Dependence on Foreign Adversaries: America’s Critical Minerals Crisis (U.S. House Committee on Natural Resources, Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations)

Hearing	Dependence on Foreign Adversaries: America’s Critical Minerals Crisis
Committee	U.S. House Committee on Natural Resources, Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations
Date	February 9, 2023

 

Hearing Takeaways:

• The U.S.’s Dependence on Foreign Countries for Critical Minerals and Materials: The hearing largely focused on the U.S.’s dependence on foreign countries (including adversarial countries) for its supply of critical minerals and materials. They highlighted how Americans depend on these critical minerals for many essential items, including smartphones, laptops, medical equipment, military gear, energy storage, and defense systems. They also emphasized that critical minerals are key components of many clean energy technologies (including batteries, wind turbines, and solar panels). They stated that this dependence has environmental, labor, and national security consequences
  • Environmental and Labor Standards in Foreign Countries: A key concern during the hearing was how foreign countries often maintain less stringent environmental and labor standards than the U.S. and how these lower standards undermine the U.S.’s international competitiveness. Subcommittee Members and the hearing’s witnesses specifically raised concerns over China’s poor environmental and labor standards as both a producer of critical minerals and an operator of mining projects in Africa. They specifically raised concerns over the use of slave and child labor in the mining and production of critical minerals (particularly in the Xinjiang region of China). Full Committee Ranking Member Raúl Grijalva (D-AZ) and Mr. Mintzes called on the U.S. to require mining companies to perform due diligence across their critical mineral supply chains in accordance with internationally accepted standards. Ranking Member Grijalva suggested that the U.S. should ban corporations from engaging in extraction activities on U.S. public lands and waters if they engage in human rights, environmental, and labor abuses in other parts of the world. Subcommittee Chairman Paul Gosar (R-AZ) cautioned however that a U.S. prohibition of foreign extraction activities on U.S. federal lands could inadvertently benefit China through causing critical mineral prices to increase.
  • Unfair Trade Practices: Full Committee Chairman Bruce Westerman (R-AR), Subcommittee Ranking Member Melanie Stansbury (D-NM), and Dr. Moats also argued that unfair foreign trade practices have undermined the competitiveness of the U.S. critical minerals sector. Chairman Westerman and Dr. Moats specifically complained that price fixing and foreign subsidies have placed U.S. mines and processing facilities at a competitive disadvantage globally.
  • National Security Concerns: Subcommittee Members and the hearing’s witnesses expressed particular concerns that the U.S.’s dependence on foreign countries for critical minerals undermines its national security. Subcommittee Members and the hearing’s witnesses raised concerns over the U.S.’s reliance on foreign sources for tellurium, gallium, germanium, indium, cobalt, nickel, and platinum. 
• The U.S.’s Domestic Critical Mineral Production and Processing Capabilities: The hearing also considered the U.S.’s critical mineral production and processing capabilities. Subcommittee Members and the hearing’s witnesses debated how to balance the need to domestically produce and process critical minerals with the need to protect the environment and local communities.
  • Domestic Mining: A key area of discussion during the hearing involved proposals to increase domestic mining. Subcommittee Republicans, Mr. Loris, Dr. Moats, and Mr. George expressed support for the expansion of domestic mining to address the U.S.’s critical mineral shortages. They also argued that domestic mining projects would have higher labor and environment standards than foreign mining projects. They also expressed interest in how new technologies could improve mineral recovery from ore bodies (which would increase the possible critical mineral production). Subcommittee Democrats and Mr. Mintzes however were less sanguine regarding the ability of domestic mining to address the U.S.’s critical mineral shortages. Dr. Mintzes added that new hard rock mining activities could further environmental injustices.
  • Domestic Processing: Subcommittee Republicans, Mr. Loris, and Dr. Moats also expressed interest in increasing the U.S.’s domestic mineral processing capabilities. Mr. Loris and Dr. Moats stated that the U.S.’s adoption of more stringent environmental policies and increased foreign competition have rendered many U.S. critical mineral processing facilities uneconomical. Dr. Moats also noted how many of the U.S.’s smelters and refineries had been built near mines and stated that the exhaustion of the resources from these nearby mines had caused these smelters and refineries to close. Subcommittee Chairman Paul Gosar (R-AZ) argued that domestic processing could reduce carbon emissions through reducing the need to export critical minerals for processing (as well as the need to reimport said critical minerals).
  • Recycling: Subcommittee Ranking Member Melanie Stansbury (D-NM) and Mr. Mintzes stated that the U.S. should emphasize recycling as a way for it to supply its critical mineral needs. Mr. Mintzes noted how the U.S.’s future critical mineral needs remain unknowable and stated that recycling capabilities would enable the U.S. to obtain certain critical minerals more swiftly as needs arise. Subcommittee Republicans and Dr. Moats argued that recycling alone would be insufficient to address the U.S.’s critical mineral needs. Dr. Moats also noted how many materials (such as steel) often get degraded as part of the recycling process and asserted that the mining of virgin material would be key to supporting recycling efforts.
  • Federal Investments in Critical Mineral Research and Development (R&D): Rep. Ruben Gallego (D-AZ) and Mr. Loris expressed interest in funding critical mineral R&D efforts to identify new and alternative critical mineral resources as the U.S.’s critical mineral needs change over time. They suggested that these R&D efforts could reduce the U.S.’s dependency on foreign countries for its critical mineral needs.
  • Workforce Development: Full Committee Chairman Bruce Westerman (R-AR) and Dr. Moats also discussed the importance of workforce development in terms of supporting domestic critical mineral production and processing facilities. They stated that the U.S. needed to train more engineers and tradesmen to staff these facilities. 
  • Waste Concerns: Dr. Moats remarked that the U.S. could produce rare earth minerals domestically and commented that waste concerns have prevented this production. He noted how the waste associated with rare earth products, such as thorium, is radioactive. He stated that the U.S. needs a policy and a plan to address thorium.
  • Adoption of a Royalty System for Critical Minerals Extracted from Federal Lands: Full Committee Ranking Member Raúl Grijalva (D-AZ) suggested that the U.S. consider a royalty system for critical minerals extraction and commented that royalties could help fund critical mineral supply chain due diligence reviews and expedited permitting processes. Subcommittee Chairman Gosar commented however that U.S. mining projects already have royalties that go to states.
• The U.S.’s Permitting Process for Mining Projects: The hearing further considered reforms to the U.S.’s permitting process for mining projects. Subcommittee Republicans, Mr. Loris, Dr. Moats, and Mr. George stated that the U.S.’s current permitting process for mining projects is very lengthy and involves multiple agencies at varying levels of government with overlapping jurisdictions. They warned that process’s uncertainty and delays are pushing critical mineral production and processing abroad. Mr. Loris and Dr. Moats noted how the critical minerals permitting process in other developed countries (including Australia and Canada) generally took under three years and involved stringent environmental safeguards. Subcommittee Democrats and Mr. Mintzes contended however that these permitting concerns were overstated and that permitting reforms alone could not address the U.S.’s critical mineral shortages. Mr. Mintzes noted how the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) had found that it takes two years on average for the U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) to permit a large hard rock mine on public lands. He also highlighted how the mining company data indicates that exploration permits in the U.S. take between 11 months and 14 months to complete. Full Committee Ranking Member Raúl Grijalva (D-AZ) also raised concerns that many critical minerals permitting reform proposals would undermine public health protections.
  • The Mining Law of 1872: Full Committee Ranking Member Grijalva stated that the root cause of the U.S.’s mine permitting problems is the Mining Law of 1872. Full Committee Ranking Member Grijalva and Mr. Mintzes called on Congress to replace the Mining Law of 1872’s claims system with a leasing system for critical minerals on public lands. They stated that a leasing system would enable the U.S. to know who would be using its public lands for critical mineral extraction purposes.
  • Role of Indigenous Communities in the Permitting Process: Full Committee Ranking Member Grijalva and Mr. Mintzes remarked that the mine permitting process must provide Indigenous communities with notice of new mining projects that might impact sacred sites and historic resources and an opportunity to voice their concerns regarding these projects. Mr. Loris also stated that policymakers should be cognizant of instances where tribes support mining projects. He mentioned how the McDermitt tribe is supportive of the Thacker Pass Lithium Mine in Nevada and how Indigenous groups have been supportive of oil and gas development in Alaska.
  • The Biden Administration’s Recent Decision to Withdraw Parts of the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness from Future Mining: Subcommittee Republicans and Mr. George specifically criticized the U.S. Department of the Interior’s recent decision to ban mining on more than 225,000 of northern Minnesota land. They asserted that the U.S. Department of the Interior had made this decision without assessing its environmental impact and that this decision would jeopardize good-paying union jobs. Mr. George remarked that these mining jobs are vastly superior to the promised tourism-related jobs associated with this ban because mining jobs pay better, include benefits, and are longer-term in nature. He also stated that northern Minnesota communities are very supportive of mining activities in the region and asserted that these activities could adhere to stringent labor and environmental standards. 

