.
Ms. Ansari. Thank you. I would also like to talk a little
bit about water use. As I mentioned, communities in my district
are on the front lines of the climate crisis, particularly when
it comes to extreme heat and drought. They are an example of
how access to clean water resources is just as important to
security as anything else.
In Phoenix, we have been able to reduce water demand even
as our population and our economy have boomed. But we need
long-term solutions, and all of the industries in the West need
to be developed with these scarce water resources in mind. In
Arizona, loopholes exempt mining from water use laws. And
unfortunately, we are already hearing of examples of mines in
places like our neighbors in Nevada that are running
groundwater aquifers dry.
So, my question, and this is also to you, Dr. Mulvaney, I
know you have done research on lithium mining and its impact on
water resources in particular. Can you tell us more about the
ways that we can improve water use in mining?
Dr. Mulvaney. Sorry, yes. I will submit for the record a
paper we just published on lithium and water impacts across the
life cycle.
We have different new technologies emerging, direct lithium
extraction, for example. There are still questions around what
the water use looks like for that. But that is possibly a new
generation of lithium extraction technologies where we might be
able to pull minerals from brines. The Salton Sea is an area
where I have been closely working with groups in the Lithium
Valley.
But also, just ensuring that mine development doesn't have
impacts on groundwater. I think through the Thacker Pass
controversy we saw a result that led to a mine that was
ultimately developed that had less impact on groundwater than
was initially proposed. So, having strong environmental review
and looking at groundwater impacts in that review is one way
that we can ensure that mines are developed appropriately.
Ms. Ansari. Thank you so much.
I yield back.
Mr. Stauber. Thank you, Representative Ansari. The Chair
now recognizes Representative Gosar from the great State of
Arizona for 5 minutes.
Dr. Gosar. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As a representative of
Arizona, the Copper State, this hearing brings home this whole
issue: mineral security is national security.
Thankfully, President Trump understands the importance of
domestic mineral production. For example, his Unleashing
American Energy Executive Order calls on agency heads to
identify actions that will impose undue burdens on the mining
and processing of non-fuel minerals. Ending such burdens on
mining is crucial to unlocking our domestic production
potential. We need to make mining great again, we hope to
ensure our country does not rely on our adversaries or
countries with unacceptable environmental or labor conditions
for important mineral necessity for energy and computers.
Mineral security is also economic security. President Trump
recognizes this and signed an Executive Order calling for the
creation of a sovereign wealth fund. Tying natural assets,
including minerals, to the economic security of American people
is a wonderful idea. In fact, my legislation, H.R. 3004, the
LASSO Act, gives the President the legislative format to
achieve just this. I look forward to seeing what President
Trump and this Congress can do to ensure mineral dominance for
Americans.
Mr. Harrell, you have firsthand knowledge of the mining
aspects in Arizona. Can you talk to us about the Biden's abuse
of abuse of the Antiquities Act to create a 1.6 million-acre
national monument adjacent to the Grand Canyon to restrict
uranium mining and economic development in our State, but also
posing risks to the national security interests of our country
at large?
Mr. Harrell. Thank you for the question, Congressman Gosar,
yes.
Again, as we are talking about these unilateral withdrawals
that are done administratively and millions of acres, like,
certainly that tool was envisioned to be used for very small
areas, right? And it has been abused over years by, frankly,
Republican and Democratic administrations. In the end, we want
to balance speed and safety on environmental reviews, but we
want everyone to be given a fair shake here.
So, we have acute uranium production needs. There is global
consensus that we are going to need to as much as 3X nuclear to
meet energy and climate goals. U.S. innovators are leaning
forward, and we are significantly reliant on Russian nuclear
fuel products. And we should be mining it here, we should be
enriching it here, and we should ultimately be fabricating fuel
in this country.
So, we need to evaluate these sites by a case-by-case
basis, see if they merit a yes or a no. And sometimes we will
ultimately land on no. But this system far too often is a
default now.
Dr. Gosar. So, let me ask you a quick question.
Understanding the extraction of uranium may take some education
again, because you have breccia pipes up in northern Arizona
that are very concentrated. They are also a sunken collapsed
matrix.
My dad was a geologist from the Colorado School of Mines,
so I am telling you I used to hate rocks, now I love rocks.
[Laughter.]
Dr. Gosar. But what it basically does is every time it
rains, every time it blows, you get exposure to these breccia
pipes. But when you take them out, they are very concentric.
They are about 20 to 40 acres. They take out that breccia pipe,
and a lot of times they have these caliche clays that are
formed, these subsurface barriers for water permeation. So,
what you are actually getting is increased permeation, and you
are getting rid of the long-standing exposure. Would you agree
with that?
Mr. Harrell. Yes, I have toured multiple of these sites
across this country, in the United States, including in
northern Arizona, and they use very innovative processes to
remove this in an environmentally sustainable way. And you can
do it in a way that protects and maybe even improves risks to
groundwater impact.
Dr. Gosar. So, you are also familiar with Resolution
Copper. Now, who is right on this? You know, the San Carlos say
that these are their traditional religious grounds, but yet,
you have a tribal historian, who has no purview to anything
else other than the records, saying this was never a religious
area. What gives here?
Mr. Harrell. Congress is right. In 2014, legislation was
signed into law, due to your leadership and this Committee's
leadership, to enact a land exchange to enable this project
moving forward. It was signed into law by President Obama. And
we are still, over 10 years later, debating and driving towards
a 2030 production date.
Dr. Gosar. Are you----
Mr. Harrell. This project has been evaluated extensively,
and it has been yo-yoed back and forth based on political
transitions and positions.
Dr. Gosar. How many mining companies do you think could
actually afford the two billion-plus dollars they have put into
reclaiming that mine site there in Superior?
Mr. Harrell. Very few. And Resolution has taken--you know,
I have been at that site five-plus times. They have submitted a
significant long-term plan on how they are going to reclaim
that site, produce what is one of the largest copper reserves
in the entire world, could meet 25 percent of our domestic
demand, and revitalize a community that is in the heart of
copper country, close to significant mining infrastructure, and
ultimately deliver results that I think would be good for our
national security, good for the Arizona economy, good for the
national economy.
Dr. Gosar. OK, I got one last question. Sorry about this
one, but it is very quick.
All of you, can you tell me why our Constitution is
antiquated at almost 250 years of age? Is it antiquated, Dr.
Bazilian?
Dr. Bazilian. Sorry, Congressman, you mean the----
Dr. Gosar. U.S. Constitution.
Dr. Bazilian. The Constitution.
Dr. Gosar. Is almost 250 years old. We are going to
celebrate that very quickly in the next 2 years. Is it
antiquated?
Dr. Bazilian. Geez, Congressman, I am not a specialist on
constitutional law.
Dr. Gosar. Mr. Harrell?
Dr. Bazilian. Sorry.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Harrell. I think we uphold the Constitution.
Dr. Gosar. Yes. How about you, Doctor?
Dr. Mulvaney. I am going to echo Dr. Bazilian again.
Dr. Gosar. This is an easy one.
Ms. Lyon?
Ms. Lyon. And I am not an expert. But, sir, there are
elements of our Constitution that we are here to uphold.
Dr. Gosar. Thank you very much, I appreciate it.
I yield back.
Mr. Stauber. Thank you very much, Dr. Gosar. The Chair now
recognizes Representative Rivas from the great State of
California for 5 minutes.
Ms. Rivas. Thank you, Chair Stauber and, you know, Ranking
Member Ansari.
One of my biggest priorities in Congress, I am a new Member
from California, is environmental justice, elevating
communities that often don't have a voice in our Federal
Government. My district is in Los Angeles, in the San Fernando
Valley. It is an area that has, unfortunately, had a lot of
environmental injustices impacted our communities in the past
and present due to, you know, poor land use decisions by all
levels of government. And it is kind of the genesis for me to
fight for these issues and to be that voice on Natural
Resources Committee. And I did that as a State legislator in
California, and I will continue to do that here in Congress.
You know, we are talking about developing a modern mining
industry in our country, and I strongly urge our colleagues to
consider environmental justice in decision-making, especially
for tribal communities. You know, mining has a long and well-
documented history of committing environmental and human rights
injustices across the globe, including in the United States,
especially for Indigenous people.
Now, you know, I know the mining industry is different than
it was back then, you know, years ago. But unfortunately, our
mining laws have not changed, and Indigenous communities will
continue to bear the brunt of expanded mining without major
reforms. So, my question is for Dr. Mulvaney.
Considering this history of hardrock mining and negative
effects on environmental tribal lands, what policies or actions
do you recommend Congress take to rebuild our relationships
with Tribes and address a clean energy future?
Dr. Mulvaney. Very briefly, strengthening consultation,
early consultation, is a key strategy for that. And the most
recent pre-planning initiative from the Department of the
Interior that came out in November or December last year, I
think, is a step in the right direction. That is where people
could understand when a site is sacred and maybe a site
shouldn't be developed.
We had a project down in Southern California, a gold mine
that the Quechan thought was on, you know, it doesn't matter
how sustainable your mining practice is if it is on a site that
somebody wants, or thinks is wilderness, or is a sacred site.
And through the process of, you know, thinking through that
mine, they ended up not building that mine. That mine is no
longer going to be developed, and it is nice to know that it is
not competing against a more sustainable gold mine somewhere
else in the United States. So, I think that that is an area
that we could strengthen, prior consultation early.
