[Congressional Record Volume 170, Number 168 (Thursday, November 14, 2024)]
[House]
[Pages H5986-H5994]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
CRITICAL MINERAL CONSISTENCY ACT OF 2024
Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1568, I call
up the bill (H.R. 8446) to amend the Energy Act of 2020 to include
critical materials in the definition of critical mineral, and for other
purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 1568, the
amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on
Natural Resources, printed in the bill, is adopted, and the bill, as
amended, is considered read.
The text of the bill, as amended, is as follows:
H.R. 8446
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Critical Mineral Consistency
Act of 2024''.
SEC. 2. CRITICAL MATERIALS INCLUDED AS CRITICAL MINERALS.
Section 7002 of the Energy Act of 2020 (30 U.S.C. 1606) is
amended--
(1) in subsection (a)(3)(A), to read as follows:
``(A) In general.--The term `critical mineral' means--
``(i) any mineral, element, substance, or material
designated as critical by the Secretary under subsection (c);
and
``(ii) a critical material as determined by the Secretary
of Energy under paragraph (2)(A).''; and
(2) in subsection (c)(5), by adding at the end the
following:
[[Page H5987]]
``(C) Inclusion of critical materials.--Not later than 45
days after the date on which the Secretary of Energy
determines a non-fuel mineral, element, substance, or
material to be a critical material under subsection
(a)(2)(A), the Secretary shall update the list of critical
minerals published under paragraph (3) to include such
critical material.''.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The bill, as amended, shall be debatable for
1 hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority
member of the Committee on Natural Resources or their respective
designees.
The gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Westerman) and the gentlewoman from
New Mexico (Ms. Stansbury) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Westerman).
General Leave
Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks
and insert extraneous material on H.R. 8446.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Arkansas?
There was no objection.
Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 8446, the Critical
Mineral Consistency Act of 2024.
H.R. 8446 introduced by Representative Ciscomani would amend the
Energy Act of 2020 to add critical materials from the Department of
Energy Critical Materials List to the United States Geological Survey's
critical minerals list.
Currently, each agency uses different metrics when constructing their
respective lists.
DOE's methodology for critical material determination is forward-
looking. It accounts for international demand scenarios and growth
trajectories specifically for energy technologies.
On the other hand, currently USGS' process only uses historic data to
determine supply risk to the U.S. economy and national security.
By law, all the minerals on USGS' list are automatically included in
DOE's Critical Materials List. H.R. 8446 would enable the process to
work in the other direction by placing critical materials on the
critical minerals list.
The Critical Mineral Consistency Act is a straightforward solution
that enables each agency to retain responsibility for reviewing
minerals under their respective purviews while clarifying persistent
confusion over critical minerals versus critical materials. As you can
see, even speaking about it on the floor, it is easy to get the two
confused.
The bill cuts across jurisdictional red tape while preserving each
agency's discretion and expertise in adding items to its list.
Both critical minerals and critical materials are just that,
critical. Without reliable access to essential materials such as cobalt
and lithium for batteries and copper and aluminum for transmission
lines, the U.S. risks failing to meet future economic and energy
demands. Such a situation would lead to increased dependence on the
market decisions of adversarial nations for critical minerals and
materials.
H.R. 8446 passed out of the Natural Resources Committee on a
bipartisan vote because both sides of the aisle understand the
importance of critical minerals and materials.
I encourage my colleagues to once again come together to support this
bill.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. STANSBURY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to H.R. 8446. This
bill has a fairly innocuous seeming purpose on its face. It would amend
the Energy Act of 2020 to add critical minerals as designated by the
Department of Energy to the USGS, which is the agency that handles
minerals issues for the United States, to a list of critical minerals.
{time} 1215
My colleagues across the aisle will argue that this bill is simply
for consistency and to streamline, that we have too many lists to
manage critical minerals and materials, which, of course, are so
important to our country, so it is important to harmonize these lists
and make sure that we are operating the Federal Government in a
streamlined manner.
It is critical that the American people understand that this is not
the full story. In fact, this bill is the direct result of years of
heavy lobbying and influence on the critical minerals list because, as
you see, the critical minerals list is defined as all nonfuel minerals
that are used as essential materials for national security or that may
pose a supply chain vulnerability to disruption. The critical minerals
list is designed to focus attention and vital resources on the most
essential and at-risk mineral supply chains.
USGS' critical minerals list and DOE's Critical Materials List may
sound similar, but they have different purposes because of the
differences in how these lists are used and the Federal mandates for
these agencies. They have different purposes that are not
interchangeable.
The Energy Act of 2020 directed USGS to update the list of critical
minerals to guide its use for infrastructure investments under the
legislation that we passed here in 2021. As directed by a separate
provision in the Energy Act of 2020, the Department of Energy undertook
its own assessment of critical materials that were specific to energy
needs because that is what the Department of Energy focuses on.
USGS is the agency that has existed since the 19th century here in
the United States to take stock of, identify, and support the Federal
Government in understanding our geology and minerals and what we do
with them.
It affects the entire economy. It may sound very simple to streamline
and combine these lists, but not only do they have different purposes,
they have far-ranging consequences. The importance of the USGS critical
minerals list cannot be overstated. This list drives billions of
dollars in Federal investment and permitting decisions.
Mr. Speaker, let me tell you a little bit about what happens if you
get placed on the USGS list, which does not apply to the DOE list. It
means that companies are eligible for millions of dollars in tax
credits and grants under various bills that Congress has passed,
including the Inflation Reduction Act, the CHIPS and Science Act, and
many others. It also allows for permit streamlining under previous
legislation that Congress has passed.
What that essentially translates into is expedited reviews. Folks at
home may be saying, well, isn't that a good thing? If you look at the
environmental, social, and cultural impacts of mines and how they
affect communities, you need a Federal process that makes it possible
for our communities to weigh in.