Hearing Witnesses:

1. Mr. Jason George, Business Manager, International Union of Operating Engineers Local 49
2. Mr. Nick Loris, Vice President of Public Policy, C3 Solutions
3. Dr. Michael Moats, Professor and Department Chair of Materials Science and Engineering, Missouri University of Science and Technology
4. Mr. Aaron Mintzes, Senior Policy Counsel, Earthworks

Member Opening Statements:

Subcommittee Chairman Paul Gosar (R-AZ):

• He remarked that the U.S.’s dependence on foreign adversaries for critical minerals undermines the U.S.’s national sovereignty, economic prosperity, and technological innovation.
  • He noted how Americans depend on critical minerals for many essential items, including smartphones, laptops, renewable energy technologies, medical equipment, military gear, energy storage, and defense systems.
• He asserted that the U.S. must be a global leader in critical mineral production and reduce its critical mineral dependence on countries that do not share the U.S.’s values, interests, or environmental standards.
  • He stated that the U.S. could create jobs domestically, increase economic growth, and enhance its energy and national security through promoting the development of domestic critical minerals and streamlining the permitting process.
• He discussed how critical minerals are particularly essential for battery storage and remarked that a lack of sufficient battery storage and transmission capacity limit the use of renewable energy resources.
  • He commented that the absence of reliable and conventional energy sources would cause communities to face rolling blackouts.
• He commented that while recycling plays an important role in ensuring that the U.S. has an adequate supply of critical minerals, he asserted that domestic mining would be required to meet the U.S.’s critical mineral needs.
• He lamented how the U.S.’s permitting process for new hard rock mines is very lengthy and commented that the U.S.’s “unpredictable and overburdening” regulatory framework is pushing investment abroad.
  • He noted how foreign countries often maintain less stringent environmental and labor standards than the U.S.
• He remarked that promoting responsible and renewable American energy development would require domestic hard rock mining to avoid supply chain disruptions and to reduce import reliance on unfriendly nations.
  • He asserted that the overregulation of mining would result in more critical mineral production in adversarial nations with few (if any) labor and environmental standards.

Subcommittee Ranking Member Melanie Stansbury (D-NM):

• She expressed interest in working to transition the U.S. to cleaner energy sources and to empower communities as part of this transition process.
  • She commented that her state of New Mexico is an energy rich state and called it important for workers, labor unions, and communities to have input on energy transition efforts.
• She asserted that it is “crucial” for the U.S. to develop the workforces that would support the transition to a climate change-resilient energy grid.
• She then discussed how critical minerals are “crucial” to the future of the U.S. and noted how the U.S. had previously been a net exporter of rare earth minerals through the 1990s.
  • She attributed the decline in U.S. exports of rare earth minerals to the adoption of trade policies, which made U.S. mining companies globally uncompetitive.
  • She noted how China had increased its investments in rare earth mining in response to the U.S.’s withdrawal from this market.
• She remarked that China’s recent efforts to stockpile and restrict the trade of critical minerals has put the U.S. and other countries at risk.
  • She asserted that critical mineral shortages constitute a national security problem and highlighted how critical minerals are key inputs for many essential items.
• She discussed how the U.S. could develop its critical minerals supply chain through recycling, reuse, innovation, international trade relationships, and the optimization of existing resources within the U.S.
• She asserted however that the U.S. could not solely rely upon mining and permitting reforms to address its critical mineral shortages.

Full Committee Chairman Bruce Westerman (R-AR):

• He first expressed agreement with Subcommittee Ranking Member Melanie Stansbury’s (D-NM) assertion that the U.S. could not solely rely upon mining and permitting reforms to address its critical mineral shortages.
  • He stated that the U.S. must create the necessary critical supply chains so that it could compete with adversarial countries (including China and Russia).
• He discussed how the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 had provided hundreds of billions of dollars to construct clean energy systems and noted how all of these systems would be reliant on critical mineral extraction.
• He highlighted how the U.S. possesses ample domestic energy and mineral resources and criticized the Biden administration for taking actions to restrict domestic mining.
  • He commented that these mining restrictions would undermine the U.S.’s ability to construct clean energy systems.
• He noted how the World Bank had recently stated that the world would need to mine as much copper within the next 25 years as it has mined ever.
  • He commented that this copper mining objective would be very difficult to achieve.
• He stated that while the U.S. would need to engage in more recycling to meet its critical mineral needs, he asserted that recycling alone could not satisfy the U.S.’s critical mineral demands.
• He remarked that the U.S. should be “embarrassed” with its low critical mineral production given its ample critical mineral deposits.
• He stated that domestic production of critical minerals would generate large amounts of wealth for U.S. workers (especially for those living in rural communities).
  • He added that the U.S. could domestically produce critical minerals in a cleaner and safer manner domestically with no human rights violations.
• He discussed how cobalt is currently being mined using forced and child slave labor and stated that increased demand for renewable electricity sources would likely increase demand for this labor.
  • He commented that policymakers must be cognizant of this dynamic.