Ms. Rivas. OK. Yes, thank you. Thank you for that insight
as we look forward to building this economy. Thank you.
[Pause.]
Ms. Rivas. I yield back my time.
Dr. Gosar [presiding]. I thank the gentlewoman, and the
gentleman from Idaho, Mr. Fulcher, is now recognized.
Mr. Fulcher. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is great to have
an Idahoan on the panel today.
Mckinsey, thank you for being here and for your hard work
in advancing the permitting process for the Stibnite mine in
Idaho. Did I understand correctly that that was an 18-year
process from start to finish?
Ms. Lyon. Congressman, yes, it was.
Mr. Fulcher. Eighteen years. And Mr. Chairman, I was going
to point out that that probably meant that Congressman Huffman
was still in grade school during that process, but he is not
here to hear me say that. So, I guess I won't point it out.
Anyway, the Stibnite Mine project is the only source of
mined antimony in the United States, critical for defense,
energy storage, and technology. And I am a visual learner. So,
thanks to our friends at Stibnite, this is what it looks like,
Mr. Chairman.
[Slide.]
Mr. Fulcher. This is the pre-processed form, but this is an
example of what we are going after and what is so critical
here. The project is even more critical as China, which
currently dominates global antimony production, has
increasingly restricted exports of this mineral, further
highlighting the need for domestic supply.
So, I am proud that Perpetua in Idaho is leading the way in
securing this resource for our Nation. In fact, Idaho resources
play a key role in securing our Nation's future, and I will
continue to advocate for responsible mining projects like
Stibnite that bring lasting benefits to our State and country.
With that, I want to get to a question for Ms. Lyon, but
China banned the export of antimony just this Tuesday, and they
have expanded their export controls over additional forms of
tungsten and other critical minerals. I was just going to ask
Ms. Lyon if I understand the history correctly.
There was some tungsten activity in this project once upon
a time. Can you talk about the possibility of restarting that
resource extraction at the Stibnite project?
Ms. Lyon. Absolutely. And Congressman, thank you for the
support of our project.
Historically, as I mentioned, Stibnite produced 90 percent
of the antimony and 50 percent of the tungsten used in World
War II. As we look at redeveloping the site we have been able
to identify, we know we have 148 million pounds of antimony
remaining. We know that because it is a byproduct of gold
production. We are also fairly confident and we see in our
mineralization existing tungsten. But we have not gone back to
fully flush out the full mineral resource that could be
remaining at Stibnite today. But we are always happy to do that
investigation and continue to have Idaho help play a role in
our national security.
Mr. Fulcher. Great, thank you for that. A question for Mr.
Bazilian, and this has to do with the various lists of critical
minerals.
But the Wall Street Journal reported earlier this week
China has added five additional critical minerals subject to
export restrictions. Tungsten is one. Tellurium, bismuth,
molybdenum, and indium are others. This follows the ban on
gallium and germanium exports just in December. So, these are
all essential for electronics, the energy sector, national
defense.
The U.S. Geological Survey identifies non-fuel minerals
vital to our economy and national security, that agencies like
the Department of Energy and Defense Logistics also maintain
separate lists for energy and defense. Is there an opportunity
for some better coordination there, Mr. Bazilian?
Dr. Bazilian. Thank you very much, Congressman. Yes, I
think it is an important question.
It is a little bit wonky for politics typically, but the
way we calculate mineral criticality, we have three
unclassified lists in the United States: one from the USGS, one
from the Department of Energy, and one through the Department
of Defense. Only the Department of Defense list includes not
just ores but chemicals and materials. And that is an important
way we can help refine the other lists.
And the other innovation that DOD does is that they look
forward. The other lists are snapshots of a current point in
time.
I will just add that the way the United States calculates
mineral criticality is not dissimilar to some other
jurisdictions like European Union or a recent UK list, but it
is fundamentally different than how Canada and Australia looks
at mineral criticality. So, I think there is considerable more
sophistication that could be brought to these calculations, and
that would help inform decisions.
Mr. Fulcher. Great. Thank you for that.
Moving quickly because I am about out of time, Mr. Harrell,
just a quick comment for you having to do with judicial review,
and I will abbreviate the question by saying, can some judicial
review reform help prevent unnecessary litigation that delays
these projects for, like, 18 years that Ms. Lyon was talking
about? Are there opportunities there?
Mr. Harrell. Absolutely. I think it is one of the single
largest opportunities here. We want to ensure that communities
have a chance to use the legal system. But the way it is
structured today, it is being completely abused and ultimately
is a major source of these significant decades-long delays.
Mr. Fulcher. Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, I have a lot more questions, but I will
submit those in writing because I am out of time.
I yield back.
Mr. Stauber [presiding]. Thank you, Representative Fulcher.
The Chair now recognizes Mr. Magaziner from Rhode Island for 5
minutes.
Mr. Magaziner. Thank you, Chair.
I am glad that my colleagues on both sides of the aisle and
the witnesses today all agree on the importance of securing
critical mineral supply chains. And Mr. Bazilian, you mentioned
in your testimony that ``working with allies will be an
indispensable part of our success in creating robust, secure,
and resilient supply chains.'' This is an absolutely vital
point.
The United States must maintain good relationships,
particularly with the developing world, so that we can access
the critical minerals that we need to grow America's economy
and maintain a high standard of living. This is one of the many
reasons why it is wrong and self-defeating for Donald Trump and
Elon Musk to be shredding our relationships with mineral-rich
countries around the world, particularly the developing world.
Here are the facts. Less than 1 percent of all cobalt
reserves are in the United States. Cobalt, of course, is used
to make batteries and cell phones, laptops and cars. More than
50 percent of the world's cobalt is in Africa.
The world's largest copper reserves are in South America.
The United States has only one-tenth of 1 percent of the
world's nickel reserves, nickel, of course, used primarily to
make steel. Indonesia and Brazil have nearly half of the
world's nickel.
Rare Earth minerals are used in semiconductors and advanced
medical equipment and consumer electronics. The U.S. has less
than 1 percent of the world's rare Earth mineral reserves. And
in order to have a stable supply, we need strong relationships
with countries like India and Brazil and Tanzania and South
Africa. So, we need these relationships.
But what have Donald Trump and Elon Musk done over the last
2 weeks? They have shut down USAID, our most important agency
for building goodwill in the developing world. All across the
developing world right now, people are waking up to see their
health clinics shut down, access to medicine for their children
cut off, access to food cut off, American-supported
infrastructure projects canceled, all because Donald Trump and
the richest man in the world are illegally and stupidly
shredding our relationships with the very countries we need as
partners to access these minerals, to say nothing of the
cruelty of the richest man in the world gleefully taking food
away from hungry children and medicine away from the sick. But
that is another story.
And guess who is stepping in, ready to save the day? China,
China's Belt and Road Initiative. Our greatest competitor,
China, will be happy to step into the void that Trump and Musk
are creating. But China's help will come with a price. So,
congratulations, Donald and Elon. In the global race to secure
rare Earth minerals, most of which are in the developing world,
you have surrendered the battlefield to our greatest adversary.
And of course, there is another big country with vast
reserves of critical minerals that I haven't mentioned yet. In
fact, it is the country that today the U.S. imports the most
minerals from: Canada. Canada, which the stable genius has
decided to start a trade war with, aluminum, copper, cobalt,
graphite and more, Canada has become a vital supply of these
critical minerals to the United States. Now, don't worry,
Donald Trump only wants to tax these critical minerals at 10
percent at the border instead of 25 percent. Mexico also
supplies critical minerals, by the way.
Now, look, I know we are here today to talk about domestic
mining, and that is important. And it is a good conversation to
have. But the fact remains that the vast majority of reserves
of critical minerals lie outside the United States, and no
amount of domestic mining can change that. So, Donald Trump and
Elon Musk need to stop doing everything that they can to make
it harder for us to access those minerals and easier for our
adversaries to do so.
Dr. Mulvaney, does the U.S. have enough critical mineral
reserves that we don't need to rely on partnerships with other
countries?
Dr. Mulvaney. No.
Mr. Magaziner. And are other countries going to be more
likely to give us access to critical minerals when we are
pulling food and medicine and other assistance away from them?
Dr. Mulvaney. I can't speak to that necessarily, but your
intimation sounds like it might be right.
Mr. Magaziner. And is it wise for us to be posing new taxes
on the importation of critical minerals from places like Canada
and Mexico?
Dr. Mulvaney. Tariffs in general are not very helpful for
American consumers.
Mr. Magaziner. All right.
Dr. Mulvaney. Or business----
Mr. Magaziner. I just want everyone to keep in mind the
context that we are operating in here.
Thank you very much, and I yield back.
Mr. Stauber. Thank you very much. The Chair now recognizes
the full Committee Chair, Representative Westerman.
Mr. Westerman. Thank you, Chairman Stauber. And again,
thank you to the witnesses for being here today.
Dr. Bazilian, my undergraduate degree is in engineering.
And Dr. Mulvaney, my graduate degree is in forestry, which
was kind of the original environmental study, so I feel a
little bit of kinship here, but also probably think in a
different way than a lot of people because I like to make
things into outlines, and categorize stuff, and go to work on
it, kind of the engineering method of solving a problem.