There is a public comment process so that you can go and say that we
don't want this mine in this place. For our Tribes, it puts into place
a Federal consulting process so that our Tribes can protect their
sacred and ancestral lands. For communities, they can comment on the
environmental and water impacts of potential mine operations. For our
public lands, it means we can protect the sites that are used for
recreation for fishing and the values that we hold dear for both
environmental and recreational purposes.
Importantly, it also affects the impact of whether or not, after
mines go in, there is liability and legal remedy for the pollution that
mines cause.
If our public is not able to comment on mines during the permitting
process, they will not have judicial standing if these mines are
abandoned or there is not appropriate care taken in the aftermath of
the mine operations and efforts to close the mine down and remediate
the lands. That means that the public taxpayers and the people are left
holding the bag, not the multinational mining corporations that are
seeking to open these lands for mining.
When you look at it in its totality, the very seemingly simple act of
just saying let's harmonize these two lists and put it all under the
rubric of the Department of Energy's list may seem like a simple no-
brainer. What it amounts to, in its totality, is a massive
multimillion-dollar giveaway to multinational corporations that are
seeking to mine public lands in the United States.
It should be no surprise that it is industry lobbyists that have been
working to get this change in the law for
[[Page H5988]]
years. We have seen many different incarnations of this bill, some of
which have been very explicit about copper, in particular, being added
to the list, and some of which are a little more opaque like the bill
we see in front of us today.
It is very clear that the copper industry is driving this bill in
front of us today. We have to be realistic. Copper is an incredibly
important resource. It is used in everything from our transmission
lines to our electronics, consumer products, and cars and trucks. Even
though it is designated as a critical material for energy purposes
under the DOE list, it is not currently on the USGS list because it is
not at risk of supply chain disruption.
In fact, the United States is a net exporter of copper. Let me repeat
that. Copper is not at risk of supply chain disruption. We are
exporting our copper.
So why is industry pushing so hard to open new mines on our public
lands? Well, guess what? There is a lot of money to be made, and it
turns out that the major holder of the two companies that are pushing
for this bill is the Chinese Government. How ironic is that?
In fact, we know that over 10 percent of one of the largest copper
mining multinational companies in the world that is seeking to open a
copper mine in Arizona is pushing for this bill to expedite the
permitting, reduce the timelines, and make sure that the public and
Tribes cannot comment on whether or not they want the mine there.
We know that there are mine sites that have been identified that
would be on sacred lands, and we know that it would have devastating
impacts for the water supply of the State of Arizona and the entire
Southwest.
In addition to that, copper mining is an incredibly disruptive
activity. It is pollution heavy. It impacts the landscape. Smelters are
notorious for emitting air pollutants. In Arizona, arsenic levels have
been recorded at 150 times higher than State health guidelines, posing
higher cancer risks to communities. We know the well-known impacts to
water and to acid mine drainage in our communities.
On top of all of this--and I think this is the part that should raise
all of our concerns--is that the copper industry is trying to use its
influence through lobbying and through campaign donations to our
colleagues.
It should be of no surprise that the primary sponsor of this bill and
the other bills like it come from the very State where these mine
companies are seeking to mine are on sites that have already been
identified as unsuitable for copper mining. They are Tribal sacred
sites, in a number of cases.
There have literally been decades of effort from the copper industry
because there are high-quality copper deposits in many of these places,
including in Oak Flat, which is a place that has been held sacred by
the Apache people since time immemorial.
Why are our friends across the aisle trying to advance a lobbying
bill on behalf of a multinational set of corporations, which are held,
in part, by Chinese Government inholdings on American lands that would
violate the basic human, cultural, and religious rights of our
indigenous communities? I will let the American people decide why they
think that is happening, but it is certain that we just came out of an
election, isn't it?
I think it is crucial that people understand this isn't a simple
streamlining bill. This isn't about just harmonizing this list with
that list. This is about foreign influence on the mining industry, on
the copper industry, here in the United States.
I ask my colleagues across the aisle who have voted time and time
again on this very floor to prevent foreign companies held by our
adversaries, including China, from buying American lands, from trying
to take American water rights, why on Earth would you be advancing a
bill that would literally give away mining concessions to companies
that are held by foreign adversaries? Why would you do it when we know
that our communities have already resoundingly said that they do not
want these mines in our communities, that they will harm our cultures,
communities, waters, and public lands?
I look forward to hopefully getting some answers to these questions,
but the American people should understand what this bill actually is,
and I urge my colleagues to oppose H.R. 8446.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume. There were a lot of claims made from my friends across the
aisle about what this bill does or what its intent and purpose are. I
think I need to clarify some of this.
First off, I heard the claim that this bill would cost billions and
billions of dollars to the taxpayer. I am not going to ask to submit
that for the record because it is already part of the record. It is the
CBO score for this bill that says, at most, it is a $2 million cost to
administer the program, which actually seems high to me, but it is far
from billions of dollars of handouts to anyone. That is what the
Congressional Budget Office said. That is what I am repeating here.
Also, a claim was made that we are exporting copper. I include in the
Record the link from the U.S. Geological Survey's ``Mineral Commodity
Summaries 2024,'' which shows that we import 46 percent of the copper
that comes into the country. That is on page 64 of that report. https:/
/pubs.usgs.gov/periodicals/mcs2024/mcs2024.pdf
Mr. Speaker, it was mentioned about the demand for copper, and I do
agree with that. We have an insatiable demand for copper. A lot of that
is created by some of the massive spending programs that our friends
across the aisle passed a few years ago.
There are estimates that say we need to mine more copper than we have
mined in the history of the world in the next 20 to 30 years. There is
a big demand for copper, and we are blessed in the United States
because we have that copper here that we can use to create jobs, grow
our economy, and help national security.
This bill is not about copper, but if we want to talk about copper, I
think we have a very strong position on our side of the aisle on how we
see copper and how copper can play an important role in the economy
going forward.
Also, there was talk about DOE's list and USGS' list. I want to
clarify that the critical minerals on USGS' list automatically go into
DOE's Critical Materials List. This bill would take DOE's Critical
Materials List and make it synonymous with USGS' critical minerals
list.
