[Congressional Record Volume 172, Number 40 (Tuesday, March 3, 2026)]
[House]
[Pages H2353-H2356]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
CRITICAL MINERAL CONSISTENCY ACT OF 2025
Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the
bill (H.R. 755) to amend the Energy Act of 2020 to include critical
materials in the definition of critical mineral, and for other
purposes, as amended.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The text of the bill is as follows:
H.R. 755
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 2025''.
SEC. 2. CRITICAL MINERALS AND MATERIALS LIST.
Section 7002 of the Energy Act of 2020 (30 U.S.C. 1606) is
amended--
(1) in subsection (c)(4)(C), by inserting ``minerals or
materials'' after ``critical'';
(2) by redesignating subsection (o) as subsection (p); and
(3) by inserting after subsection (n) the following:
``(o) Critical Minerals and Materials List.--
``(1) In general.--Not later than 45 days after the date of
enactment of the Critical Mineral Consistency Act of 2025,
the Secretary shall publish a Critical Minerals and Materials
List, which shall include--
``(A) any critical mineral designated by the Secretary
under subsection (c); and
``(B) any non-fuel mineral, element, substance, or material
that the Secretary of Energy has determined to be a critical
material under subsection (a)(2) as of that date of
enactment.
``(2) Updates.--The Secretary shall update the Critical
Minerals and Materials List published under paragraph (1)--
``(A) not later than 45 days after the date on which the
Secretary updates a critical mineral designation under
subsection (c); and
``(B) not later than 45 days after the date on which the
Secretary of Energy updates a critical material designation
under subsection (a)(2).
[[Page H2354]]
``(3) Publication alignment.--To the maximum extent
practicable, the Secretary and the Secretary of Energy shall
coordinate when updates to the Critical Minerals and
Materials List may be required under paragraph (2).
``(4) Administration.--For the purposes of administering
programs involving critical minerals or critical materials,
the Secretary, the Secretary of Energy, and the heads of
other Federal departments and agencies where such department
or agency has incorporated by reference the definition of
`critical mineral' or `critical material' from this section,
as applicable, shall use the most recently published version
of the Critical Minerals and Materials List published under
paragraph (1).''.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
Arkansas (Mr. Westerman) and the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Hoyle)
each will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arkansas.
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 to add extraneous material to H.R. 755, the bill now under
consideration.
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. 755, the Critical
Mineral Consistency Act, which accomplishes the important task of
unifying the U.S. Geological Survey's list of critical minerals and the
Department of Energy's list of critical materials.
The Energy Act of 2020 defined ``critical minerals'' and directed the
United States Geological Survey, or USGS, to publish a list of critical
minerals every 3 years. The same act directed the Secretary of Energy
to develop a critical materials list that includes all of the same
minerals on the USGS list but adds: ``any non-fuel mineral, element,
substance, or material that the Secretary of Energy determines: (i) has
a high risk of supply chain disruption; and (ii) serves an essential
function in one or more energy technologies, including technologies
that produce, transmit, store, and conserve energy.''
{time} 1540
The discrepancies between the lists make it difficult for regulators
and producers to determine what emphasis to place on each resource and
how to allocate efforts toward resource recovery.
Under H.R. 755, each agency would determine what to include in its
own list, but a new, combined list called the ``critical minerals and
materials list'' would be published by the Department of the Interior.
Moving forward, all Federal agencies would be required to use this
unified list when administering programs involving critical minerals or
critical materials. These changes promote accessibility, clarity, and
consistency for regulators, producers, and members of the public.
I thank Representative Ciscomani for his work on this important
legislation. I support this commonsense bill, and I reserve the balance
of my time.
Ms. HOYLE of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Congress codified the critical minerals list in the Energy Act of
2020 to identify which minerals are most important to our economic and
national security and at risk of supply chain disruption.
The United States Geological Survey was required to create and update
that list, following a transparent, science-based process.
At the same time, Congress directed the Department of Energy to
create its own list focusing on critical minerals and materials for
energy needs.
Both lists provide crucial strategic direction for Federal
decisionmakers to secure our most critical and vulnerable supply
chains.