Witness Opening Statements:

Mr. Nick Loris (C3 Solutions):

• He remarked that non-fuel critical minerals are essential for the U.S.’s quality of life, technological progress, national security, and environmental ambitions.
  • He commented that critical minerals serve as the foundation that enable companies to build, manufacture, and innovate.
• He also stated that critical minerals are also necessary for renewable and clean energy technologies.
  • He noted how most low-carbon and zero emissions technologies require a moderate or high amount of at least two critical minerals.
  • He added that several energy sources (including wind, batteries, and hydrogen) have moderate-to-high needs for four or more critical minerals.
• He remarked that “significant” increases in critical mineral supplies would be necessary for addressing climate change and noted how the International Energy Agency (IEA) had estimated that the world would need 43 metric tons of critical minerals to meet global net-zero emissions targets by 2050.
  • He indicated that this amount would constitute a six-fold increase from 2020 levels.
• He then stated that addressing the human rights abuses of critical mineral development and processing in certain countries would be “essential” for having socially just growth in clean energy technologies and electric vehicles (EVs), as well as for the continued use of modern technologies.
• He mentioned how the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) supplies nearly 75 percent of the world’s cobalt and called the country’s mining practices “appalling.”
  • He added that Chinese ownership of most DRC cobalt mines and Chinese dominance of cobalt refining exacerbates cobalt supply chain concerns.
• He also discussed how China’s human rights exploitation of Uyghur and other Muslim minority populations in the Xinjiang region is “extremely concerning” and creates critical mineral supply chain problems for the U.S.
  • He mentioned how a recent Breakthrough Institute report had estimated that 42 percent of the world’s solar grade polysilicon production capacity had been in the Xinjiang region in 2021.
• He remarked that there exist economic and environmental concerns of overreliance on China for critical mineral supplies and processing.
  • He noted how inadequate and poorly enforced environmental standards in China have resulted in contaminated ground water and soil and dangerous levels of air pollution.
• He stated however that the global rare earth market is diversifying and commented that this diversification would reduce the global dependence on China for rare earth minerals.
  • He also stated that this diversification would promote more environmentally friendly ways to mine and process rare earths.
• He then remarked that Congress must continue to work with the private sector to open opportunities to capitalize on resource abundance, diversify supply chains, promote ethical mineral sourcing, and develop market alternatives.
• He stated that modernizing the U.S.’s permitting processes would put the U.S. on par with other countries like Canada and Australia.
  • He commented that these countries can unlock mineral deposits while maintaining “vigorous” mineral safeguards.
• He contended that federal agencies should first conduct environmental reviews before deciding to deem mining areas to be off limits.
• He also called on Congress to support R&D efforts for critical mineral recycling, mining, and processing innovations.
  • He suggested that collaboration among government laboratories, research universities, and the private sector could help to unlock breakthrough technologies, improve efficiencies, and generate market viable alternatives.
• He further asserted that Congress should maintain “technology neutrality” with respect to any subsidies it chooses to provide.

Opening Statements (cont.):

Full Committee Ranking Member Raúl Grijalva (D-AZ):

• He remarked that the Committee could not consider regulatory and permitting reforms for mining projects without first reviewing the Mining Law of 1872.
  • He asserted that the Mining Law of 1872 is the source for many of the U.S.’s current mining problems.

Witness Opening Statements (cont.):

Dr. Michael Moats (Missouri University of Science and Technology):

• He discussed how critical minerals are key for producing many essential items and stated that the need for these minerals extends beyond battery minerals and rare earth minerals.
  • He mentioned how there are 50 critical minerals according to the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) and indicated that the U.S. uses 87 elements from the periodic table for manufacturing.
• He remarked that the U.S. faces “dire straits” due to its lack of critical minerals production and noted how the U.S. is no longer a global leader in metal mining.
  • He asserted that the U.S. must reverse these trends.
• He highlighted how China had built 40 copper smelters over the previous 30 years and indicated that China would build another four copper smelters in the next few years.
  • He indicated that this construction is only to meet internal demand.
• He noted how China produces 11 million tons of copper every year while the U.S. only produces 2 million tons of copper every year.
• He discussed how many critical minerals are byproducts of other elements, such as how tellurium, germanium, and gallium are byproducts of copper, zinc, and aluminum production (respectively).
  • He further raised concerns over how China produces 990 million tons of steel every year while the U.S. only produces about 82 million tons of steel every year.
• He expressed concerns that the U.S. would lose lead, zinc, copper, and steel plants, which would hamper its ability to domestically produce critical minerals.
• He stated that these plants have become economically uncompetitive because other countries are engaging in unfair practices.
  • He called on the U.S. to provide a fairer competitive environment for U.S. corporations and expressed confidence in the willingness of U.S. corporations to produce critical minerals in an environmentally friendly fashion.
• He also discussed the importance of workforce development in terms of supporting domestic critical mineral production and processing facilities.
  • He stated that the U.S. needed to develop more engineers and tradesmen to staff these facilities.
• He lastly remarked that the U.S. needs to create more value out of its existing operations in the short-term while it develops new mineral deposits and long-term opportunities.

Mr. Aaron Mintzes (Earthworks):

• He asserted that the U.S. could not address its critical mineral shortages through just mining and permitting reforms.
• He remarked that the U.S. should invest in facilities and methods to recycle, refurbish, reuse, and substitute existing critical minerals.
  • He commented that President Biden’s Executive Order (EO) on America’s Supply Chains, the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA), and the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 would increase access to recycled materials and reduce the U.S.’s dependence on mined minerals.
• He stated that the circular economies from mostly allied nations currently produce and help supply the markets for recycled materials.
  • He asserted that the U.S.’s circular economy infrastructure remains years behind the infrastructures of Asia and Europe.
• He mentioned how the European Union (EU) had recently finalized its Battery Directive and noted how batteries in the EU will soon come with a traceable QR code (known as a battery passport).
  • He also noted how this Directive includes recycled content requirements, producer responsibilities, and supply chain due diligence requirements.
• He remarked that policies like the EU Battery Directive could create a more circular economy that could significantly reduce global demand for certain mined minerals, including cobalt, lithium, and nickel.
  • He added that even greater reductions in lithium demand could be achieved through investments in mass transit and better battery designs.
• He stated that the maturing of the market for the secondary use of critical minerals would reduce the pressure to source these minerals from new mines.
• He then discussed how government procurement and consumer pressure play important roles in driving innovation and incentives toward more responsible critical mineral sourcing practices.
  • He highlighted how major consumers (including automotive manufacturers and electronics companies) have directed their suppliers to source more responsibility through committing to the Initiative for Responsible Mining Assurance (IRMA).
• He remarked that federal public land agencies are not best suited to address the geopolitical issues surrounding critical minerals.
  • He noted that while domestic mines will source some of the U.S.’s critical minerals, he asserted that supply chain management is a distinct issue from mining.
• He discussed how Congress had delegated the management of the U.S.’s critical minerals supply chains to several federal agencies.
  • He noted that this management includes authorities to stockpile minerals, impose trade restrictions, negotiate critical mineral agreements, promote research, develop a critical minerals workforce, and discover critical mineral alternatives.
  • He commented that these federal agencies blend tradecraft, statecraft, engineering, and R&D efforts to reduce the risk of supply chain disruptions and to improve environmental outcomes.
• He stated that U.S. agencies should require operators to perform due diligence across their critical mineral supply chains in accordance with internationally accepted standards.
  • He specifically called on the Biden administration to uphold the rights of Indigenous peoples to self-determination and the rights of Indigenous peoples to free, prior, and informed consent.
• He lastly remarked that hard rock mining on public lands would only further environmental injustice.