So, as I look at America's mineral future, if I was going
to say here are the goals that I have for America's mineral
future, I wrote three of them down: reduce dependence on
Chinese and other adversarial suppliers; the next one would be
attract investments in domestic mining, refining, recycling,
and manufacturing; and the third big goal would be to lead the
world in conservation, innovation, workers' health and safety,
and so on. So, that would be, like, my big goals for America's
mining future.
But then, you know, going through that kind of scientific
method, I would say, OK, what are the specific objectives to
achieve those three main goals, and maybe we could add more to
the goals or debate what they should be. But the one objective
I see that addresses all three of those things would be to
streamline our existing permitting process to promote rapid
development of mining, refining, recycling, and manufacturing
of domestic minerals, and to do that in a way that doesn't wipe
out environmental sideboards, but actually incorporates maybe
new ways to make those environmental sideboards better.
Now, I have a lot of other ideas, but what I want to hear
are your ideas on what other specific objectives should we put
on the list, because at some point somebody has to write a
piece of legislation and try to get it passed through the House
and through the Senate and get it on the President's desk.
Dr. Bazilian, what specific objective should we work
towards?
Dr. Bazilian. I think your objectives make a lot of sense,
Congressman.
You know, as some other colleagues have said here, it is
very important to look at trade-offs and be explicit about the
costs and benefits and the impacts. So, I think keeping that in
mind is an important one.
Certainly, reducing our import dependence is important, but
at the same time I think the other side of the coin there is
ensuring that our portfolio of partners across supply chains is
robust and resilient. And that is very important, as----
Mr. Westerman. So, maybe like a Western Hemisphere alliance
or Western civilization alliance, where we work with our
partners who maybe have a lot of these resources in more
abundance than we do to make sure that we have strong supply
chains?
Dr. Bazilian. I think that is important. You know, when we
think about our allies in this, the first department that
recognizes the need to work with allies is the Department of
Defense. I think we, under the first Trump presidency we had
something called ERGI, the Energy Resource Governance
Initiative, at the State Department that was meant to do
exactly what you just said. Under the Biden administration it
morphed into something called the Mineral Security Partnership,
and I imagine both of those are not dissimilar, in fact.
Mr. Westerman. So, I want to get some input from the other
panelists.
You can go, Mr. Harrell.
Mr. Harrell. Yes, absolutely. I think you sum it up very
well, four key things: How do we invest and mine and process
more here in the U.S.; how do we maximize the resources we have
here today, so reuse and recycling; how do we innovate on the
products that need these materials; and fourth, how do we
partner with allies because there are inherent limitations of
what is under our feet.
Mr. Westerman. Mr. Mulvaney.
Dr. Mulvaney. That sounds like a great list. I will add a
small piece here which is characterizing some of our waste
resources.
One of the things I understand that precludes us from
developing tailings, for example, at mine sites is just not
understanding what is there. So, having Federal support to try
to characterize what is at waste sites, what is at
intentionally reclaimed mines----
Mr. Westerman. So, more research and development on----
Dr. Mulvaney. Yes, or just characterization of what
resources we actually have.
Mr. Westerman. All right. Ms. Lyon?
Ms. Lyon. Chairman, I think in the long term our experience
is that our projects are complicated. We have 12 State and
Federal environmental agencies around the table in the
permitting process for the Stibnite Gold Project. We need a
forum by which those agencies can come together and not just
identify problems, but find solutions. Commerce, State, the
Department of Defense, and the Department of Energy also need
to be able to be at that table to signal strategic need in
balancing the environmental interests of this country, as well.
Mr. Westerman. That would all fall under streamlining,
permitting.
Ms. Lyon. Yes, sir.
Mr. Westerman. Right. If you will bear with me 1 second,
Mr. Chair, I heard former Secretary Zinke, our colleague. He
made an analogy of a salmon and a trout swimming up a river
that is regulated, the salmon by NOAA, the trout by U.S. Fish
and Wildlife, with a forest managed by the Forest Service and
other land managed by the BLM on a river that has a Corps of
Engineers dam and maybe a Bureau of Reclamation. And you start
looking at all of the overlap, it is amazing we are able to get
anything done. So, I think that has to be an important part of
streamlining.
I yield back.
Mr. Stauber. Thank you very much. The Chair now recognizes
Representative Stansbury for 5 minutes.
Ms. Stansbury. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, both our Chairmen,
and also our new Ranking Member. It is wonderful to be here
today.
Thank you all so much for being here. I was just reviewing
your testimony. I am sorry I wasn't here in person at the
beginning of it.
As some of you may know, I actually used to work at the
Office of Management and Budget, and I did the budget for USGS,
and I was actually part of the interagency team within the
Executive Office of the President that convened for many years
to try to untangle the critical minerals supply chain issues.
So, I appreciate the comments that were just made. We need an
all-of-the-above, you know, coordinated strategy across all of
our Federal agencies working with the private sector, working
with Tribes and environmental groups.
But, you know, unfortunately, what we see often happen here
in Congress is these issues get highly politicized and then
deployed for the purpose of supporting an ad hoc piece of
legislation here, an ad hoc piece of legislation there. And I
do think, for the purposes of this hearing, and I know many of
you have touched on this in your testimony, it is important
that this not just become a conversation to drive legislation
that is just going to, you know, provide unfettered access to
sensitive lands and completely undermine our environmental
laws.
You know, looking at the testimony both for Mr. Bazilian as
well as Mr. Mulvaney, Dr. Mulvaney, I apologize, Doctors, you
know, what I am struck by reading both of your testimonies,
which I think is fully concurrent with the work that has been
done for many years in this sector, is, No. 1, identifying, I
mean, there is just a basic geologic reality about the Earth's
crust, which is that we need hundreds of different minerals,
and they are not all in the United States. In fact, some of the
largest supplies of critical minerals are in Central Asia, they
are in Africa. They just don't exist here on the North American
continent, but they have become very important to the supply
chain and to manufacturing in the United States.
So, to that point which I think Mr. Magaziner was touching
on, we will have to continue to engage in international
relationships. Europe is also very much struggling with these
issues, especially since China has been stockpiling minerals
that are not only on the Asian continent, but also using their
diplomatic pressures to buy up mines throughout the world and
to create partnerships. So, we have to be conscious that part
of the solution here is actually diplomatic.
And it is true that we have to continue to have diplomatic
relationships with these countries, and the undermining of
international affairs that folks may not realize is that part
of how we have diplomatic relationships with other parts of the
world is that we provide aid to them, and that is actually
important to the critical supply chain. But that is only one
piece of the equation.
You know, we do need to increase domestic mining, but only
in places where it is appropriate, where the minerals actually
can be mined in a safe manner, where it is not going to
actually destroy the aquifer, and in places that are not going
to undermine tribal sovereignty and sacred cultural places. And
you know, there are a number of really important places that
have been set aside especially during the last administration.
And I know, Mr. Chairman, we will very much disagree on
this because I know you are very passionate about this, but
there are places like the Boundary Waters, like Resolution
Copper's desire to mine in a tribal sacred site that has for
thousands of years been a place where the Apache people have
gone for ceremonies that, yes, there may be great geologic
deposits there, yes, they may be able to provide for supply
chain certainty for the United States, but there are other
reasons and other values that we have about these places that
make it such that we don't want to mine there.
And I think that we have to not lose sight of that because
once you especially have, like, a vast surface mining
operation, it will never be the same again. So, we have to be
really thoughtful about how we approach this issue and not
undermine tribal sovereignty, not undermine, you know, the
sacred places that are important to our communities, and to do
it in a smart and really coordinated manner.
I am short on time, but I think I just wanted to say that I
appreciate you all coming in here, and I hope that this
testimony is not used as a foil to undermine environmental laws
and tribal sovereignty. So, thank you.
Mr. Stauber. Thank you. The Chair now recognizes
Representative Tiffany for 5 minutes.
Mr. Tiffany. Mr. Chairman, we just heard the strategy from
the other side: Not in my backyard. Get it someplace else. That
is what we are going to do here in the United States of
America. What a strategy for national security, for economic
security, for job security.
Dr. Mulvaney, name----
Ms. Stansbury. Mr. Tiffany, would you yield?
Mr. Tiffany. Name a location or two, one or two, where we
should build----
Ms. Stansbury. Mr. Tiffany?
Mr. Tiffany [continuing]. A mine in the United States of
America?
Mr. Stauber. Would the gentleman----
Ms. Stansbury. Would the gentleman yield?
Mr. Stauber. The gentleman stop.
Ma'am?
Mr. Tiffany. No, I am not going to yield. I only have 5
minutes, Mr. Chairman. That is all you are giving me.
Mr. Stauber. Go ahead, Representative Tiffany.
Ms. Stansbury. OK.
Mr. Tiffany. Dr. Mulvaney, where could we build a mine in
the United States right now, in your mind? Where could we build
one real soon?
Dr. Mulvaney. Choosing a site for a mine is a complicated
and very place-based process. So, I hesitate to say, because I
don't want to speak for other communities. I lived next to a
mine for 10 years.
Mr. Tiffany. Sure, thank you for that answer.
We had the former head of the U.S. Forest Service here, Mr.
Chairman, just a couple of years ago, and he was fighting the
project up in northern Minnesota. And I posed the same question
to him. He said, ``Well, we can't do it near water, we can't do
it,'' and I said, well, how about Resolution Copper in Arizona,
some place where it is dry? ``Well, I don't know about that,
either.''