H.R. 755 provides administrative clarity by creating a unified
critical minerals and materials list, which incorporates the lists from
both USGS and DOE, while allowing the agencies to maintain the
scientific integrity of their individual processes.
I thank the bill's sponsors and my colleagues across the aisle for
working with committee Democrats to incorporate changes to the original
bill to better coordinate agency analyses without fully losing the
individual purposes of the two lists.
Unfortunately, a lot of careful policymaking and scientific work to
identify critical minerals and materials is actively being undone.
First, these lists are only useful if they are unbiased, and the
current administration has blatantly violated the law by including
metallurgical coal and uranium in the 2025 USGS critical minerals list,
despite the Energy Act of 2020 explicitly prohibiting the inclusion of
fuel minerals on the list.
They provide no public data or analysis to justify these inclusions
or prove whether they meet the Energy Act of 2020's criteria for
critical minerals.
Political interference in the critical minerals list undermines the
United States' economic and national security. We should target Federal
investments and interventions toward the most important at-risk
minerals and materials and supply chains.
Additionally, designating minerals and materials as critical only
matters if we can actually use these lists and designations.
Much of the latest critical minerals legislation that has passed on a
partisan basis this Congress actually makes no distinction at all about
prioritizing critical minerals. These bills have often provided
deregulation across the board to every industry, from gold to coal.
Again, I thank the majority for working with us on this legislation,
and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Minnesota (Mr. Stauber), the House Natural Resources Subcommittee on
Energy and Mineral Resources chairman.
Mr. STAUBER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 755, the
Critical Mineral Consistency Act, introduced by my good friend from
Arizona (Mr. Ciscomani). The Energy Act of 2020 took a significant
first step, recognizing the importance of critical minerals and
critical materials to the American economy and our strategic national
security.
While the respective lists developed by the U.S. Geological Survey
and the Department of Energy have been helpful in ensuring we have
policies in place that increase and stabilize our access to these
critical minerals and materials, they are not hitting the mark and
require further direction from Congress.
The two agencies use different criteria and do not take into
consideration the same parameters, sometimes leading to different
lists. Notably, the USGS list does not account for forward-looking data
and analysis, such as international demand and growth trajectories,
which the DOE list does. Currently, DOE automatically adopts any
minerals USGS deems critical for their own critical materials list, but
it doesn't work the other way around.
H.R. 755 fixes this and amends the Energy Act of 2020 to
automatically place DOE's deemed materials on the USGS list.
Under this legislation, each agency would still be responsible for
reviewing elements under their unique purview based on their own
technical expertise. It would simply streamline interagency
coordination and ensure USGS is taking into account the full picture
and the best, most complete information when developing its critical
minerals list.
This legislation is a small yet important step in ensuring we have
access to the critical minerals and materials that are necessary for
our national security, along with our ability to compete and win in
this 21st century. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this
bill.
Ms. HOYLE of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume
to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. I want
to say that the chairman, who is on the floor, is a good friend of mine
and one of, I think, our best leaders in the Congress. I thank him for
his continuing efforts and his willing to work together across the
aisle.
I rise, Mr. Speaker, to address the American public, of course,
through the Speaker. We are at war, Mr. Speaker. When I rise in support
of this bill,
[[Page H2355]]
which is a bill on which we all agree, I want to suggest that we also,
at this time of crisis, pass something that we all agree on, that we
have already voted on, that passed the House. It is legislation which
funds Homeland Security.
Within that bill are things critically important to the security of
our country, particularly at a time like this. Rosa DeLauro, the
ranking member of the Appropriations Committee, has a piece of
legislation, Mr. Speaker, that funds all the items on which we agree.
That ought to be easy. It particularly ought to be easy at a time of
crisis when we are at war and homeland security is so important.
The bill that Ms. DeLauro has put on the floor would fund the Office
of the Secretary and the executive management. It would fund the
Federal Emergency Management Agency. It would fund the U.S. Citizenship
and Immigration Services. It would fund the Coast Guard of the United
States. It would fund the Secret Service, charged with the
responsibility of defending the President of the United States and
other officials. It would fund the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure
Security Agency, CISA, as it is called. It would fund the
Transportation Security Administration. It would fund the Science and
Technology Directorate.