Mr. Jason George (International Union of Operating Engineers Local 49):

• He remarked that the mining industry remains the “lifeblood” of his region (northern Minnesota) and stated that current demand for critical minerals could create significant opportunities for his region’s mining industry.
• He discussed how critical minerals, including nickel, cobalt, and copper, are necessary for building batteries, wind turbines, solar panels, and other products to transition the world to a clean energy economy.
  • He highlighted how most of the U.S.’s domestic nickel and cobalt resources (as well as one-third of the U.S.’s copper deposits) are located in northern Minnesota.
• He stated that the sole question regarding northern Minnesota’s mineral deposits is whether their mining will be permitted.
  • He commented that the U.S. possesses significant mining capabilities and can safely extract these mineral deposits.
  • He added that northern Minnesota communities are very supportive of permitting local mining projects.
• He then remarked that the U.S. lacks a fair process for permitting mines and asserted that the mine permitting process is “hyper political.”
• He stated that wealthy cabin owners, wealthy tourists, business owners who supply their outfitting needs, and “anti-development extremists” have hijacked the permitting process for mining projects.
  • He commented that these people are highly influential within Minnesota’s state Democratic Party.
• He criticized the U.S. Department of the Interior’s recent decision to ban mining on more than 225,000 of northern Minnesota land that contains most of the region’s mineral resources.
  • He indicated that the U.S. Department of the Interior had made this decision without studying any specific mine plans and commented that this decision had been purely based on hypothetical scenarios.
• He remarked that the U.S. Department of the Interior’s decision had jeopardized good-paying union jobs and indicated that these jobs have been offered in writing pending mining project approvals.
• He further stated that the U.S.’s failure to pursue domestic mining projects will lead to these mining projects occurring abroad.
• He lastly reiterated his assertion that the U.S. could pursue mining projects in a safe and environmentally friendly manner.
  • He noted how the water near Minnesota’s mining communities is the cleanest water within the state.

Congressional Question Period:

Rep. Doug Lamborn (R-CO):

• Rep. Lamborn expressed interest in the connection between critical minerals and national security. He asked Dr. Moats to list the countries that the U.S. sources its critical minerals from.
  • Dr. Moats noted how many rare earth minerals for magnets come from China. He also mentioned how cobalt is mostly mined in central Africa and processed in China. He indicated that cobalt is a key component for lithium-ion batteries. He stated however that many critical minerals come from U.S. allies. He highlighted how aluminum mostly comes from Canada.
• Rep. Lamborn noted how China supplies 26 different minerals of which the U.S. is over 50 percent import reliant. He added that the U.S. is fully reliant on Chinese imports for certain minerals. He asked Dr. Moats to address how the U.S.’s reliance on adversarial countries for critical minerals impacts the U.S.’s national security.
  • Dr. Moats discussed how tellurium is a critical mineral that comes from copper refining and indicated that most of the world’s tellurium is produced in China. He noted how tellurium is mixed with bismuth to make thermoelectric night vision materials. He indicated that while the U.S. did produce some tellurium domestically, he noted that this tellurium needs to be exported for refinement.
• Rep. Lamborn also highlighted how the U.S. is dependent on critical minerals that only come from China for various economic applications, including cellular phones, computers, and microchips. He then asked Dr. Moats to address how the U.S. could bolster its national security through securing new materials higher up in the supply chain.
  • Dr. Moats recommended that U.S. review every domestic mine and processing plant and identify potential sources for critical minerals. He mentioned how he personally works with companies to identify potential gallium sources and explained that gallium is important for Wi-Fi technology and semiconductor chips. He stated that the U.S. could recover a significant portion of its gallium from zinc plants in Tennessee and North Carolina. He also mentioned how the U.S. ships germanium to Europe for refinement. He further noted how the U.S. could recover cobalt and nickel from mines in Missouri and Idaho. He mentioned how he is a member of the Critical Materials Institute, which is a U.S. Department of Energy-funded organization. He highlighted how the Critical Material Institute currently has a project looking at gallium, germanium, and indium recovery potential from U.S. zinc plants.
• Rep. Lamborn asked Dr. Moats to address whether the U.S.’s environmental regulations are too stringent to allow for the productive use of raw products or byproducts for critical minerals.
  • Dr. Moats stated that the Subcommittee should determine whether environmental regulations are too stringent or not stringent enough. He stated however that certain policies had led critical mineral plants to shut down. He attributed the fact that the U.S. no longer has primary lead smelters to state and federal requirements. He indicated that any new lead that enters the U.S. market must be imported and noted that most of this imported lead comes from China.

Subcommittee Ranking Member Melanie Stansbury (D-NM):

• Ranking Member Stansbury first mentioned how her mother was an operating engineer and noted how the oil and gas industry’s issues during the early 1980s had forced her family to move. She stated that her family’s experience had taught her that fossil fuel and mineral production challenges could impact workers and their families. She asserted however that domestic policies have not been the main derivers of the U.S. domestic mining sector’s decline. She contended that international trade and commodity prices have been more responsible for problems within the U.S. domestic mining sector. She stated that the critical mineral access issues do not only impact the U.S.’s strategic and national security interests. She asserted that critical mineral access issues are also impacting U.S. allies. She highlighted how many countries face challenges sourcing a wide variety of critical minerals through the global supply chain. She contended that the opening of a single mine would therefore not solve these global critical mineral access problems. She discussed how the U.S. could not responsibly source many critical minerals because the minerals are located in countries that do not have diplomatic relations with the U.S., countries with human rights abuses, and countries without responsible environmental practices. She remarked that the U.S. needs a multi-pronged approach to address its critical mineral shortages and commented that this approach would require cooperation with U.S. allies. She then acknowledged that while recycling, reuse, and design should not be the only approaches for addressing the U.S.’s critical mineral shortages, she stated that these approaches would help to address a “significant portion” of the U.S.’s critical mineral supply chain that is currently underdeveloped. She asked Mr. Mintzes to explain the circular economy for critical minerals and to provide recommendations for how the U.S. could advance its circular economy for critical minerals.
  • Mr. Mintzes noted how Europe maintains requirements around critical mineral producer responsibility, supply chain due diligence, and recycled content standards. He mentioned how California is considering these types of policies for critical mineral recycling. He then discussed how Japan and South Korea maintain strong recycling standards for critical minerals. He attributed the origin of these standards to a 2010 trade dispute involving China. He contended that the U.S. could develop similar recycling capabilities for critical minerals and commented that this development could result in the creation of union jobs.

Full Committee Chairman Bruce Westerman (R-AR):

• Chairman Westerman stated that while the U.S. could not address its critical mineral issues through mining and permitting reforms alone, he asserted that mining and permitting reforms would help to address the U.S.’s critical mineral shortages. He asked Mr. Mintzes to indicate whether he agreed with this assertion.
  • Mr. Mintzes remarked that the U.S. needed to engage in responsible mining and permitting of critical minerals.
• Chairman Westerman stated that there exists significant bipartisan agreement from the Committee regarding the need to address the U.S.’s critical mineral shortages. He asserted that foreign countries have taken advantage of the U.S. in trade. He specifically accused the Chinese government of engaging in price fixing, using slave labor, and disregarding environmental protections to unfairly drive U.S. companies out of business. He remarked that the U.S. needs to address these unfair trade practices and bolster its mining, processing, and manufacturing capabilities. He then mentioned how his state of Arkansas had become one of the largest producers of steel and indicated that all of this steel is recycled. He asked Dr. Moats to confirm that the U.S. produces one-tenth as much steel as China produces.
  • Dr. Moats confirmed that the U.S. produces one-tenth as much steel as China produces. He also noted how two-thirds of the U.S.’s produced steel is recycled. He further highlighted how Mississippi County, Arkansas is the county that produces the most steel in the U.S.
• Chairman Westerman asked Dr. Moats to indicate whether critical minerals recycling would satisfy future demand for critical minerals.
  • Dr. Moats remarked that recycling alone would be necessary for satisfying growing demand for critical minerals. He mentioned how lithium-ion battery recycling plants are already being built.
• Chairman Westerman remarked that the U.S. requires an “all of the above” approach to critical minerals that would involve new mining, recycling, and increased efficiency. He then discussed how the mineral processing and manufacturing added value to the minerals. He contended that mining is therefore a key driver of economic growth and a job creation tool. He lastly raised concerns over how the U.S. faces a shortage of mining engineers and mine workers.