By the way, USGS supports this legislation. You would think if this
administration's USGS had a problem with doing that, they wouldn't have
supported the bill.
I know there were a lot of claims made, but I think it is important
that we get the facts out here in the debate.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr.
Ciscomani), the author of this bill.
{time} 1230
Mr. CISCOMANI. Mr. Speaker, I thank Chairman Westerman for yielding
me time and for clarifying a series of those points that were expressed
by our friends on the other side of the aisle that he clarified so
well.
I rise today in support of my bill, H.R. 8446, the Critical Mineral
Consistency Act. This bill, which passed with bipartisan support
through the House Committee on Natural Resources and was recently
introduced in the Senate, also with bipartisan co-leads, would require
the U.S. Geological Survey to incorporate critical materials identified
by the Department of Energy into the USGS critical minerals list.
Under the Energy Act of 2020, items appearing on the USGS critical
minerals list are automatically included on the DOE's Critical
Materials List. However, items on the DOE list are not reciprocated to
the USGS list. This discrepancy is confusing to mineral producers and
makes it unclear which minerals are critical to the United States'
mission.
In addition to creating unnecessary confusion, the disconnect between
the two lists puts our domestic supply chain at risk. Other countries
like China and Peru have specifically articulated and invested in the
minerals they deem critical. Meanwhile, here in the United States,
several minerals are indisputably essential to our national security
and clean energy economy, such as copper, electrical steel,
[[Page H5989]]
flourine, silicon, and silicon carbide. They are all listed as critical
materials and not critical minerals, making them ineligible for
expedited permitting processes and other benefits.
This legislation would create some consistency within our agencies
and signal to the world that we are taking seriously the importance of
domestic production for our critical minerals like copper.
In Arizona, copper is one of the State's five Cs, alongside climate,
cattle, cotton, and citrus. Copper mining is embedded in our State's
history, and today Arizona remains a leader in copper production,
providing the Nation and the world with the copper it needs to operate.
Despite Arizona being a leader in copper production, dozens of
potential copper mines in America remain untapped due to the burdensome
regulations by the Federal Government. Handicapping our own domestic
mineral production and relying on imports from foreign countries not
only harms our national security and economy but it also hurts the
environment because we know when we mine in America, we do it safer and
we do it cleaner than just about anywhere else in the world.
According to various reports, the world is expected to need around 50
million metric tons of copper annually by 2035 due to the growing
energy demands. Another recent study found that without increased
domestic production, the U.S. will be 60 percent reliant on imports of
copper by 2035. That is alarming.
In a world where foreign wars have created massive instability in the
global economy, we should not be reliant on other countries for
critical minerals that are used in everything from military vehicles to
our electrical grid infrastructure.
It is high time we take tangible steps to onshore mineral production,
and this legislation does just that.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this commonsense bill.
Ms. STANSBURY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
I think this is a really important debate for the American people to
hear. I want to first address the comments that were made about these
companies, which are seeking to get access to public lands for copper
and other minerals, as being confused.
Let's talk about the specific corporations that have been lobbying
for this bill and variations of this bill for years. Freeport, which is
one of the largest copper mining companies in the United States, is
worth $61 billion. Rio Tinto, an international conglomerate, the very
one that is held by Chinese Government holdings, is worth $159 billion.
I ask my friends across the aisle: Do you really believe that a
multinational corporation that is worth $159 billion in multiple
countries and continents is confused about permitting? I don't think
so. Mr. Speaker, $159 billion is 18 times the annual budget of the
State of Arizona.
Come on, guys. We are not fools. These companies have spent decades
lobbying to open public lands and specifically the sites that they are
looking to mine on in Arizona. In fact, it is why places like Oak Flat
were set aside, because they are cultural, sacred lands of Tribes. The
copper industry, 100 years ago, had tried to mine on those lands, but
we recognized as a Nation that we don't want to mine on every single
inch of American lands because there are places where it is not
suitable. It is not suitable for cultural reasons. It is not suitable
for environmental reasons. It is not suitable because we don't want to
look at a giant hole miles across in our backyards.
Now, we need mining and we need minerals, but let's be clear: These
companies are not confused. They spend millions of dollars every year
lobbying the United States Congress and giving campaign donations to
our friends who are running for Congress. This is not confusion. This
is influence. Let's be very clear about what we are talking about.
Now, I want to also address the claim that this is not about copper.
Well, last night I went onto Congress.gov. The American people can go
do this. There are like six different variations of this same bill.
Some of them actually specifically name copper and some do not. Guess
what? It is the same sponsors, literally the same sponsors of this
bill.
I can appreciate and I always try to take my friends at face value.
Okay. You are saying this has nothing to do with copper, but I
encourage the American people to actually go do their own search
because this same bill has many iterations.
Now, let's talk a little bit about the statutory and the cost
considerations of this bill. Again, we heard the claim this is just
about streamlining definitions, no big deal. Let me repeat: The USGS
list not only confers the benefit of billions of dollars in potential
tax subsidies and grants under many different Federal programs, which
the Department of Energy list does not, but it will permit actual
streamlining and reduction of timelines, public review, and judicial
review of mining operations, which effectively means for all of you out
there who are listening, you don't get a say if this multinational
corporation, which the Chinese Government partially holds, gets to put
a mine in your backyard.
My friends across the aisle are always asking us to have common
sense. Does this make common sense to you out there? Of course not.
The public has a right to comment. The public has a right to be
participants in decisions that the Federal Government makes on our
public lands.
Tribes have a fundamental right, under the Constitution, treaty, and
trust responsibilities, to help inform and decide whether or not we
mine our Tribal lands, or lands that are important to our Tribes.
The public has a right to say we don't want this because it is going
to impact our future livelihoods.
Our friends claim that, oh, this is just a simple definitional change
and streamlining.
It is really about taking away fundamental rights.