{time} 1550
It would not fund Immigration and Customs Enforcement nor Customs and
Border Protection.
Now, they are tied in one bill, but surely, I hoped, Mr. Speaker, my
remarks would be compelling without us being at war, which we have been
now for, I suppose, almost 96 hours. However, certainly at this point
in time, we ought to come together at a time when we are at war on
things on which we agree.
All of the ones I listed we have already voted for. They need to be
funded. They are critical to our national security, and surely men and
women of goodwill and patriotism should stand for funding things on
which we agree.
Now, there are two things on which we do not agree, and, frankly, our
disagreement is not relevant to our national security today or tomorrow
or perhaps for at least 24 months.
Why?
It is because ICE and CBP, the Border Patrol, were funded in another
bill that has already passed and been signed by the President, and
approximately $74.8 billion has been set aside for those two agencies
already, so they are operating. Presumably their people are getting
paid because we have already appropriated money for those two.
However, we have a substantial disagreement on the operations and
activities being conducted by those two agencies, and therefore we
don't have agreement on that. It is irrelevant to their present
operations because we have already appropriated money which, by the
way, none of us voted for on this side of the aisle. We have a very
substantial difference, based upon our constitutional concerns, that
those two agencies are not acting within the strictures of the
Constitution of the United States, the laws of the United States, or
the norms of police activity in the United States of America. That is a
legitimate and honest difference of opinion, and we ought not to hoist
on the petard of the differences we have on these two agencies to
preclude funding the Office of the Secretary, the Federal Emergency
Management Agency, the U.S. Coast Guard, the U.S. Secret Service,
Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, the Transportation
Security Agency, and the Science and Technology Directorate.
What person of common sense sitting around their kitchen table would
say: Yes, we agree on those, but at a time of war, we will not give
unanimous consent to fund all of these agencies I just mentioned.
Why?
It is because we have a legitimate difference. By the way, that
legitimate difference is supported by more than 50 percent of the
American people. As a matter of fact, it is somewhere in the sixties.
I rise on this bill which is not about this because I would not get
time to speak about it otherwise, and I think it ought to be compelling
to each one of us in this body and every American citizen to be
concerned at a time of war when we are allowing a difference on one
segment of a bill to preclude us from agreeing to the segment so
critical to our domestic and international security.
I am hoping, Mr. Speaker, that my Republican colleagues, and as I
said, Mr. Westerman is not involved in this other than I am speaking on
his bill, but I hope the logic of what I am saying appeals to the
patriotism in every one of us that we ought not to allow these agencies
I have read and on which we have already voted, on which we already
agree, and which the President ought to sign, because we are holding
hostage all of them to the legitimate disagreement that we have on two
of the agencies within this bill.
Surely, I don't believe the American citizens would say that that is
a commonsense thing to do, nor do I think they would say that it was
within the best interests of this country to do.
Surely, as a democracy, we should not take the position that if we
can't agree on one of the issues, then we won't agree on any of the
issues. I suggest that would be irrational.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today on behalf of the DeLauro bill, of which I
am a cosponsor, and there are some 50 others of us who are cosponsors,
to ask that the Republicans who are in charge, who are in the majority,
and who can make this decision, I ask them to give consent, unanimous
consent, to the passage of the DeLauro bill so that, and I will mention
once again, we can fund within the Department of Homeland Security a
Secretary in the executive management of Homeland Security, the U.S.
Citizenship and Immigration Services, the Federal Emergency Management
Agency, and we have big snows, big winds, big storms, and crises around
this country that require action for domestic security as we require
international security.
There is not one of us who wants to defund the Coast Guard. There is
not one of us who wants Coast Guard personnel going to work and not
getting paid. There is not one of us who wants the U.S. Secret Service
to be working and not getting paid. They have got to work because we
deem them essential employees, as the Coast Guard are essential
employees.