Full Committee Ranking Member Raúl Grijalva (D-AZ):

• Ranking Member Grijalva asked Dr. Moats to discuss the extent to which the U.S.’s adoption of environmental standards had impacted its extraction and production of critical minerals.
  • Dr. Moats noted how many of the U.S.’s smelters and refineries had been built near mines and stated that the exhaustion of the resources from these nearby mines had caused these smelters and refineries to close. He elaborated that these smelters and refineries had not been set up to bring in concentrates from far away, which rendered them economically unviable. He also stated that the implementation of more stringent environmental policies had forced many smelters to close. He acknowledged that while mining plants used to operate in a very environmentally unfriendly fashion, he noted that mining plants now abide by environmental regulations. He mentioned how many pre-existing mining plants had needed to be upgraded to come into compliance with new environmental regulations and commented that these upgrades could be expensive. He stated that the U.S. had been “very happy” to shutdown many mining plants that did not adhere to the new environmental regulations and to outsource the production of said plants to other countries. He concluded that U.S. plants had closed due to both economic and policy reasons. He added that the permitting process for establishing new mines is very lengthy.
• Ranking Member Grijalva asked Dr. Moats to address the impact of the Mining Law of 1872 on the U.S.’s extraction and production of critical minerals.
  • Dr. Moats indicated that his knowledge of the Mining Law of 1872 is limited. He commented that he could therefore not offer an opinion on the law’s impact on the U.S.’s extraction and production of critical minerals.
• Ranking Member Grijalva then stated that many of the U.S.’s controversies with mine siting and permitting involve the public’s right to know. He mentioned how Indigenous communities have become more assertive about preserving their sacred sites and historic resources that could be impacted by new mining projects. He asked Mr. Mintzes to discuss the role of Indigenous community consultations in the siting and permitting of new mining projects.
  • Mr. Mintzes first thanked Ranking Member Grijalva for his efforts to reform the Mining Law of 1872 and called on Congress to pass the Clean Energy Minerals Reform Act. He then noted how a party could stake a claim on an exploratory mine (which is a mine that is fewer than five acres) through simply filing paperwork with the BLM and paying a fee. He stated that the U.S. government does not believe it has discretion to deny the exploratory mine application under current law. He noted that nearby tribes might not have advanced notice of the start of the exploratory mining project because mining companies only need to provide notice to the U.S. government (and not to nearby communities). He stated that this absence of notice has been the source of much of the conflict surrounding the permitting process for mining projects. He asserted that the U.S.’s mineral permitting statute is antiquated and highlighted how the rest of the world uses a leasing system for mineral extraction.
• Ranking Member Grijalva also remarked that the U.S. should consider a royalty system for critical minerals extraction. He commented that royalties could help fund critical mineral supply chain due diligence reviews and expedited permitting processes.

Rep. Matt Rosendale (R-MT):

• Rep. Rosendale remarked that the U.S. needs to produce more critical minerals. He asserted that only recycling existing critical minerals would be insufficient for addressing the U.S.’s critical mineral needs. He asked Mr. Mintzes to indicate whether critical minerals should be produced using only the most environmentally friendly methods.
  • Mr. Mintzes answered affirmatively.
• Rep. Rosendale also asked Mr. Mintzes to indicate whether critical minerals should be produced using the safest and most advanced labor standards.
  • Mr. Mintzes answered affirmatively.
• Rep. Rosendale asked Mr. Mintzes to indicate whether China is using the best environmental and labor practices to produce critical minerals.
  • Mr. Mintzes stated that China does not use the best environmental and labor practices to produce critical minerals according to the U.S. Department of State.
• Rep. Rosendale asserted that the U.S. should work to reclaim some of the global share of critical minerals production from China. He then stated that the U.S. has “dramatic” limitations regarding its ability to process critical minerals. He asked Dr. Moats to address why the U.S. lacks domestic processing and smelting facilities for critical minerals and metals.
  • Dr. Moats remarked that U.S. processing and smelting facilities had shut down for both economic and policy reasons. He stated that the subsidization of foreign competitors had put U.S. processing and smelting facilities at an economic disadvantage. He also noted how the adoption of new environmental regulations had made it more expensive to operate processing and smelting facilities within the U.S.
• Rep. Rosendale lamented how the U.S. needs to export its raw materials for processing and then import the processed materials back into the U.S. He also remarked that the COVID-19 pandemic had exposed the fragility of the U.S.’s various supply chains. He then discussed how the Crow and Northern Cheyenne tribes in Montana rely heavily upon the state’s mined coal. He stated that power industry regulations had caused the closure of 50 percent of the Colstrip Electric Plant. He commented that the Crow and Northern Cheyenne tribes relied completely on the Colstrip Electric Plant for jobs and revenue. He asked the witnesses to address how a shortage of baseload electricity would impact the U.S.’s critical mineral processing and manufacturing capabilities.
  • Dr. Moats stated that the U.S. requires baseload electricity if it wants to promote EVs. He noted how the U.S. has 250 years’ worth of coal reserves to supply all of its electric needs. He commented however that the U.S. has chosen not to make use of these reserves. He also mentioned how the U.S. has large amounts of natural gas reserves. He remarked that the U.S. still has an opportunity to responsibly use these energy resources.

Rep. Ruben Gallego (D-AZ):

• Rep. Gallego remarked that securing the U.S.’s supply of critical minerals constitutes a national security concern and stated that the U.S. must consider all possible solutions for sourcing responsibility produced minerals. He asked Mr. Mintzes to elaborate on how the approach from the Biden administration and the previous 117th Congress to manage supply chain risks for critical minerals had addressed national security strategic concerns.
  • Mr. Mintzes remarked that the Biden administration and Congress have taken three main approaches to managing supply chain risks for critical minerals. He indicated that these approaches are the diversification of the supply chains, the pursuit of recycling, and the review of mine waste. He stated however that he did not necessarily support the approach toward critical minerals from the Biden administration and the previous 117th Congress. He then noted how the IIJA had made the Fixing America’s Surface Transportation (FAST) Act permanent and indicated that hard rock mining is a covered sector under the FAST Act. He also highlighted how the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 had provided $1 billion in funding to federal agencies to expedite permitting processes. He then mentioned how the IIJA had created a working group designed to help accelerate permitting processes and noted how these working group reports would soon be released. He further mentioned how the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 included tax cuts for mining and mineral sourcing provisions in the EV battery tax credit. He remarked that the aforementioned policies provide numerous incentives to mine and responsibly source necessary materials.
• Rep. Gallego then noted how Mr. Loris had stated that the U.S.’s critical mineral needs might change and evolve over time. He asked Mr. Loris to elaborate on the importance of federal investments in critical minerals R&D to reduce the U.S.’s critical mineral dependency.
  • Mr. Loris noted how many previous predictions about resource depletions have not materialized. He stated that U.S. Department of Energy National Laboratories have been “critical” in exploring new ways to recycle exiting critical minerals and extract alternative resources. He contended that increased critical mineral flexibilities would enable the U.S. to better respond to national security and economic developments. He also stated that these federal R&D efforts would support the private sector in responding to national security and economic developments. He further stated that research universities would supplement these R&D efforts.
• Rep. Gallego commented that both the U.S.’s critical mineral needs and sources will likely change over time. He asked Mr. Mintzes to address why a circular economy is an effective long-term national security solution for the U.S.’s critical mineral needs.
  • Mr. Mintzes remarked that future critical mineral needs are often unknowable and stated that the construction of a critical minerals recycling infrastructure would enable the U.S. to better address these future needs. He predicted that cobalt would no longer be used in batteries within the next decade and commented that the recycling of existing materials would better position the U.S. to source critical minerals in the future.
• Rep. Gallego concluded that the U.S. must pursue several approaches to address its critical minerals needs.