Where can we build a mine here in the United States of
America? Give me a deposit. Name an example right now, Dr.
Mulvaney.
Dr. Mulvaney. We have built, we have permitted a bunch of
mines in the last year in Nevada. So, not-in-my-backyard is not
happening everywhere. I understand that there are, and I have
learned through this Committee from previous testimony, the
Boundary Waters and the Resolution Copper projects are
extremely contentious.
Mr. Tiffany. You----
Dr. Mulvaney. I would say they are very unique in terms of
their issues.
Mr. Tiffany. I am going to change course here a little bit.
You cite the 1872 law, and you say it is a disaster, and we
should get to the modern era, Ulysses S. Grant and all the
rest. Don't all the States have modern mining laws?
Are you familiar with Wisconsin's mining law that I rewrote
a decade ago?
Dr. Mulvaney. No, I am not, but the 1872 law governs mining
on public lands specifically. So, State law doesn't supersede
the Federal law in this case.
Mr. Tiffany. If you built a mine on Federal land in the
State of Wisconsin, wouldn't you also have to comply with the
State requirements?
Dr. Mulvaney. I think we have heard many times there are
many, many agencies at multiple levels involved in all of these
things, and that is what makes it complicated.
Mr. Tiffany. That is exactly right, and isn't it a red
herring on your part to cite this 1872 law, when you know very
well there are modern mining laws that have been passed in
States like Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, that there are
modern mining laws that are in place that are protective of the
public? Don't you think it is a bit duplicitous to not give
some context and say, yes, but there are other requirements in
place?
Ms. Lyon, I suspect Idaho has a comprehensive mining law.
Am I correct?
Ms. Lyon. Yes, and we are still subject to the Clean Water
Act, the Clean Air Act, the Endangered Species Act, and
financial assurance.
Mr. Tiffany. You cited the sage grouse habitat, Dr.
Mulvaney. There is a massive solar site going up in central
Wisconsin that conservationists are concerned about as a result
of the grouse. Should they be building that massive solar site
there when you have conservationists that are very concerned
about it?
Dr. Mulvaney. I will ask a student whose dissertation
committee I am on who is studying an area right around
Wisconsin, a University of Wisconsin student. So, I will ask
them and put it in the record.
But solar farms are also controversial, and they face the
same issues. If the landscape is sacred, if it is important it
is going to face the same kind of opposition.
Mr. Tiffany. Mr. Chairman, the term was just used, ``solar
farms.'' They are not farms. They are industrial sites. They
are producing electricity. Anyone that uses the term ``farm,''
that is incorrect, they are not growing anything unless you say
electricity is grown.
Are you familiar with the Ivanpah project in California?
Dr. Mulvaney. Yes, I camped on that site before it was
built. I have studied that site for 15 years.
Mr. Tiffany. What just happened to the Ivanpah project?
Dr. Mulvaney. First of all, the Ivanpah project is a
concentrated solar farm that also burns natural gas. It burns
so much natural gas that it has to participate in California's
cap and trade program.
Mr. Tiffany. Is the Ivanpah operating currently?
Dr. Mulvaney. That project has always had problems. That
project was----
Mr. Tiffany. Is it correct, Dr. Mulvaney, that the project
went broke? How many billions of dollars went from the----
Dr. Mulvaney. They didn't----
Mr. Tiffany [continuing]. American taxpayer to the Ivanpah
project?
Dr. Mulvaney. If I recall, it is in my book, ``Solar
Power''--$1.8 billion or so.
Mr. Tiffany. Unfortunately, my time has run out. Yes, it
failed.
Dr. Mulvaney. I would love to talk more at some point, Mr.
Tiffany.
Mr. Tiffany. For the record, I would ask unanimous consent,
Mr. Chairman, to introduce into the record ``Net Zero is a Non-
Starter Without More Minerals and Better Permitting,'' by Sarah
Montalbano.
Mr. Stauber. Without objection.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Tiffany. And I yield back.
Ms. Ansari. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask for unanimous
consent to enter into the record this fact sheet from the
Biden-Harris Administration on critical minerals that outlines
the important investments they made and that, through the
Bipartisan Infrastructure Law and the Inflation Reduction Act,
one thing we can all do to advance critical minerals is to
acknowledge the Article I constitutional authority of Congress
and get these investments flowing again.
Mr. Stauber. Without objection.
[The information follows:]
FACT SHEET: Biden-Harris Administration Takes Further Action to
Strengthen and Secure Critical Mineral Supply Chains
Department of Energy Battery Supply Chain Awards Build on Four Years of
Whole-
of-Government Effort to Increase Domestic and Allied Supply of Critical
Minerals
Critical minerals are essential building blocks of the modern
economy and our energy security, from clean energy technologies like
high-capacity batteries and wind turbines to semiconductors, advanced
defense systems, and consumer electronics. Over the past several
decades, China has cornered the market for processing and refining of
key critical minerals, leaving the U.S. and our allies and partners
vulnerable to supply chain shocks and undermining economic and national
security. As the world builds a clean energy economy, demand for
critical minerals is projected to grow exponentially.
President Biden recognized this challenge and took immediate
action. In his first weeks in office, he signed Executive Order 14017,
America's Supply Chains, which mandated a 100-day review of U.S.
critical mineral supply chains. Following the report's recommendations,
the Biden-Harris Administration has mobilized historic resources to
strengthen domestic critical minerals supply chains, from mining to
manufacturing to recycling. These investments are strengthening U.S.
energy and national security; boosting American manufacturing; creating
good-paying and union jobs in mining, construction, and manufacturing;
and reducing reliance on unreliable supply chains.
Since President Biden took office, companies have announced more
than $120 billion in investments in battery and critical mineral supply
chains. Through the Biden-Harris Administration's Investing in America
agenda, the Department of Energy, the Department of Defense, the
Department of the Treasury, and the Department of Commerce are
supporting the domestic battery and critical mineral supply chain
through grants, loans, and allocated tax credits. That investment has
created new jobs: over 250,000 new American energy jobs were added last
year--with clean energy jobs growing twice as fast as the rest of the
sector.
This investment has also dramatically expanded the U.S. critical
minerals industrial base and reduced reliance on foreign and unreliable
supply chains. In 2021, the U.S. had enough operating and announced
battery manufacturing capacity to power 500,000 electric vehicles--
today, announced battery gigafactories will power 10 million electric
vehicles, enough to meet domestic demand by 2030. In 2021, U.S. lithium
producers met just 5 percent of global demand. Thanks to investments in
processing and manufacturing, the US is not just keeping pace with the
fivefold increase in lithium demand but is on track to outpace it: the
U.S. is set to supply more than one-fifth of global demand outside of
China by 2030.
After years of ceding ground to China , we are now winning the
competition for the 21st Century, protecting our industrial base and
creating good jobs, and strengthening our energy and national security
thanks to the Biden-Harris Administration's actions to secure critical
mineral supply chains.
Battery: Material Processing and Manufacturing
Today, the Department of Energy is announcing over $3 billion
across 25 projects through the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law to
extract, process, and recycle critical minerals and materials and
manufacture key battery components, as well as support next-generation
battery manufacturing. Combined with the first round of battery
material processing and manufacturing awards, funding from this program
will generate $16 billion in public and private sector investment
throughout the entire battery supply chain. Project details can be
found here.
This announcement supports a whole-of-government effort to build an
end-to-end domestic supply chain for electric vehicle and grid storage
batteries:
The Department of the Treasury allocated $800 million
through the first round of allocations under the Inflation
Reduction Act Section 48C Qualifying Advanced Energy
Project Tax Credit for critical mineral processing,
refining and recycling, including for lithium-ion battery
recycling, battery material processing, and battery
component manufacturing.
The Department of Energy Loan Program Office closed a loan
of $2.5 billion to Ultium Cells and issued a conditional
commitment of $9.2 billion to BlueOval SK, joint ventures
between General Motors and LG Energy and Ford and SK
respectively, for six total battery manufacturing
facilities with more than 200 gigawatt hours of capacity,
enough to power more than 2 million EVs.
The Loan Program Office has also issued a $2 billion
conditional commitment to Redwood Materials for a first-of-
its-kind battery material manufacturing and recycling
project in Nevada to produce critical battery components
that are currently dominated by China using recycled
batteries and material.
The Loan Program Office issued a $102 million loan to
Syrah Technologies to produce graphite-based active anode
material for EV batteries in Louisiana. Syrah processes
natural graphite from its Balama, Mozambique mine, which
received conditional commitment of up to $150 million in
financing from the U.S. International Development Finance
Corporation to support the full graphite supply chain.
The Department of Commerce awarded $21 million to the
Nevada Tech Hub, led by the University of Reno, Nevada, to
build a globally competitive full lithium supply chain and
innovation cluster from extraction through recycling,
building on the lithium assets, workforce, and research
institutions in the area.
In May, President Biden directed his U.S. Trade
Representative to raise tariffs on imported EV and grid
storage batteries from China, as well as certain critical
minerals, to counter China's unfair trade practices, which
will defend U.S. manufacturers from being undercut by
artificially cheap products.