Now, I think it is instructive that we had a lot of conversation
before the election about Project 2025, and our friends across the
aisle kept trying to distance themselves from it and say, oh, we are
not actually planning to do that.
However, we printed out some of Project 2025 today, and I want to
point you to some of the choice sections on page 376. They want to
pursue critical minerals. Oh, yeah, that is right. On page 537, there
is a whole section in Project 2025 about opening Tribal lands to
critical minerals mining.
Does that sound familiar?
Ironically, also, on page 725 of Project 2025, there is an extensive
discussion about how the Chinese Government is plundering mines and
critical minerals here in the United States.
It sure does make you wonder why my friends are pushing this in the
final hours of this Congress as we are headed toward the closure of
this Congress.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Again, we are talking about copper. So let's talk about copper a
little bit. This chart shows that in 1995, we produced 2.3 million tons
of copper, and China produced 0.7 million tons. That is about three
times more copper that we produced in the United States in 1995.
In 2020, China was up to 9.8 million tons a year, and we were at 0.9
million tons. You can see our overall production actually went down;
China's skyrocketed. In 2020, they were producing 11 times more copper
than we produced here in the United States. It is not because we don't
have copper deposits in the United States, it is because people don't
want copper mining and production in their backyard. However, if you
are building a copper mine, you don't get to choose where the copper is
located. It has long ago been determined that the copper in these
places, sometimes it is on Federal lands, sometimes it is on private
land.
The reason our production has gone down is because we can't permit
new copper mines. We also can't permit copper refineries. The other
side of this story is we have 2 copper refineries in the United States
today and China has over 50.
With estimates that we need to produce more copper going forward in
the next couple of decades than has been produced in the history of the
world, you can see where that production is going to come from unless
we
[[Page H5990]]
decide to mine the copper in our country, unless we decide to build
responsible mines where there aren't human rights violations, where
there aren't environmental violations, where we do things better,
safer, and more efficient than anyplace else in the world.
Someone who knows how critical these minerals are to our defense and
to our way of life here in America is the gentleman from Virginia.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr.
Wittman).
Mr. WITTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the
Critical Mineral Consistency Act. This measure is an essential step
forward to secure our supply chains, and in so doing to protect our
national security and economic competitiveness.
Today, critical minerals like lithium, cobalt, and graphite are the
building blocks of everything from advanced weapons systems to consumer
electronics. Every advanced economy depends on these resources, but the
challenge we face is that these minerals are in limited supply and
overwhelmingly sourced from China.
Our dependence on the Chinese Communist Party for these materials
puts our energy independence, technological leadership, and national
security at risk. China has deliberately developed its control over
these supply chains to build leverage against Western economies. It has
been developing these capacities for decades, and it is already using
it.
China placed export controls on gallium, germanium, and graphite just
last year, and it announced new controls on antimony in August. They
will continue to put us at risk unless we act.
Currently, the United States Geological Survey and Department of
Energy each maintain separate lists of critical minerals leading to
inconsistency in policy and program funding. These lists used different
standards to determine what made a mineral or material critical, and
this misalignment led to crucial elements like copper being listed by
one agency while being ignored by the other.
This bill is a simple but significant step forward to streamline
interagency coordination, improve efficiency, and ensure that Federal
efforts to stockpile, recycle, and develop alternative supplies of
these minerals are focused on the same priorities.
We must ensure that our Nation has the resources it needs to remain a
global leader in defense, energy, and innovation. We cannot be at the
mercy of China that uses forced labor and destroys environments around
the world. My colleagues would like for China to continue to use forced
labor. They would like for us to continue to see them increase the
production of copper. They would like to see us continue to advocate
for human rights violations and using forced labor and also to make
sure, too, that they are destroying environments.
Thank you to the folks on the other side of the aisle for your stand
on human rights, not so much.
{time} 1245
Ms. STANSBURY. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as I may consume. To my
colleagues across the aisle: Absolutely. You are so right. We do want
to prevent our foreign adversaries like China from working to out-
compete us and to make sure that they do not have access to control our
supply chain. This makes it particularly confusing that the bill you
are trying to advance today is about copper. I want the public to know
that they said that it is not about copper, but they just happen to
have all the talking points about copper right there printed out ready
to talk about copper.
It is about copper. This is about the copper industry, who has been
lobbying for this bill for decades; and, in particular, several large
multinational conglomerates, including Rio Tinto, which is one of the
largest in the world, which is held, in part, by the Chinese Communist
Party who would like to mine on specific sites in the State of Arizona
that have already been identified as unsuitable, unsuitable for
cultural reasons, unsuitable for Tribal reasons, unsuitable for water
reasons, and unsuitable for public lands reasons.
They can say that this is just about harmonizing lists, but the
Department of Energy does not have purview over permitting on our
public lands. The Department of Energy's legislative mandate as created
by this body is to oversee our Nation's energy systems.
The Department of the Interior, where USGS sits, who manages our
public minerals and our understanding of them, is the Federal agency
that makes the permitting decisions, the legal decisions, the executive
decisions, and the Tribal consultations that affect when, where, and
how minerals are accessed on our public lands.
This is about a lobbying effort by multinational corporations to move
the list in such a manner that it will open up public lands to mining
on sites they have already identified in which the public has, in
various ways, already said no, no thank you, or they want a process for
the public to actually weigh in on.
I hope that my friends across the aisle, because it does sound like
we have a lot in agreement, will agree that the Chinese Communist Party
is buying up minerals and mining projects around the world. In fact,
the Chinese Government has been stockpiling critical minerals for years
which has created a crisis for the United States.
Yes, while they are mining copper in their land, we have to ask
ourselves: Why is a multinational company that the Chinese Government
is massively bought into and trying to open copper mines in the United
States getting a free pass by U.S. Congressmen on the House floor?
Mr. Speaker, I really would like to know why this is happening.
I hope that we can agree that we should not be allowing that kind of
foreign influence in our permitting decisions.