Subcommittee Vice Chair Mike Collins (R-GA):

• Vice Chair Collins first criticized the Biden administration’s energy policies and asserted that these policies have caused energy prices to rise. He then noted how the permitting process for new U.S. hard rock mines could take more than a decade to complete. He asked the witnesses to explain why this process was so lengthy and to address how the Biden administration has made the mine permitting process even more difficult.
  • Mr. Loris remarked that permitting processes have become more onerous in various areas, including clean energy projects and conventional fuel projects. He stated that litigation surrounding these projects could further delay resource investment and development. He disputed the assertion that the U.S.’s environmental regulations are too stringent and contended that the U.S.’s environmental regulations are instead inefficient. He stated that regulatory agencies are currently able to prevent new projects from progressing for years and commented that overlapping jurisdictions across agencies could contribute to these project delays. He further stated that lawsuits from public interest groups are contributing to project delays. He noted how private landowners and tribal groups had only brought 3 percent of lawsuits under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) between 2001 and 2013. He indicated that public interest groups had accounted for 50 percent of these lawsuits during this period. He remarked that the U.S. needs a more efficient process for considering new projects. He stated that many U.S. companies want regulatory certainty and are not necessarily opposed to stringent environmental rules.
  • Mr. George mentioned how he had worked on an oil line replacement project that had taken eight years to permit. He noted how lawsuits had delayed this project. He also mentioned how one Minnesota mine project had spent 20 years in the permitting process as the result of lawsuits. He noted that this project is located on an existing mine site. He expressed agreement with Mr. Loris’s call for greater regulatory certainty for the permitting process. He asserted that mining bans have a “chilling” impact on the willingness of companies to explore and pursue new mining projects. He stated that Congress should work to ensure that regulatory agencies are adhering to existing permitting process rules.
• Vice Chair Collins then noted how there exists a perceived tradeoff between mining-related jobs and tourism-related jobs. He asked Mr. George to compare the wages of mining-related jobs with the wages of tourism-related jobs.
  • Mr. George testified that his labor union’s members make $40 per hour on average. He also noted that his labor union’s members receive “world class” health insurance coverage for themselves and their families, as well as retirement benefits. He stated that tourism jobs tended to pay much less (around $15,000 per year) and not provide benefits. He asserted that the trading of mining-related jobs for tourism-related jobs would lead to a lower standard of living for workers.

Rep. Anna Luna (R-FL):

• Rep. Luna asked Mr. Loris to indicate the ages of the children working in foreign mines to produce critical minerals.
  • Mr. Loris stated that children as young as five or six are working at some mine sites in foreign countries. He added that teenagers will often be forced to care for infants as they work at these mine sites.
• Rep. Luna noted how children that worked in mining are frequently drugged to suppress extreme hunger and fatigue. She remarked that the U.S. should work to move mining operations away from China and commented that such movement would be beneficial from a human rights perspective. She asked Mr. George to explain how U.S. mining standards differed from foreign countries. She specifically expressed interest in learning about mining standards in the DRC and other countries where China maintains mining operations.
  • Mr. George discussed how the U.S. permits workers to form labor unions and stated that labor unions have raised standards for all workers.
• Rep. Luna interjected to ask Mr. George to indicate whether the Biden administration’s policies have hindered domestic mining operations.
  • Mr. George answered affirmatively.
• Rep. Luna then acknowledged Mr. Mitnzes’s calls to respect the rights of Indigenous peoples with regard to mining. She asserted however that the Committee must ensure that mining is pursued in a manner that minimized harm to both the environment and workers. She asked Mr. Mintzes to indicate whether the pursuit of domestic mining could protect both the environment and workers.
  • Mr. Mintzes remarked that there exist opportunities for the U.S. to onshore elements of the critical minerals supply chain. He also stated that the U.S. should work to raise labor and environmental standards both domestically and abroad. He applauded the Biden administration’s advocacy for international due diligence standards for critical minerals production. He expressed hope that Congress could work in a bipartisan fashion to bolster these types of due diligence standards both domestically and abroad.
• Rep. Luna lastly mentioned how the U.S. had reentered the Paris Climate Accords and asserted that this reentrance had enabled China to economically “dominate” the U.S. She stated that China’s critical mineral extraction efforts have harmed both workers and the environment. She asked Mr. Mintzes to indicate whether the U.S. should withdraw from the Paris Climate Accords.
  • Mr. Mintzes remarked that China had lost market share in the global critical minerals market following their 2010 trade dispute. He stated that the U.S. has trade options available to reduce its dependence on China for critical minerals. He mentioned how Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR) had recently sent letters to original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) that are allegedly sourcing critical minerals from the Xinjiang region in China. He indicated that Sen. Wyden had requested that these OEMs provide their due diligence plans for the sources of their critical minerals. He stated that these due diligence plans would be key to ensuring that critical mineral supply chains did not contain slave labor.

Rep. Pete Stauber (R-MN):

• Rep. Stauber criticized the U.S. Department of the Interior’s recent decision to ban mining on more than 225,000 of northern Minnesota land. He stated that the U.S. Department of the Interior had made this decision without considering any environmental impact statement and asserted that the decision had been “purely political.” He further stated that this decision had eliminated union jobs. He noted however that the Biden administration is currently seeking to obtain critical minerals for EVs from countries with poor environmental and labor standards. He called the Biden administration’s mining policy “unacceptable and immoral.” He then disputed the assertions that mining-related union jobs are not long-term in nature and contended that these jobs are multigenerational with project-labor agreements. He asked Mr. George to explain the importance of mining-related jobs and project-labor agreements for both workers and their communities.
  • Mr. George remarked that these mining-related jobs provide workers with dignity and respect and enable workers to support their families. He also stated that these jobs provide people with a reason to remain in northern Minnesota. He further asserted that labor unions have ensured that mining-related jobs possess high standards.
• Rep. Stauber reiterated his criticism of the U.S. Department of the Interior’s recent decision to ban mining in parts of northern Minnesota and stated that this decision had harmed union members and their families. He then raised concerns over China’s growing share of the global steel market. He mentioned how iron mining had occurred in his Congressional District for over 135 years and stated that his Congressional District has the cleanest water within the state of Minnesota. He noted how the U.S. Department of the Interior’s recent mineral withdrawal in northern Minnesota includes a ban on taconite extraction. He asked Dr. Moats to address the harms associated with having the U.S. take known and possible taconite reserves offline given China’s growing share of the world’s steel production.
  • Dr. Moats noted that while the U.S. recycles a significant portion of its steel, he indicated that steel typically gets degraded as part of the recycling process. He stated that the U.S. therefore requires virgin material from its iron ore mines. He remarked that domestic mining capabilities are necessary for producing light-weight steels for cars and tank armor. He noted that Minnesota produces most of this material for the U.S. from taconite mines.
• Rep. Stauber then mentioned how he had introduced the Permitting for Mining Needs Act, which would update the U.S.’s mine perming process. He noted how building trades unions, energy groups, and mining trades groups support this legislation. He asked Mr. Loris to discuss how permitting reforms (such as those contemplated under the Permitting for Minerals Needs Act) would lead to lower emissions over the long run.
  • Mr. Loris stated that the U.S.’s failure to domestically extract and process critical minerals would lead such extraction and processing to occur abroad in less developed countries. He added that many government policies would induce demand for critical minerals, which would in turn increase the incentive for less developed countries to extract and process these minerals. He noted how the U.S. maintains stringent emissions standards and commented that the foreign extraction and processing of critical minerals would likely result in greater emissions.