Supporting Responsible Domestic Mining
To meet the nation's climate, infrastructure, and global
competitiveness goals, the U.S. must expand and accelerate responsible
domestic production of critical minerals in a manner that upholds
strong environmental, labor, safety, Tribal consultation, and community
engagement standards. By responsibly permitting, managing operations,
and remediating mines, the U.S. can set a global standard for
responsible mineral development and create good-paying jobs in
communities across the country:
The Department of Energy Loan Programs Office issued a
$2.26 billion conditional commitment for lithium processing
at the fully permitted Thacker Pass lithium mine in Nevada,
which will produce enough lithium to power more than
800,000 EVs annually when operational.
The Department of Energy Loan Programs Office issued a
$700 million conditional commitment for lithium processing
at the Rhyolite Ridge lithium mine in Nevada, which plans
to produce enough lithium to power 370,000 new EVs annually
when operational. Yesterday, the Bureau of Land Management
issued the final Environmental Impact Statement for the
project.
The Department of Defense awarded Albemarle $90 million
through the Defense Production Act to support the restart
of the Kings Mountain lithium mine in North Carolina, which
could produce enough lithium to power 1.2 million new EVs
annually when operational.
The Department of Energy awarded $39 million through the
Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy Mining Innovations
for Negative Emissions Resource Recovery (MINER) program to
16 projects to develop technologies to increase the
domestic supply of critical minerals while reducing energy
use and emissions.
The Department of the Interior approved the Gibellini
vanadium project in Nevada, the first vanadium mine in the
U.S., which will support next-generation energy storage
batteries, steelmaking and advanced alloys.
The Department of Agriculture issued a final Environmental
Impact Statement and draft Record of Decision for the
Stibnite gold-antimony project in Idaho. Supported by $60
million in funding through the Defense Production Act, the
project will be the only domestic source for antimony, a
necessary critical mineral for munitions and next-
generation battery technologies.
The $1.7 billion Hermosa zinc-manganese project in Arizona
became the first mining project to receive FAST-41
coverage, supporting coordination, collaboration and
transparency in the permitting process. Today, South32 also
received a [$x] Department of Energy award to process the
manganese produced by the mine for electric vehicle
batteries.
The Department of Energy Loan Programs Office clarified
that domestic critical minerals mining and extraction
projects are eligible for financing under the Title 17
Clean Energy Financing Program, broadening its support for
critical minerals projects.
Establishing a ``Mine-to-Magnet'' Supply: Chain for Rare Earth Elements
Rare earth permanent magnets power everything from electric vehicle
motors and wind turbines to missile defense systems. Currently, large
portions of the supply chain, from mining to processing to magnet
manufacturing, are controlled by China. Through the Department of
Defense and the Department of Energy, the Biden-Harris Administration
is taking action to secure domestic production throughout the magnet
supply chain.
The Department of Defense has awarded $45 million to MP
Materials for rare earth oxide processing at Mountain Pass,
the only operating U.S. rare earth element mine, and more
than $288 million to Lynas USA to establish commercial-
scale rare earth oxide production.
Down the supply chain, the Department of Defense has
invested more than $94 million in E-VAC Magnetics to
establish a commercial-scale magnet manufacturing facility
in South Carolina, as well as metals and alloys. E-VAC also
disclosed that it was allocated $112 million through the
Inflation Reduction Act 48C tax credit to support its
manufacturing facility.
M.P. Materials voluntarily disclosed that it was allocated
nearly $60 million through the Inflation Reduction Act
Section 48C tax credit to advance its rare earth permanent
magnet manufacturing facility in Fort Worth, Texas, which
will produce enough permanent magnets to power more than
500,000 General Motors Ultium electric vehicles.
The Department of Energy awarded $17.5 million to Niron
Magnetics through the Advanced Research Projects Agency-
Energy Seeding Critical Advances for Leading Energy
technologies with Untapped Potential (SCALEUP) program for
pilot production efforts to commercialize an iron nitride
based rare:-earth free permanent magnets.
The President directed his U.S. Trade Representative to
increase tariffs on permanent magnets beginning in 2026,
which will protect U.S. magnet producers from being
undercut by unfair trade practices.
______
Mr. Stauber. The Chair now recognizes Representative
Collins.
Mr. Collins. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to yield
20 seconds at least, to the gentleman----
Mr. Tiffany. Yield a couple of seconds.
I just want to remind the Committee that it was a couple of
years ago in this Natural Resources Committee where my
colleagues on the other side of the aisle had a witness and
talked about why we couldn't mine in northern Minnesota and why
we couldn't mine in Arizona. She said it was too wet in
Minnesota and too dry in Arizona. I asked the same question of
her: Where should we mine? And she said the quiet part out loud
in this Committee, and she says, ``Nowhere.''
[Laughter.]
Mr. Tiffany. Representative Collins, back to you.
Mr. Collins. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You know, gosh, I
have so many notes over here I don't really know where I want
to start. But I do want to say it is nice to see that there is
a common theme this morning of national security and economic
growth through mining. And Mr. Chairman, as a sophomore up here
I want to say that one of the best things that ever happened
were the field hearings that we had.
I actually went to Duluth, Minnesota. I was up there at the
mine. I saw people sitting across from me that, Ms. Lyon, you
are exactly right, the best of the best. They were worried to
death about the next generation and what they were going to do
because they couldn't get that mine permitted. As a matter of
fact, the Federal piece of property couldn't get mined, but
they were mining on the State property. It really didn't make
any sense to me.
I went to Arizona, saw where, man, some of the most
skillful mining operations that there are today. Impressive. It
is amazing what technology does and what we do in the United
States.
And Ms. Lyon, I am just like you. I would never bet against
America. We are the best. We are the best country in the world.
We are the biggest on the block, and there is no problem with
me saying I am proud to be America first, and we should all be
America first.
I just want to go through a few things that I know. Matter
of fact, China, and I heard it even with our Ranking Member
talking about China processing, of course China is processing
everything. The majority of our critical minerals are processed
by China. Why? Because we are down to three smelters here in
the United States and we have to send over 80 percent of what
we do process in the United States to China so that they can
process it and send it back here from what we are mining. And
that is because I think that, in a lot of ways, we are our own
worst enemy. We create our problems through the Federal
Government and the Federal bureaucracy that has continued to
interfere in all industries.
But Mr. Harrell, in the short time that I have, I heard you
say when Mr. Wittman was asking you a few questions, pricing.
Pricing is an issue. It is an issue. And I read your testimony,
and I just want you to expand a little bit on maybe judicial
review and how that plays a part in pricing, and what happens
to mines when judicial review, and the time frame it takes to
get a mine up and going.
Mr. Harrell. Absolutely. Thank you, Congressman Collins,
for your leadership on these issues.
Effectively, the regulatory process in many cases can cut
one-third of the value of a mining project here. And that
uncertainty, time is money. So, we have to find a way to
balance speed and safety, but get to yes or no on these answers
reviewing quickly.
The judicial process draws this out particularly long in
multiple ways. One, the process itself is long. The amount of
time in which people can object to projects, the amount of time
it takes the judicial system to review these projects and other
parts of that area.
The other part is so many of our Federal agencies are
trying to litigate-proof their environmental analysis. That is
how we are getting these thousands and thousands of pages of
documents that are starting to evaluate things that are not
even in the scope of a project or far beyond what Congress ever
intended because they are putting together environmental impact
statements to try to make it litigation-proof.
Mr. Collins. Would you say that a number of these
litigation problems, to put it lightly, come from frivolous
lawsuits from environmentalists?
Mr. Harrell. They are one stakeholder that plays a
significant role in suing to try to block projects.
Mr. Collins. I would agree 100 percent.
Mr. Chairman, before I yield back, I just have to comment
on how we talk about our tribal lands and our Native American
Tribes. I find it rich that we just had a hearing here less
than a year ago with tribal communities talking about how drug
trafficking, crime, and how they need help from the American
people and from our law enforcement to help keep them safe and
we failed them at that, but then we just had a hearing where
the Navajo want to do their own mining, but we had an
environmentalist sitting next to him talking about how they are
suing them so that they can't mine on their own property when
these people want to be economically independent and take care
of themselves. But yet, we sit here and we say we are going to
take care of you on one side, we fail you, but then we say you
are not able to mine on your own property and take care of your
own people. That is kind of hypocritical.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Stauber. Welcome to my world. Thank you very much.
Before I go on to Representative Hageman, I do want to ask
unanimous consent to enter into the record the following
reports.
It is a May 23rd report commissioned by the Biden
administration's Department of Labor, titled ``Forced Labor and
Cobalt Mining in the Democratic Republic of the Congo,'' where
they admit there is child-forced labor.
The next thing I would like to request to be placed into
the record by unanimous consent is a letter from the North
America's Building Trades, where they support the expansive
benefits of domestic mining and the impediment caused by our
permitting system.
And then The American Experiment talks about their absolute
support for mining in Minnesota.
And then the Institute for Energy Research, the ``Economic
and Strategic Importance of Domestic Mineral Production
Supporting Domestic Mining in this Country.''