Mr. Speaker, for this reason, and at the appropriate time, I would
like to offer a motion to recommit this bill back to committee.
It was noted a moment ago that USGS supported this bill. I want to
tell you all that we contacted USGS last night based on the testimony
that they submitted. While they said that they agreed with concepts in
the bill, that it needed technical changes in order for them to
actually support it.
If the House rules permitted, I would have offered a motion with an
important amendment to this bill.
My amendment, my motion to recommit, is common sense. It would
prohibit any Federal benefits associated with being on the critical
minerals list, what this bill is trying to accomplish, from going to
our foreign adversaries, including companies they own and the
subsidiaries of these companies.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my
amendment into the Record immediately prior to the vote on the motion
to recommit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from New Mexico?
There was no objection.
Ms. STANSBURY. Mr. Speaker, I sincerely hope that my colleagues will
join me in voting for the motion to recommit so that we can protect our
Nation's natural resources and our supply chain from our economic
adversaries abroad.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, I am going to read directly from USGS's testimony on
this bill in committee: ``As a possible way to manage the two lists,
the USGS supports this bill.''
That is verbatim from their testimony in committee.
Also, we can talk about copper for a long time because it is the
poster child of misguided principles and misguided regulations in our
country. However, there is more on the list than just copper.
Let's talk about electrical steel. Electrical steel goes into
transformers.
Mr. Speaker, if you want to build new transmission lines and
transmission systems, then you have to have transformers. You can't
build transformers without electrical steel. It is not on the critical
minerals list, but it is on the Critical Materials List.
What about fluorine?
Nuclear reactors and electronics depend on fluorine. It is on the
Critical Materials List. It is not on the critical minerals list.
[[Page H5991]]
Here is a good one: silicon carbide. Congress passed this massive
bill to subsidize semiconductor companies to build chips factories here
in the United States. Actually it was called the CHIPS bill. We are
going to build chips facilities in the United States, but we can't
produce the silicon carbide needed to put into those chips facilities.
It is about a lot more than copper, but copper is the big material
that is out there that should be obvious to everyone that if we are
going to have a more electrified economy, if we are going to build more
electronics, and if we are going to have more renewable energy systems
and transmission lines, then copper is absolutely critical to it, and
that is why there is such a large projected demand for copper.
Fortunately, we actually have copper in the United States.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr.
Stauber) who has I believe the largest copper deposit and largest
cobalt and nickel deposits in the world located in his district, but
decades of permitting and we are still not producing copper, cobalt, or
nickel from those mines. Also I believe they have platinum and
palladium.
Mr. STAUBER. Mr. Speaker, hailing from the great State of Minnesota,
Minnesota has the most mineral wealth of any State in our Nation with
the exception of Alaska.
I have heard my colleagues on the other side of the aisle talk about
how they support mining. I disagree that they support mining.
Do you know why, Mr. Speaker?
It is because this administration, Mr. Speaker, hasn't opened up one
mine and, again, not one mine in the United States of America under the
Biden administration. They say they support mining so long as it never
happens.
Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, any mining done in the United States of
America must follow our environmental standards and our labor
standards.
It was mentioned moments ago about the Chinese Communist Party. I
want to bring one more mineral. It is antimony. One month ago, the
Communist country of China stopped exporting antimony to the United
States, antimony that is made for semiconductors, antimony that is used
in our explosive devices for our military, antimony that is used for
our medical instrument devices manufactured here in the United States.
We have antimony mines in the United States potentially if we are
allowed to mine them.
Furthermore, in the Inflation Reduction Act, the $7.4 billion, Mr.
Speaker, that was put toward electric charging stations, we have got 11
of them. The government has actually installed 11 charging stations for
EV vehicles across this Nation. They were $7.4 billion.
Furthermore, the Democrats and this administration have removed the
Buy American requirements for those charging stations.
Do you know why, Mr. Speaker?
It is because they won't let us mine here, and the percentage of
minerals needed to meet the IRA demands can't be met unless we mine
here in the United States of America.
Mining is our past, our present, and our future. Mr. Speaker, not
only has this administration stopped mining in Minnesota, but they have
stopped it in North Dakota, South Dakota, Montana, Wyoming, Nevada,
Washington, Oregon, New Mexico, California, and Pennsylvania. The list
goes on and on.
This is the most antimining administration in the history of this
country, and we are going to suffer for it. Right now, we need antimony
to replenish our ammunition. We are struggling right now. That is why
the Biden administration's USGS supports this H.R. 8446, the Critical
Mineral Consistency Act introduced by my good friend, Mr. Ciscomani
from Arizona. He understands.
We have to have the political will in this country, Mr. Speaker, to
be able to mine here safely under our regulations. We need permitting
reform, which is going to allow us to mine here, process here, and
manufacture here, right here in America using our jobs, our economy,
and our workers, which is going to benefit our economy, our
communities, and our strategic national security.
Why would anybody not want to mine in this country using the best
environmental standards and the best labor standards in the world?
They are caving to the radical left, the antimining stance of their
party. On January 20, the Americans are going to see a different
attitude toward extracting these minerals that we are blessed with in
this great country. We are blessed with these minerals.
No other country is like us, no other country. If we have the
political will to meet these needs, then we can do it.
Mr. Speaker, I stand strongly in support of H.R. 8446. I stand
strongly in support of domestic mining.
Again, Mr. Speaker, I want to remind you and others this is the most
antimining administration in the history of this country, and it is
going to end. We have to hold our strategic national security in the
palm of our own hands. I will be doggone if I am going to allow China
to control our destiny or other foreign nations.
Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, I am
prepared to close, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. STANSBURY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I stand here, once again, today to oppose H.R. 8446, a
bill that ignores science, ignores the facts, and would add copper to
the critical minerals list to help wealthy multinational corporations,
some of which are held by our foreign adversaries, to gain critical
benefits, Federal tax breaks, and access to our Federal lands and
Tribal sacred sites.