Subcommittee Chairman Paul Gosar (R-AZ):

• Chairman Gosar asked Mr. George to confirm that the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness Act of 1978 includes a buffer system.
  • Mr. George noted that the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness Act of 1978 had recognized that mining would occur in the northern Minnesota region.
• Chairman Gosar mentioned how the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness Act of 1978 had set aside areas for logging and mining. He then stated that recycling alone is insufficient for satisfying the U.S.’s critical minerals and materials needs and noted how virgin material must be added into these materials. He asked Mr. Mintzes to indicate whether the U.S. had commenced any of its recycling activities for solar cells.
  • Mr. Mintzes remarked that the recycling of solar products is “fairly robust” and commented that this type of recycling is a growing industry. He stated that the U.S. would not need to engage in significant amounts of mining to source the necessary minerals for solar technologies. He acknowledged that while the solar supply chain contains weak links, he commented that these weak links did not relate to mining.
  • Dr. Moats noted that most of the U.S.’s solar panels are already recycled within the U.S. He stated however that projected growth of solar energy would make it impossible for the U.S. to supply all of its needed materials for solar energy (including silicon and tellurium) through recycling. He asserted that the U.S. would need to produce more tellurium from its existing operations and future mines to satisfy these growing demands.
• Chairman Gosar remarked that the U.S.’s future critical mineral needs remain unknown and commented that the U.S. would need to make an ongoing inventory of these needs. He then asked Dr. Moats to indicate whether he is familiar with new smelting processes that would enable more complete mineral extractions from ore bodies.
  • Dr. Moats testified that his university has several ongoing research projects that are looking at advanced technologies to improve mineral recovery from ore bodies. He noted how there are estimates that between 60 percent and 90 percent of mined tellurium is not being recovered. He stated that these types of reviews could be applied to various types of critical minerals.
• Chairman Gosar then mentioned how his Congressional District contains manganese mine sites and noted how technologies now enable the near complete extraction of manganese from tailings. He asked Mr. Mintzes to explain why the federal government would resist efforts to extract this manganese from existing mines.
  • Mr. Mintzes stated that the federal government is very supportive of efforts to extract critical minerals from existing sites. He noted how the IIJA had provided $320 million to the USGS to undertake such extraction efforts. He mentioned how many geologists are currently excited about opportunities to source critical minerals from mine waste. He remarked however that the ability to extract critical minerals from existing sites would vary across sites and commented that additional extraction efforts could pose harms to sites in certain instances.
• Chairman Gosar remarked that sites with previous mining activity should be prioritized for future mining. He commented that such prioritization has not occurred within his state of Arizona.

Subcommittee Ranking Member Melanie Stansbury (D-NM):

• Ranking Member Stansbury remarked that critical minerals sourcing is key for both ensuring the U.S.’s national security and preventing irreversible damage from climate change. She asserted that the U.S.’s failure to address its critical mineral supply chain issues will prevent it from implementing the necessary technologies and energy systems need to achieve its carbon emissions reduction goals. She remarked however that the U.S. could not solely rely upon mining and permitting reforms to obtain its necessary critical minerals. She also stated that the U.S. must not revert to its previous mining practices that had harmed local communities. She asserted that the U.S. must take a science-based and human rights-based approach to mining issues. She then remarked that Congress had taken significant action to address the U.S.’s critical mineral issues. She mentioned how the IIJA had made significant investments in the natural resources sector and included provisions to support the development of a sustainable supply chain for critical minerals. She also stated that the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 had made the largest single investment in addressing climate change in the history of the world. She asserted that this law would help the U.S. to achieve clean energy.

Subcommittee Chairman Paul Gosar (R-AZ):

• Chairman Gosar stated that if policymakers were truly concerned about climate change, he asserted that policymakers should then work to return smelting processes to the U.S. He noted how the transportation of critical minerals from the U.S. to foreign countries for processing and the subsequent reimportation of the minerals is very energy intensive in nature.

Rep. Matt Rosendale (R-MT):

• Rep. Rosendale stated that the Mining Law of 1872 is not the only law that governs mining facilities. He discussed how mining facilities are now subject to a variety of regulations and asserted that regulatory agencies are usurping the power of Congress in this area. He remarked that Congress must provide more clarity to the mining industry. He stated that certain groups are currently benefiting financially from the lack of regulatory clarity through blocking mining and timber projects. He commented however that these projects would benefit the U.S. from financial, national security, and environmental standpoints. He asked Dr. Moats to discuss the process that interested parties must undergo to open up new mining facilities.
  • Dr. Moats noted how the Mining Law of 1872 is just one of the many laws that govern mining facilities. He mentioned how the U.S. had adopted subsequent laws in the 1970s and 1990s that govern mining facilities. He also mentioned how states and localities could have their own mining laws. He noted how the National Mining Association had previously detailed the mine permitting process and indicated that this process is very extensive. He also mentioned how there are currently mines in Arizona and Minnesota that have spent over a decade in the permitting process. He commented that he did not wish to weaken existing mining laws and instead called on Congress to provide certainty to the mine permitting process. He noted how the mine permitting process in Australia and Canada is between two years and three years in length. He commented that this short permitting process is conducive to business decisions. He remarked that the U.S.’s current mine permitting process contains too much uncertainty and noted how this uncertainty has led many projects to go unpursued.
• Rep. Rosendale remarked that future critical mineral needs remain unknown. He stated that parties might be uninterested in pursuing U.S. mining facilities if they believe that such facilities will take too long to permit. He commented that critical mineral demands might change significantly between the start of the permitting process and the opening of a mining facility given the permitting process’s lengthy nature. He mentioned how his state of Montana had not issued a new mining permit in 20 years and criticized this situation.