Without objection, so moved.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
The full document is available for viewing at:
https://docs.house.gov/meetings/II/II06/20250206/117845/HHRG-
119-II06-20250206-SD009.pdf
------
North America's Building Trades Unions
Washington, DC
February 6, 2025
Hon. Pete Stauber, Chairman
Hon. Yassamin Ansari, Ranking Member
House Natural Resources Committee
Energy and Mineral Resources Subcommittee
1324 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
Dear Chairman Stauber and Ranking Member Ansari:
On behalf of North America's Building Trades Unions (NABTU) and the
three million members we represent, we thank the subcommittee for
holding this important hearing. Across our nation, thousands of our
members remain in limbo due to the lack of permitting certainty
surrounding the construction of mines. These men and women are eager to
get to work supplying our nation with a greater sense of self-
sufficiency found by diminishing our reliance on mineral imports from
adversarial nations, thereby ensuring our national security and growing
our ability to establish numerous domestic industries.
As the highest skilled workforce in the country, the Building
Trades are committed to constructing these mines with the utmost
professionalism, addressing our imminent need to both extract these
minerals and protect the communities where they are located. The
construction of these projects typically requires thousands of skilled
construction professionals, many coming from the rural communities
where they are sited. They are a crucial engine for growth both locally
and nationally.
We at NABTU have urged all Members of Congress to recognize the two
critical factors in this debate; the expansive benefits of domestic
mining, and the impediment caused by our permitting regime. In many
cases the minerals from these mines go to develop domestic industries
where our members are building manufacturing facilities or deploying
technologies at larger scale.
The jobs from these mines are not limited strictly to the project's
boundaries, they are exponential by nature. However, these benefits
cannot be fully felt until Congress overhauls our permitting framework.
It is unacceptable for projects to be held in a permitting purgatory
for a decade while workers wait to see whether their highly anticipated
role in the project will come to fruition.
We thank the committee for its steadfast commitment to responsibly
addressing this issue and its continued support for the working men and
women of the Building Trades.
Sincerely,
Sean McGarvey,
President
______
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
The full document is available for viewing at:
https://docs.house.gov/meetings/II/II06/20250206/117845/HHRG-
119-II06-20250206-SD012.pdf
------
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
The full document is available for viewing at:
https://docs.house.gov/meetings/II/II06/20250206/117845/HHRG-
119-II06-20250206-SD010.pdf
------
Mr. Stauber. And I will recognize Representative Hageman
from Wyoming for 5 minutes.
Ms. Hageman. Thank you. It is an honor to be here.
Congratulations on your chairmanship. We look forward to your
leadership over the next 2 years.
Wyoming is the largest coal producer in the Nation, and
what I want to say to everyone is you are welcome.
[Laughter.]
Ms. Hageman. We keep the lights on, and we heat your homes.
We do a beautiful job of it, and I invite everyone on this
Committee to come to Wyoming and tour our mines. And I can
assure you, you will be impressed.
In talking about our native populations, the Navajo Tribe
is the owner of one of our largest coal mines, and it is
important that we keep those operations in place and that we,
in fact, expand them.
Coal is the energy of the future. It is not the energy of
the past, and the hysteria over global warming and climate
change is not improving our environment. It is making us poor.
It is creating more energy poverty, and it is making us weaker
on a national and international stage.
Ms. Lyon, you state in your testimony that a two-decade
timeline from prospecting to production is far too long for
critical minerals. And I agree with you because Wyoming is also
home to many critical minerals. The permitting process for new
mines in the U.S. is overly cumbersome, unnecessarily complex,
and makes resource development uncompetitive with other
countries. How would you propose to streamline this process so
that critical mineral projects like Bear Lodge Rare Earth
Project in Wyoming can help to secure and domesticate this
critical supply chain?
Ms. Lyon. Thank you, Congresswoman, for your question. As I
have mentioned, we need long-term solutions and short-term
tools. Those long-term tools, or solutions, include permitting
reform and streamlining that will help our agencies work
together, rather than work against each other. And all of those
voices need to be at the table.
We need timelines that we can count on, and we need some
judicial review reform in order to ensure that, after a $400
million investment, we know we have a permit we can act on, and
we can get these minerals out of the ground after we have
earned the right and the ability to do so.
Ms. Hageman. Certainty and stability seem to be two of the
most important issues that you are describing there.
In the 118th Congress, we passed Senate File 2228, which
exempted semiconductor projects from NEPA, even though the
mining industries which produced the minerals and fuels needed
to produce the chips enjoy no such exemption. Do you think only
exempting certain industries when widespread permitting reform
is needed is wise national policy-making?
Ms. Lyon. No, ma'am.
Ms. Hageman. I don't, either. That is why I introduced H.R.
676, which uses the same approach as Senate File 2228, but for
minerals and fuels. In order to sustain our grid, ensure
national security, and support industries such as the
semiconductor industry, do you think legislation such as this
is needed?
Ms. Lyon. While I am not familiar with the specific
legislation, semiconductors to all technologies are absolutely
required for our national security and our energy future to
produce the energy we need as a country.
Ms. Hageman. Energy security is national security. I think
it is that simple.
Ms. Lyon. Yes, ma'am.
Ms. Hageman. And regardless of what it is that we are
producing, whether it is oil and gas or uranium, phosphorus,
potash, whatever it may be, it is absolutely critical for our
food supply chain, our energy supply chain, and making sure
that we can maintain the same standard of living that we have
right now. Isn't that true?
Ms. Lyon. Absolutely, ma'am. Our energy resources are also
reliant on an infrastructure behind it to get it onto the grid
that uses all of the minerals that you can think of.
Ms. Hageman. Yes. Uranium plays a critical role in our
energy and national security, supporting 20 percent of the
electrical grid, our nuclear navy, nuclear deterrence, and
other defense applications, and lifesaving medical applications
as well.
In 2018, the U.S. Geological Survey, or USGS, included
uranium on its inaugural Critical Minerals List. In 2022, the
Biden administration improperly removed uranium from its
updated list with no consideration given to the underlying
merits. This decision puts uranium at a disadvantage in the
Federal permitting process and critical minerals programs and
is counterproductive to our legislative achievements over the
past 2 years.
Mr. Bazilian, how is the intent of the Prohibiting Russian
Uranium Imports Act and Nuclear Fuel Security Act being
undermined by the exclusion of uranium on the USGS Critical
Mineral List and the DOE Critical Mineral List?
Dr. Bazilian. Thank you, Congresswoman.
Uranium is terribly important to the United States. It is
also important to Native American lands, as you know. We import
lots of our uranium from Canada, our closest neighbor, of
course Kazakhstan, as well, but Canada is an important part of
that supply chain.
I would also note that very recently there has finally been
a deal to transport uranium across the Navajo Nation, and part
of that deal includes helping clean up and the possibility with
new technologies of getting new uranium from those resources.
So, I think having it as top of mind is very important.
Ms. Hageman. Do you think it should be on the Critical
Minerals List?
Dr. Bazilian. The current Critical Minerals List of USGS
needs to be refined in many ways.
Ms. Hageman. OK. Thank you, I yield back.
Mr. Stauber. Thank you.
Before I go to Representative Ezell, in my opening
statement I mentioned that it took on average 29 years to open
a mine, and there were some concerns about whether that was
accurate or not. For the record, I am going to now submit the
S&P Global Report that specifically says it takes an average of
29 years for a critical mineral project to progress from the
discovery of the mineral to production in the United States. I
wanted to clear that up if anybody had any concerns.
I ask unanimous consent to enter it into the record.
Without objection.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
The full document is available for viewing at:
https://docs.house.gov/meetings/II/II06/20250206/117845/HHRG-
119-II06-20250206-SD007.pdf
------
Mr. Stauber. Representative Ezell, you are up for 5
minutes.
Mr. Ezell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for your
leadership. I want to give 30 seconds to Dr. Gosar. Just 30
seconds.
Dr. Gosar. Thank you so very much.
First of all, I would like to talk about patents. I think
this is very interesting for this aspect because in 2011 we
went from first to discover to first to file, and that has been
very problematic.
I want to bring up, for example, Dr. Bazilian, are you
familiar with the new Schlumberger lithium concentration
process?
Dr. Bazilian. Roughly, yes.
Dr. Gosar. OK. So, this is going to be something
revolutionary because now what we have turned in is real usable
water, because lithium concentrations take up a lot of water,
and they are actually cleaning it at the same time they are
actually producing it. I think this is a whole other realm we
haven't even talked about.
Last but not least, what percentage of our critical
minerals are recycled, Doctor?
Dr. Mulvaney. Very little. It is 5 percent of rare Earths,
zero gallium, zero germanium. Now, tellurium, if we, you know,
First Solar uses 40 percent of the tellurium supply, and they
are able to recycle their panels and recover 95 percent of
that. And that is partly because of a condition for entering
the European Union market 15 years ago, where they required it
because they had cadmium also in the solar panel.
Dr. Gosar. Well, I am a big recycler, so we need to really
put that in place. Thanks.
I yield back to the gentleman.
Mr. Ezell. Thank you. America's future depends on critical
minerals which are essential to our military economy and
national security. We have all talked about that this morning.
Yet, we remain dangerously dependent on foreign adversaries
like China.
While it takes us nearly 30 years to open a mine due to
bureaucratic red tape and radical environmental litigation,
China is rapidly expanding its control over global mineral
supply chains. This is a direct threat to our national
security. We have the resources, workforce, technology to mine
and process these critical minerals right here at home. One
example is in my home State of Mississippi, Gulfport,
Mississippi.
Chemours is the world's largest producer of titanium
dioxide through the chloride process. China also produces this
product, but uses a less efficient and more dangerous method.