There have been some claims today about the Department of the
Interior and the USGS's stance on this bill. I want to be clear that
while the USGS did respond to the bill and share information about how
to harmonize the list, they identified specific issues with the bill
about its scientific integrity.
Let's be clear. USGS scientists used peer-reviewed methodology to
determine whether or not copper or any other mineral here in the United
States should be considered a critical mineral and be given the
benefits that come along with being included on that list.
Now, while copper and many of the minerals discussed here are
important to our economy, they are important to our national security,
and they are important to the future of this Nation, they do not
currently have the same supply chain vulnerabilities that other
minerals on that list have and, therefore, do not qualify for the
permitting and subsidy benefits that come with being included on that
list.
I think that the American people would agree with all of the things
that my colleagues said, that we should not be giving giveaways to our
foreign adversaries who are trying to stockpile these minerals right
now.
Why on Earth would we advance a bill that would give companies that
the Chinese Government holds financial interest in access to copper and
other critical minerals here in the United States?
It is crazy.
Designating copper as a critical mineral will divert precious
resources and attention away from other critical supply chains that
need it critically right now. It will open permitting, environmental
review processes, and Tribal consultation. We know from history because
it has told us in every chapter and every generation that it is our
most vulnerable communities without power, influence, and money who
will suffer the consequences, and, in this case, particularly our
Tribal communities who have sacred lands that they have protected for
countless generations.
While my colleagues may claim that this bill is necessary to support
and build up our domestic supply chain, we have already seen how
foreign influence is trying to grab a hold of U.S. copper. There are no
safeguards in this bill, and I cannot emphasize it enough: This bill
will allow foreign actors through their financial holdings, including
our adversaries, to benefit from the U.S. public lands and resources
and materials that they are trying to take and stockpile, and it will
leave our communities with pollution and devastation.
{time} 1300
We just heard an argument that everything is going to change on
January 20. If my colleagues don't know, January 20 is Inauguration
Day.
Project 2025, it turned out, was real: critical minerals, opening
public lands,
[[Page H5992]]
opening Tribal lands, not protecting sites that we already knew were
precious for sacred and other reasons.
We just heard it right here on the floor: It is all going to change
on January 20.
Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues: Who is going to benefit? At what
cost to our communities? At what cost to the American people?
Mr. Speaker, there were claims made on this floor today about
Democrats not caring about our supply chain and about our people. We
have one of the largest copper mines in the United States in New
Mexico. We support our miners. We support our laborers.
I would not be standing here on the House floor if my mother had not
been one of the first women operating engineers to work at a coal-fired
power plant in New Mexico.
Mr. Speaker, I do not appreciate the assertions that we have heard
here today that we are trying to attack workers, that we are trying to
attack American sovereignty and national security, and that we don't
care about our economy and supply chain because we are here fighting
for the people. We are fighting for our communities. We are fighting
for our Tribal nations.
Mr. Speaker, we will see changes on January 20. That is why we have
to stop this bill, so that it doesn't give carte blanche to Chinese
financial holdings to mine with impunity on our public lands.
That is why I oppose this bill.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
California (Mr. LaMalfa).
Mr. LaMALFA. Mr. Speaker, what do we know about copper? It is
extremely important to move forward with any of the technology that
Americans are going to require, or certainly what government is likely
to require, on electric vehicles and electrification of everything.
At a time when the demand for copper is going to skyrocket to be
exponentially more, the U.S. is actually producing less copper than it
has been.
If my colleagues want to talk about a process of trying to get more
copper on line in this country, if it takes over two decades to get a
mine from an idea to operating and to get through the permit process,
certainly it is not like China or someone else is going to come in and
just run roughshod over people to get the permit process done because
it is hard to get a copper mine open in this country.
If that can't get done, then how in the heck are we going to meet any
of these standards for electrification or CO2 reduction by
2045 or 2050 if it takes over two decades? We have already missed the
target on just producing the copper if it takes that long to open a
copper mine.
Simply harmonizing two lists--we are not even talking about the same
bill--between DOI and DOE, it is crazy.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Lopez). The time of the gentleman has
expired.
Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the
gentleman from California (Mr. LaMalfa).
Mr. LaMALFA. Mr. Speaker, to harmonize these two lists on whether
copper is important or not between DOI and DOE, it is silly. We are not
even talking about the same thing here. This is a simple bill to at
least get the copper into the conversation so we can meet these extreme
environmental goals people seem to want in California and on the other
side of the aisle. It is crazy to not at least harmonize that and have
a better conversation about how to produce copper in this country.
Ms. STANSBURY. Mr. Speaker, I believe that we have thoroughly debated
the merits and significant impacts of this bill on the American economy
and national security, as well as our communities. I point out that my
colleague started this debate by saying this is not about copper and
ended this debate showing us it is, indeed, about copper and the
companies that own them.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for the spirited debate. I hope we
will protect our national security. I hope we will pass my motion to
recommit. I hope we will stop this bill and the devastating impacts
that it will bring.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. In
closing, I go back to this idea of what mining in America could mean to
America. We know that it has national security implications. We know
that it has critical implications on being able to grow our energy
sector, to grow our economy.
I want to look at just strictly the mining and manufacturing
component from mining. I have already submitted this report for the
record, page 4, which USGS, along with Commerce, puts out every year.
It shows how much material we mine in the U.S., how much we export, and
how much we import. The net value last year was $129.7 billion. Of all
the ore that we mined and the exports and imports, it was worth $129.7
billion.
That is a lot of wealth, but it pales in comparison to the amount of
wealth that is generated when that raw material is converted into a
metal. That material was worth $890 billion when it was refined into
metal.
When we talk about generating wealth, we are generating income for
local communities and American workers not just by mining that ore but
by processing it into metal, where we can increase it by eight or nine
times the value, which means income for rural Americans.
This same report shows us that $890 billion worth of value created
from this material, along with another $102 billion worth of material
that we had to import, created an impact on our economy of $3.9
trillion. Think about that.