Under the present circumstances, where we can't get unanimous
consent, and I hope we can, I urge that we do, I urge my Republican
colleagues to say: On this we agree, and, therefore, we will move it
forward. We will send it to the President for signature, and we will
pay the members of the Coast Guard, we will pay the members of the U.S.
Secret Service, we will give emergency relief around this country from
FEMA, we will pay those who are working in the Cybersecurity and
Infrastructure Security Agency, and we will pay the people at TSA whom
all of us rely on to make sure that skies are safe.
I don't think there is a Member among us who wants to say: I don't
want to pay them. I don't want that agency to be operating.
Now they are operating because they are essential, but we are not
paying them. That is not right. In any event, we all know we are going
to pay them at some point in time when, hopefully sooner rather than
later, we open up the authority and the funding for those agencies.
We are considering suspension bills now. We expect them to get over
290 votes, and I will be one of those 290 votes on suspension bills.
Why?
It is because we agree, and it makes sense.
I welcome anybody who wants to come to the floor and say: I don't
think the Coast Guard ought to be paid. I don't think FEMA ought to be
paid, and I don't think Secret Service ought to be paid.
I welcome them to come to the floor. I don't think they are there. I
think they do agree.
Mr. Speaker, do not take hostage those employees because we have a
fundamental constitutional difference.
{time} 1600
Now, by the way, you may think that, oh, well, we don't have a
difference. Yes, we do. We don't believe that the two agencies we want
to exempt are following the law.
Now, let me quote the border czar. His name is Tom Homan. The
President of the United States sent him to Minneapolis to work at
bringing the
[[Page H2356]]
confrontation in Minneapolis to a close. They knew the public was for
that.
However, when a court ruled that what Border Patrol was doing was
inconsistent with law and the Constitution, what was his response? Tom
Homan said: I don't care what the judges think. I don't care.
I tell my friends in the House--through you, Mr. Speaker, of course--
that we all ought to care that we have a law enforcement officer, the
czar of our border, who says: I don't care what the judges say.
Mr. Speaker, we are a Nation of laws, and the laws are determined,
finally, by the courts of our Nation and ultimately by the Supreme
Court.
That is why we are not prepared to vote for a bill that includes
those two agencies. Why opposition to that is so hard to believe is
because they are already funded, notwithstanding our disagreement.
We are going to continue to make the point, unlike the Vice President
of the United States who said the officers who killed two people in
Minneapolis had total immunity. The Vice President of the United States
said that. We don't agree with that. We want to debate that, and we
want to change that. We want to offer amendments. We want to have the
House consider it because I would be appalled if the whole House on
either side of the aisle wants to have law enforcement officers who
say: I don't care what the judges say.
Mr. Speaker, I ask my friends: When Ms. DeLauro asks for unanimous
consent to fund the agencies--I will not read them again, but they are
critical--I will ask them to give their consent and pass those bills
for which we have agreement.
America deserves that. Frankly, our men and women in uniform in the
Middle East deserve that. Our men and women in uniform who are here and
who may be deployed deserve that. More importantly, every citizen in
this country and every person who is in this country deserves to know
that we follow our Constitution and laws of our Nation. We take an oath
to that. Our citizens expect us to do that.
I hope that as of no later than tomorrow we will pass a unanimous
consent request to fund the personnel who are protecting this country
in a way on which we all agree and then move at some point in time to a
legitimate discussion in this body about what CBP and ICE are doing
within or without the law.
Ms. HOYLE of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my
time.
Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Speaker, back to H.R. 755. This bill will provide
the certainty needed to grow domestic production of minerals like
lithium, graphite, copper, and many other minerals necessary for the
advanced technologies that will ensure national security, energy
security, and economic competitiveness.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this bill, and I yield
back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Westerman) that the House suspend the
rules and pass the bill, H.R. 755, as amended.
The question was taken; and (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the
rules were suspended and the bill, as amended, was passed.
The title of the bill was amended so as to read: ``A bill to amend
the Energy Act of 2020 to harmonize the lists of critical minerals and
critical materials, and for other purposes.''.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________