The process is so valuable that the Chinese attempted to steal
it. But IP theft is not our only challenge. Just remember this:
the Chinese are not our friends. China's economic aggression is
being aided by the failed Biden policies and decades of
regulatory overreach.
Thankfully, President Trump signed an Executive Order on
the first day in office and cut the red tape to restore
American mineral independence. It is time to unleash domestic
mining, put America, not China, in control of our future. I
look forward to all this Committee will accomplish in
partnership with the administration.
Dr. Bazilian, you also cite the importance of the
President's EO, as I mentioned earlier. As you know, palladium
is essential for the U.S. auto industry, yet the industry's
reliance is largely dependent on South Africa and Russia. How
might our dependence on these foreign suppliers impact our
supply of vehicles for the market?
Dr. Bazilian. Thank you, Congressman.
Just starting with your first point, today in the United
States we produce 162 mining engineering students per year in
the entire country and China produces roughly 20 times that.
So, in terms of innovation of technologies, processes, and
mining, they are far ahead in the talent pool, which underlies
everything else, including your question about vehicles.
I think that we are going to need to think not in terms of
ores, as I have said, but across the supply chains from the
upstream supply of the ores all the way down to the vehicles
you assess in order to make good decisions.
Mr. Ezell. Thank you. We know our military depends on
critical minerals, materials for everything from fighter jets
to missile defense systems. You mentioned this in your
testimony, sir, but you can expand on the most immediate
national security risk from the dependence, and what steps
should Congress take right now to mitigate these risks.
Dr. Bazilian. Thank you, sir.
I have briefed most of the combatant commands on this
issue, and they are all taken with it for different reasons,
the regional combatant commands. And as we speak, from 6 months
ago to 6 months in the future there will be on the order of 10
tabletop wargame exercises looking at optimization for their
specific needs. And I think what we need to do is take the
system boundary of everything and focus it in on the specific
needs of those military applications first and then move out.
Mr. Ezell. Thank you.
Mr. Harrell, even when U.S. companies try to compete, China
actively manipulates global markets to drive them out of
business. Who would have ever dreamed that that could go on
right here in America? We saw this with cobalt when Chinese-
backed production in the Congo drove prices so low that the
only cobalt mine in the U.S. had to shut down. This is blatant
economic warfare, and we are allowing this to happen. How can
the U.S. counter these practices by the Chinese?
Mr. Harrell. Yes, these are global commodities. And the
Chinese are using their subsidies and tools, and then many of
our competitors are doing it to impact the marketplace, right?
So, it does mean that we need to find ways to enable
development here. We need to work with partners.
Nuclear fuel is a great example where, you know, the five
leading nations that are involved in the nuclear world made a
joint commitment at the G7 last year that they are going to
wean off Russian fuel products. Then this Congress, or the
previous Congress, passed a Russian fuel import limitation. We
are not going to be able to do this alone in the global
marketplace, and so we need to leverage those allies closely.
Mr. Ezell. If I might have one more?
Dr. Gosar [presiding]. Sure.
Mr. Ezell. Ms. Lyon, thank you for telling us about these
years and years of delays, and thank you for all you have done.
Let's continue to bring this to light, these delays that are
causing us to fall behind.
So, thank you all for being here today and providing us
with this good information.
Thank you.
Dr. Gosar. I thank the gentleman from Mississippi. The
gentleman from Colorado, Mr. Crank, is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. Crank. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I apologize for being a
little bit late. I, at the same time, had a classified briefing
over on the House Armed Services Committee where I serve on the
threat from China. So, we won't be talking about any of that
here today. But clearly, there are continuing threats that we
are talking about in this Committee, as well.
The United States conceded dominance of the mineral markets
to China, and we are paying a price for it economically,
environmentally, with labor norms and with our national
security. It is evident in all of the witness testimony before
us that China has the ability, at the flip of a switch, to ban
the export of key minerals or processing technologies, or dump
minerals on the market to prevent us from reclaiming a domestic
market.
So, to put it simply, China has no intention of
relinquishing its choke hold on any part of the mineral supply
chain.
And rather than taking a proactive and thoughtful and
strategic approach to minerals, the past 4 years the Biden
administration stifled domestic mineral production, issuing
public lands withdrawals or vacated leases to stop energy and
mineral production on Federal lands. They issued a report on
mining reforms that lacked any substantial ideas to improve the
permitting timelines or projects, and they botched the
implementation of Fiscal Responsibility Act NEPA reforms that
were intended to make the permitting process predictable. It
appears that only when it was necessary or an existential
threat to national security or their climate agenda did the
Biden administration take any positive action on domestic
mining.
Mr. Harrell, I completely agree that the U.S. needs a
better domestic strategy not only for our economic prosperity,
but also for our national security. However, China has a global
strategy to retain mineral dominance. So, what actions globally
should the U.S. be considering to re-assert dominance in the
minerals market?
Mr. Harrell. Thank you, Congressman Crank, and it is a
great question. It is an important piece of the puzzle. We have
to do things here at home and there are global moves that we
need to make. These bilateral, multi-lateral agreements with
partners that jointly try to wean off the Chinese dominance in
this realm, I think, are going to be really important.
We need to use tools in the tool belt that we have here in
the U.S., things that are going to come before this Congress in
the next 2 years. The Development Finance Corporation's
reauthorization will be coming up here soon. That is one tool
in the tool belt where we can help finance projects abroad as
well that can support our mineral needs.
I think, as Ms. Lyon referenced, the Export-Import Bank of
the United States, that is up for reauthorization in 2026:
another important tool to catalyze and promote U.S. technology
and infrastructure here in this country if we use it the right
way.
So, we have to use those tools in our tool belt. We are
never going to out subsidize China, so we need to use these
innovative, free-market financing tools that the U.S. has at
its disposal to really compete.
Mr. Crank. Yes, they are waging economic war against us.
And we had a subcommittee hearing in another subcommittee of
this Committee, and we talked about cables and, you know, how
we just tie ourselves up with environmental regulations and the
Chinese just laugh. They must be laughing at us, the way that
we do this to ourselves.
Dr. Bazilian, you mentioned in your testimony it may not be
realistic for the U.S. to catch up to China. Are there more
formal frameworks between the U.S. and its allies that we
should be looking at to create an alternative mineral market?
Dr. Bazilian. Thank you, Congressman. I will repeat what I
said, that China is producing roughly 20 times the experts in
the area that we are today. They are investing tens of billions
of dollars, and not just domestically but all over the world.
That is not diplomacy. That is actual investment in projects
that the countries want.
We also have to improve markets for these goods. Without
transparent markets with decent price discovery, it is
incredibly difficult for domestic companies to go to their
board and make a financial decision to invest.
We should focus on military needs very specifically. And
the war games I just mentioned, the 10 or so war games going
on, are an important input into your decision-making.
And finally, going back, working with allies across this is
incredibly important, but diplomacy is slow. We had ERGI under
the first Trump administration, we have MSP under Biden. And
what you do in this Congress will make a big difference in the
outcomes.
Mr. Crank. Thank you.
I yield back 1 second, Mr. Chairman.
Dr. Gosar. I thank the gentleman from Colorado. The
gentleman from Alaska, Mr. Begich, is recognized for his 5
minutes.
Mr. Begich. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would just like to
start with a statement.
It is incredible to me to see some of my colleagues in
Congress and their amazing faith in government. It just blows
my mind sometimes. The faith is so great, in fact, that there
are some colleagues in this body who believe that Congress can
pass laws that will change the weather, an incredible amount of
faith.
I don't have that much faith in government, but I do have
some questions for those who are here today. You know, Alaska
has nearly every critical mineral on the Critical Minerals List
and has those minerals in economic quantities. And we heard
statements to the contrary today, but I would just like to
counter that point and say Alaska is the answer to so many of
our critical mineral challenges.
One of the challenges that we have heard discussed at
length today is regulatory overburden. We just have too many
laws, too many agencies, too much nexus on the books. And when
you have a mine time that takes 29 years from the time you
discover a mine until the time you can actually actively mine
that resource, China is doing this in 12, 18, 24 months. And we
have to do everything we can do to streamline that process. I
call this regulatory arbitrage. Regulatory arbitrage, where
other jurisdictions, other nations have made mining a critical
priority, whereas we have done apparently everything we can do
in this body and across other bodies in the Nation to stymie
mineral development.
So, my question first to Dr. Bazilian: What frameworks
would you recommend to address this regulatory arbitrage that
seems to exist?
Dr. Bazilian. Thank you, Congressman.
One of the first things we need to do to get to financial
decisions here, even with economically viable resources, is to
improve markets and improve the transparency, the price
discovery, the liquidity of those markets. Today, if I ask
anyone in this august chamber to tell me the price of crude oil
in Dubai, you can do it in 10 seconds, as can your children. If
you try to do that for graphite, it will take you all day and
you will still get the answer wrong, and it might be traded in
yuan.
So, the fundamental need to improve these markets helps
everything else on this supply chain. So, that is at least one
answer to your question.
Mr. Begich. Thank you. So, let me now turn to Mr. Harrell.
The hearing memo references the USGS CML and the need to
republish it every 3 years, which will take place this year.
The most recent list only included 50 minerals as critical,
with a definition of ``being essential to economic and national
security of the United States, produced from a supply chain
vulnerable to disruption, and serving an essential function in
the manufacturing of a product.'' It is astounding that copper,
gold, and silver are not currently included, and I will be
pushing for their inclusion this year. In my mind, critical
minerals are important and hard to get. Copper is critical for
electrification and its exclusion is more than a gross
oversight, it is gross negligence in my view.