When we use the resources that we have, it creates jobs in extracting
those resources and in processing and refining those resources, and it
creates jobs throughout our economy on manufacturing the goods and
products that come from those resources.
I don't want it to be lost on anyone that, historically, and this
year is no exception, the U.S. Treasury receives about 16.5 percent of
the GDP in tax revenue. When we look at budget issues in America, for
every trillion dollars we grow our economy, we are creating another
$165 billion going to the side of the ledger that we want it to go to,
the income side, to help out with our budget.
At the same time, when we are promoting things that create high-
paying jobs, we are taking money off of the other side of the ledger
through social welfare programs. President Reagan said it best: The
greatest social welfare program ever invented was a job.
It is time that we have these jobs in America, using American
resources, refining those resources, and manufacturing products from
them.
That takes me back to H.R. 8446. Both lists aim to identify vital
minerals susceptible to supply shocks. With this bill, each agency will
continue to review minerals and materials for redesignation regularly,
just as Congress intended.
It was mentioned that there is no science behind this. We are
trusting these agencies, USGS and DOE, to go through the same processes
they have always gone through, but to put these lists together to have
a comprehensive list.
These lists were not meant to be static snapshots of siloed
industries. They are meant to be flexible tools that foster
collaboration between sectors and agencies to promote the well-being of
our ever-changing supply chain.
H.R. 8446 allows each agency the latitude to perform its own
independent analysis. For example, DOE's most recent iteration of the
Critical Materials List contains copper, electrical steel flooring,
silicon, and silicon carbide. USGS' critical mineral list does not
contain those. These materials are used in power generation, electrical
wiring, semiconductors, solar panels, transformers, defense
applications, really all over and all throughout our society.
We must continue to find ways to release China's stranglehold on our
critical mineral supply chain. They have exploited their position on
multiple occasions by instigating commodity dumping to make U.S. and
our allied nations' critical mineral production uneconomical.
H.R. 8446 will provide the Federal Government with a clearer and more
holistic snapshot of the materials we need to safeguard our economy,
energy, and national security.
Mr. Speaker, I again thank Mr. Ciscomani for all of his work on this
[[Page H5993]]
legislation, and I urge my colleagues to support it.
Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record letters of support from the
following organizations: the National Association of Manufacturers,
U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Mint Innovation, and the Copper Development
Association.
National Association
of Manufacturers,
Washington, DC, November 13, 2024.
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Representative: On behalf of the National Association
of Manufacturers, the largest manufacturing trade association
in the United States, representing manufacturers in every
industrial sector and in all 50 states, I respectfully urge
you to vote ``yes'' on H.R. #8446, the Critical Minerals
Consistency Act.
Manufacturers need robust, secure and reliable access to
critical minerals and materials (including lithium, cobalt,
copper, nickel and silicon) to make innovative products that
power modern life, such as computer electronics and cell
phones, batteries for storage, solar panels and household
appliances. The U.S. has enormous mineral wealth, including
some of the world's largest deposits of lithium and copper,
and this legislation will help America remain a natural
resources superpower.
Under the Energy Act of 2020, Congress directed the
Department of the Interior (DOI) to identify and maintain a
list of critical minerals to be routinely updated by the U.S.
Geological Service (USGC) Unfortunately, the items that
appeared on this list did not align with a separate critical
materials list that was established under the same law to be
maintained by the Department of Energy (DOE). This is causing
confusion among producers because eligibility for certain
grant programs, tax credits, loan guarantees or improved
permitting processes are only granted to items on the DOI
list.
This legislation is a priority for manufacturers to shore
up supply chains of key minerals and materials by adding
copper, electrical steel, silicone and silicone carbide to
the national critical minerals list These are materials that
are irreplaceable in crucial energy, technology and national
security applications from electrical equipment and batteries
to grid transformers and semiconductors American
manufacturing is too often reliant on foreign sources of raw
and refined inputs of these materials, when we can and must
be doing more to produce them domestically.
H R. 8446 provides necessary clarity by creating parity
between the DOE critical materials list and the DOI critical
minerals list and ensures that key minerals to America's
national and energy security, like copper, electrical steel
and silicone, are not left out.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Chris Netram,
Managing Vice President, Policy.
____
U.S. Chamber of Commerce
Government Affairs,
Washington, DC, November 14, 2024.
To the Members of the U.S. House of Representatives: The
U.S. Chamber of Commerce strongly supports H.R. #8446, the
Critical Mineral Consistency Act of 2024, a to streamline
interagency operations and eliminate the disparity in
benefits available to critical materials and critical
minerals by the Federal government The Chamber will consider
including votes related to this legislation in our annual How
They Voted scorecard.
Currently, the United States Geological Survey (USGS) and
the Department of Energy (DOE) develop separate lists of what
qualifies as critical minerals and materials. Critical
materials that are only on the DOE list are not eligible for
the more extensive benefits granted to the critical minerals
listed by the USGS. Reconciling the two lists would lead to
expanded access to critical materials like copper, and would
simplify and streamline interagency coordination efforts to
determine which elements and minerals are critical to U.S.
national and economic security.
Rapidly increasing demand for critical minerals coupled
with mounting geopolitical instability makes developing a
strong, reliable, domestic critical minerals supply chain
vital to America's future. Our current attempts to secure the
mineral supply chain rely too heavily on foreign sources
while slowing or halting completely the ability to expand
domestic mining To bolster domestic supply chains and ensure
stable long term economic growth, we must invest in, rather
than constrain by bureaucracy, the responsible development of
our abundant natural resources.
We applaud the work of the House Committee on Natural
Resources to develop this legislation and we urge you to vote
in favor when this bill comes to the House floor.
Sincerely,
Rodney Davis,
Senior Vice President, Government Affairs,
U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
____
Mint Innovation,
November 13, 2024.
Hon. Bruce Westerman,
Chairman, Committee on Natural Resources,
House of Representatives, Washington DC.
Dear Chairman Westerman: On behalf of Mint Innovation, an
electronic waste recycling and biotechnology company for
metals recovery founded in New Zealand in 2016 with a
commercial facility located in Sydney, Australia that will
this week announce plans to build its first domestic
operation in Longview, Texas, we write to you to endorse H.R.
8446, the Critical Mineral Consistency Act of 2024.
Mint Innovation is a clean biotechnology pioneer
transforming waste into value to empower a resilient future.
Mint's proprietary low-carbon, local and circular solution
recovers critical metals and materials from electronic waste,
such as printed circuit boards. Mint's technology uses a
combination of naturally occurring biomass and smart
chemistry to recover high value and critical metals, namely
gold and copper.
As we establish a network of domestic facilities here in
America, we will also be able to recover Tin and Silver as
well as Praseodymium, Neodymium, Terbium, Dysprosium and
Tantalum from our byproducts. As we further develop the
technology to recycle black mass in lithium-ion batteries, we
will add Lithium, Cobalt, Nickel and Graphite to our list of
recovered metals. We do this in a low-impact, cost-effective
way, strengthening and securing local supply chains.
As national critical mineral security concerns grow and
natural reserves dwindle, solutions that recover critical
metals close to the source make more sense than ever, and key
policies and legislation, such as H.R. 8446, the Critical
Minerals Consistency Act of 2024, will allow emerging
technologies to break new ground in critical mineral
production and electronic waste processing.
We applaud the work of Reps. Ciscomani, Newhouse, Crane,
Biggs, Lesko and Curtis for their work to ensure parity
between Critical Materials, as defined by the Department of
Energy (DOE), and Critical Minerals, as defined by the U.S.
Geological Survey (USGS).
Thank you,
Jason Price,
Chief Operating Officer, Mint Innovation.
____
Copper Development
Association Inc.,
June 11, 2024.
Hon. Bruce Westerman,
Chairman, Committee on Natural Resources,
House of Representatives, Washington DC.
Dear Chairman Westerman: I write to you on behalf of the
Copper Development Association (CDA) to share our strong
endorsement and support of HR 8446, the Critical Mineral
Consistency Act of 2024. CDA is the U.S.-based not-for-profit
association of the global copper industry, bringing the value
of copper and its alloys to society to solve the challenges
of today and tomorrow. We influence the use of copper and
copper alloys through research, development, and education,
as well as technical and end-user support. We are the voice
of the copper industry.
Today, the U.S. copper industry supports more than 395,000
direct, indirect, and induced jobs and more than $160 billion
in economic output. The U.S. copper industry is a key
national driver contributing mightily to the economic success
and national security of the United States. Copper is also
referred to as the ``metal of electrification'' because of
its high electrical conductivity and use across all energy
transition applications including EV batteries and storage,
wind energy, solar photovoltaics, transmission and
distribution, and other low-carbon energies such as hydrogen.
These characteristics and the projected doubling in demand
for copper by 2035 are some of the reasons why the U.S.
Department of Energy (DOE) added copper to their Critical
Materials list last year. While this recognition is certainly
welcome, exclusion from the USGS Critical Minerals list has
kept copper from being eligible for benefits, include DOE
Title 17 financing, FAST-41 permitting support, and others.
HR 8446 eliminates this disadvantage by adding copper and
other important clean energy materials to the USGS list.
HR 8446 not only has our support, but several bipartisan
energy and electrification groups in Washington also favor
the legislation. These include:
Zero-Emission Transportation Association (ZETA), National
Electrical Manufacturers Association (NEMA), Business Council
on Sustainable Energy (BCSE), and Transformer Manufacturers
Association of America (TMAA).
We are also heartened by the fact that USGS themselves in
their written testimony to the House Committee on Natural
Resources supports HR 8446 as they wrote ``As a possible way
to manage the two lists, the USGS supports this bill.''
Given the support for the legislation by us and others,
including USGS themselves, we are hopeful the Committee will
vote favorable to support HR 8446.
Regards,
Adam Estelle,
President & CEO.
Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I also note for the record the support of
the following organizations: the Business Council for Sustainable
Energy, the National Electrical Manufacturing Association, the Zero
Emission Transportation Association, the Transformer Manufacturing
Association of America, and the National Mining Association.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
[[Page H5994]]
The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
Pursuant to House Resolution 1568, the previous question is ordered
on the bill, as amended.
The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was
read the third time.
Motion to Recommit
Ms. STANSBURY. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to
recommit.
The Clerk read as follows:
Ms. Stansbury of New Mexico moves to recommit the bill H.R.
8446 to the Committee on Natural Resources.
The material previously referred to by Ms. Stansbury is as follows:
Ms. Stansbury moves to recommit the bill H.R. 8446 to the
Committee on Natural Resources with instructions to report
the same back to the House forthwith, with the following
amendment:
Add at the end the following:
SEC. 3. NO FEDERAL BENEFITS TO FOREIGN ADVERSARIES FOR
CRITICAL MINERAL PROJECTS.
(a) Prohibition.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
law, the Federal Government may not provide any critical
mineral related Federal benefit to an entity that--
(1) is a foreign entity of concern; or
(2) is a subsidiary of a foreign entity of concern.
(b) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) Covered nation.--The term ``covered nation'' has the
meaning given such term in section 2533c(d) of title 10,
United States Code.
(2) Critical mineral related federal benefit.--The term
``critical mineral related Federal benefit'' means any tax
credit, grant, loan, loan guarantee, or expedited permitting
that is available on the basis of the designation of a
mineral, element, substance, or material as critical pursuant
to section 7002 of the Energy Act of 2020 (30 U.S.C. 1606).
(3) Foreign entity of concern.--The term ``foreign entity
of concern'' has the meaning given such term in section
40207(a)(5) of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (42
U.S.C. 18741(a)(5)).
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XIX, the
previous question is ordered on the motion to recommit.
The question is on the motion to recommit.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Ms. STANSBURY. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further
proceedings on this question will be postponed.
____________________