Aside from ensuring our agencies publish lists of minerals
we actually need and must be able to have access to, are there
other areas that you believe Congress should focus on to ensure
development and production of all minerals that society needs
can become a become a reality?
Mr. Harrell. Yes, thank you for the question, Congressman,
and no doubt we need to modernize these lists and figure out
how we are better prioritizing the production of these things.
Copper, one of the top areas where we need it for aerospace,
defense technologies, clean energy technologies, nuclear power,
energy storage. I mean, we need it for literally almost
everything in our everyday lives.
The lists are really about, like, access to certain
programs to drive forward and invest in our domestic capacity.
So, you know, I think we absolutely need to modernize these
lists, but ultimately, we need a comprehensive strategy that is
using these tools where we innovate, where we try to foster
more private-sector finance in this space. How do we direct
investments here?
So, if we look at this comprehensively, we try to restore
some regulatory predictability, and we can support U.S.
industry because we are not fighting on a level playing field
in the global realm, I think we can make immense progress here.
But it is going to be a long fight, right? Like, we are not
going to rein back, you know, China has 80 percent,
effectively, in aggregate of global processing capacity. It is
going to take a while, but we need to start now.
Mr. Begich. Thank you. And if I may just for a moment make
the statement, you know, we have heard a lot about the
importance of critical minerals and mining generally for
national security. It is also critical for restoring domestic
supply chains. We can mine things here, but we have to be able
to smelt and refine those products here in order to move them
through to a manufactured state, a finished state.
One of the things that we see is, even when we do mine
successfully in the United States, oftentimes those minerals
are sent to jurisdictions like China. The next time we see
those minerals is in an iPhone, and we have missed out on all
that economic activity domestically. That is something we need
to change. And in order to change it, we have to make sure that
we are encouraging the next step in mineral processing, which
is smelting and refining.
Thank you, and I yield back.
Dr. Gosar. I thank the gentleman. The gentleman from Texas,
Mr. Hunt, is recognized for his 5 minutes.
Mr. Hunt. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, witnesses,
for being here.
On November the 5th, 2024 the American people spoke. The
American people answered the question of what they want the
future to look like. The American people want the United States
to control its own destiny and not rely on hostile nations.
That is why domestic mineral production and processing is so
important.
China dominates the mineral supply chain, controlling
approximately 60 percent of global production and an estimated
90 percent of processing. We must mine in the United States and
grow our processing capacity and manufacturing base, and that
is exactly how you make America great again.
If you have ever spoken to my dear friend, Mr. Stauber, he
would immediately tell you that the largest cobalt find in the
world is in his home State of Minnesota. In fact, he will
probably lead with that before he gave you his own name.
We must be able to access our domestic resources to stave
off our adversaries. Another way is through the collection of
polymetallic nodules. And these potato-sized rocks are full of
cobalt, copper, iron, manganese, nickel, zinc, and rare Earth
minerals. These minerals are found in the Cook Islands and in
the Clarion-Clipperton Zone, right off the coast of Hawaii.
Because the CCZ is governed by the United Nations, I am once
again introducing a resolution encouraging the United Nations
to issue rules and regulations related to the CCZ. These
regulations will allow American companies working with friendly
countries to collect these minerals responsibly, denying China
yet another opportunity to strangle another facet of the
mineral supply chain in the entire world.
I encourage my Democrat colleagues to consider my
resolution and support Mr. Stauber's legislation and helped
thwart China's domination of the minerals that our country and
the world so dearly needs.
Thank you all so much for being here. I really appreciate
it. I yield back the remainder of my time to the Chairman.
Dr. Gosar. I thank the gentleman. The gentleman from
Colorado, Mr. Hurd, is now recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Hurd. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning. Thank you
to the witnesses for bearing with us in these questions.
Dr. Bazilian mentioned that critical mineral security and
success are, in your words, intimately tied to Indian Country.
And also, Dr. Mulvaney in his testimony addresses the issue of
tribal and community engagement. These things are near and dear
to me as the Chairman of the Indian and Insular Affairs
Subcommittee here on Natural Resources.
My question, though, is to you, Ms. Lyon. Can you tell me
what Perpetua has done on this front to thoughtfully engage
Tribes and other communities around the Stibnite Project?
Ms. Lyon. Yes, Congressman, thank you for the question.
It started with our vision that we could go back to an
abandoned mine site, improve water quality, and improve salmon
habitat, and overall restore the degraded resources available
at this site. And then we put that into action through
listening. So, early engagement with our tribal communities
helped us understand many of the needs and interests held by
our Tribes in Idaho.
It then included action. So, we have now invested $19
million right now in going and cleaning up a legacy for a mess
we didn't make to help improve those resources today. We have
made a number of changes to our mine plan to accommodate it.
But it is not just our early action. The U.S. Government
has also upheld their trust obligation through government-to-
government consultation. And through the last 8 years and then
in the culmination of our final Record of Decision, mandated
tribal access through Stibnite, tribal observation, and tribal
monitoring plans.
Mr. Hurd. Great. Thank you, Ms. Lyon. And a quick follow-up
question to you. You mentioned that this project is designed to
repair environmental legacies left behind from mining
activities that occurred more than 100 years ago. I know that
you haven't been able to move even a single shovel of dirt yet,
but can you talk about what the Stibnite Project looks like
now, from an environmental standpoint, and what effect would
this project have on that site from an environmental
standpoint?
Ms. Lyon. Congressman, thank you for the question again.
Today, Stibnite is a mess. It has seen over 100 years of
mining activity off and on before it was abandoned. So, there
are no solutions to the fact that one ton of arsenic leaches
into the river. There are no solutions to the fact that 20
miles of fish habitat are blocked, except for our project,
which was designed specifically to take on those legacies and
improve them through mining.
So, we know we could improve water quality. We know we can
open access to salmon habitat. And even the U.S. Forest Service
found that we will have a long-term benefit to the salmon
accessing Stibnite.
Mr. Hurd. Ms. Lyon, is it fair to say that the Stibnite
mining project would leave the environment better than it is
right now?
Ms. Lyon. Absolutely.
Mr. Hurd. Thank you.
Dr. Bazilian, quick question. Can you help me understand
the difference between the phrase ``critical minerals'' and
``rare Earth minerals''? What is the difference between those?
Just help with basic terminology there.
Dr. Bazilian. Yes. Rare Earths are a group of 17 minerals,
so they are a subset of the wider Critical Minerals List, at
least in the United States.
Mr. Hurd. OK. That is helpful, thank you. So, it is
different. One is a subset of the other, then. Got it.
Dr. Bazilian. Yes, sir.
Mr. Hurd. One thing that I wanted to ask you and also Dr.
Harrell about are the need to not just mine these minerals, but
the processing whereby we can make the minerals capable of
being used. Can you talk a little bit about that and the
importance of doing that here domestically, as well?
Dr. Bazilian. Yes, sir. As I have said, it is very
important to think of this area in terms of the full supply
chain. And how it works is that mining ore brings less value-
add to an economy than producing advanced manufacturing. So,
that is the first thing.
And the second is that refining is one step in that, and
then it needs to lead to advanced manufacturing in order to get
the best financial returns for companies as well as jobs for
our people.
And I will just end, Congressman Hurd, by noting that I
think it is very important, your work with Native American
Tribes, and that the focus should be not only on sovereignty
and listening, but on creating vibrant economies.
Mr. Hurd. Thank you, Doctor.
Dr. Harrell, anything else on the processing component of
this?
Mr. Harrell. I would just add again we are competing on
price here. So, in the end, more steps that involve having to
export this product or move it around or take it out of our
borders does add significant cost, right? So, to the extent
that it is feasible, we should be trying to do as much as
possible here if we want that product to ultimately contribute
to our domestic challenges.
Mr. Hurd. Wonderful. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, I
yield back.
Dr. Gosar. I thank the gentleman.
I just want to make a statement. We heard the last three
speakers talk about the concentration process. And I think this
is something we overlook because these are typically in rural
areas. And these are good-paying mine jobs, incredible to the
economy of rural America.
And we are coming up with some great ideas of what is
coming, because with copper comes other different metals that
you can actually get and collect. And that is why I brought up
the one with Schlumberger. This technology is growing rapidly,
as you have said, Doctor, and it is one of those things that we
really need to keep advantage of.
Now, we may not have all the rare Earths in the world, but
we have critical amounts of those in some of those areas that
you can then parlay. It is called leverage. And we can have our
clean air, clean water all the way at the same time.
So, from that standpoint I want to thank the witnesses for
your valuable contribution today and your techniques.
The members of the Subcommittee may have additional
questions for the witnesses, and we will ask you to respond
with those in writing. Under Committee Rule 3, members of the
Committee may submit these questions to the Committee Clerk by
5 p.m. on Tuesday, February 11. The hearing record will be held
open for 10 business days for these responses.
If there is no further business, without objection, this
Committee stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:25 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
[ADDITIONAL MATERIALS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD]
Submissions for the Record by Rep. Stauber
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
The full document is available for viewing at:
https://docs.house.gov/meetings/II/II06/20250206/117845/HHRG-
119-II06-20250206-SD008.pdf
[all]