Full Committee Ranking Member Raúl Grijalva (D-AZ):

• Ranking Member Grijalva stated that Subcommittee Republicans had alleged that the Biden administration is preventing mining projects from moving forward. He asked Dr. Moats to indicate whether it had been easy to permit mining projects during the previous Trump administration.
  • Dr. Moats stated that the permitting process for U.S.-based mining projects has long been a problem.
• Ranking Member Grijalva stated that the root cause of the U.S.’s mine permitting problems is the Mining Law of 1872. He called this law antiquated and commented that the law has not been reformed or updated to account for modern times.
  • Dr. Moats noted that while the Mining Law of 1872 may not have been updated, he stated that there have been additional laws enacted in the interim that also govern mining and mineral processing.
• Ranking Member Grijalva remarked that these additional laws had been enacted in response to public health concerns during the 1970s. He stated that some of the permitting reforms currently being discussed are seeking to eliminate these public health protections. He expressed opposition to permitting reform proposals that would weaken public health protections. He then discussed how the ownership landscape for mining operations is now fundamentally different than it had been in 1872. He noted how multinational foreign-owned corporations now compose a large share of the U.S. mining market. He stated that the U.S. should ban corporations from engaging in extraction activities on U.S. public lands and waters if they engage in human rights, environmental, and labor abuses in other parts of the world. He commented that such a ban would deter the corporations from engaging in such abuses. He also stated that the ownership and exportation of most of the U.S.’s critical minerals are foreign. He highlighted how some of the mines in his state of Arizona had some fraction of Chinese ownership. He asked the witnesses to indicate whether these types of mining operators should be banned from the U.S.
  • Mr. Mintzes stated that he would defer to the U.S. House Committee on Armed Services to determine appropriate national security policies regarding the U.S.’s critical mineral ownership and exportation practices. He remarked however that the ability of any party (either foreign or domestic) to stake claims to critical minerals located on U.S. federal lands under the Mining Law of 1872 makes him feel insecure. He called on Congress to reform the Mining Law of 1872 and to adopt a leasing system for critical minerals on public lands. He stated that a leasing system would enable the U.S. to know who would be using its public lands for critical mineral extraction purposes.
• Ranking Member Grijalva interjected to comment that a leasing system would provide certainty to the private sector and workers.

Subcommittee Chairman Paul Gosar (R-AZ):

• Chairman Gosar stated that a U.S. prohibition of foreign extraction activities on U.S. federal lands could benefit China through causing critical mineral prices to increase. He explained that these critical mineral prices could rise due to reduced supply and stable demand. He commented that this price increase would likely benefit China (as they control much of the world’s critical minerals market).

Subcommittee Vice Chair Mike Collins (R-GA):

• Vice Chair Collins first expressed frustration with the lengthy nature of the current federal process for mine project permitting. He also discussed how there is currently a shortage of solar panels and asserted that increased mining could help to address this shortage. He then asked Mr. George to address the extent to which the length of the current permitting process for mining projects is attributable to litigation and the extent to which this length is attributable to slow government action.
  • Mr. George stated that the lengthy nature of the current permitting process for mining projects is attributable to both litigation and slow government action. He indicated that this slow government action came from the federal, state, and local levels. He further stated that the process for permitting metal recycling plants is also lengthy and difficult.
• Vice Chair Collins then asked Mr. Loris to address why the U.S. had lost domestic metal smelters and refineries. He also asked Mr. Loris to discuss how the U.S.’s smelting and refining capacity compares to other countries (such as China).
  • Mr. Loris remarked that several factors, including regulations and foreign competition, had rendered many U.S. smelting and refining facilities uneconomical. He commented that Dr. Moats is better suited to answer the question.
  • Dr. Moats mentioned how the U.S. currently has three copper smelters and two copper refineries. He also noted how a German company is currently considering whether to install a recycling smelter in Georgia. He stated that the U.S. used to have more smelters. He attributed this decline to declining mining grades and the fact that it is more profitable for mining companies to export minerals than to upgrade their existing smelters.
• Vice Chair Collins asked Dr. Moats to indicate whether the aforementioned dynamic of mining companies exporting minerals is due to an increase in regulations.
  • Dr. Moats stated that increased regulations had made domestic smelters more expensive. He noted how smelters must abide by the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, and other local policies. He commented that these increased compliance costs made it cheaper for critical mineral producers to ship minerals abroad for processing. He also noted that this trend is present in copper, lead, zinc, and other minerals.

Rep. Pete Stauber (R-MN):

• Rep. Stauber remarked that the U.S. needs to reform its permitting process to enable domestic mining and return processing and manufacturing to the U.S. He then posited a hypothetical scenario in which China and Russia have decided to immediately stop selling rare earth and critical minerals to the U.S. He asked Dr. Moats to discuss how this decision would impact the U.S.’s national security.
  • Dr. Moats remarked that a decision from China and Russia to immediately stop selling rare earth and critical minerals to the U.S. would have a “devastating” impact on the U.S.’s national security. He discussed how the entire world is dependent on China for rare earth and critical minerals and noted that Russia is a key producer of nickel and some platinum group metals.
• Rep. Stauber emphasized Dr. Moats’s statement that a decision from China and Russia to immediately stop selling rare earth and critical minerals to the U.S. would have “devastating” impacts. He asserted that the U.S. could not allow itself to be vulnerable to an abrupt rare earth and critical mineral supply disruption, especially considering the fact that the U.S. possesses significant critical mineral resources. He also criticized the Biden administration for relying upon foreign countries to process the U.S.’s critical minerals. He then noted how the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness Act of 1978 had established both a wilderness area and a buffer zone around the wilderness area. He stated that there would not occur any mining in the wilderness area and the buffer zone around the wilderness area. He noted how former Rep. Jim Oberstar (D-MN) had warned that the establishment of this wilderness area and buffer zone would harm timber and mining jobs. He called former Rep. Oberstar’s warning prescient. He reiterated his call for permitting reform to enable domestic mining and to return processing and manufacturing to the U.S. He lamented the U.S.’s dependence on adversarial countries for critical minerals (which are necessary for the U.S.’s national security).

Subcommittee Chairman Paul Gosar (R-AZ):

• Chairman Gosar asked Rep. Pete Stauber to indicate whether mining and wilderness preservation are mutually exclusive objectives.

Rep. Pete Stauber (R-MN):

• Rep. Stauber remarked that the U.S. could both engage in mining and preserve its wilderness. He stated that northern Minnesota contained both mining and quality recreational areas.

Subcommittee Chairman Paul Gosar (R-AZ):

• Chairman Gosar also asked Rep. Pete Stauber to indicate whether the federal government or Minnesota’s local governments maintain more protective rules.

Rep. Pete Stauber (R-MN):

• Rep. Stauber remarked that Minnesota’s local governments are very interested in protecting the region. He noted how these local governments are very supportive of mining operations within northern Minnesota. He also mentioned how Subcommittee Chairman Paul Gosar (R-AZ) had previously visited northern Minnesota several years ago. He stated that the permitting issues for mining projects from the time of Chairman Gosar’s visit had not been resolved. He noted how one of the mines had now been engaged in the permitting process for decades. He commented that these mines could supply ample amounts of copper, nickel, and cobalt.

Subcommittee Chairman Paul Gosar (R-AZ):

• Chairman Gosar mentioned his efforts to advance the Resolution Copper mining project in Arizona. He remarked that one major challenge facing U.S. mining projects is the bureaucracy involved in the permitting process. He asserted that this bureaucracy often work to block mining projects rather than facilitate the implementation of laws. He asked Dr. Moats to indicate whether he agreed with this view of the current U.S. permitting process for mining projects.
  • Dr. Moats noted how the Resolution Copper mining project has now been engaged in the permitting process for over a decade. He acknowledged that this permitting process sought to account for tribal land and deep mine concerns. He expressed agreement with Mr. Loris’s statement that mining companies are mainly interested in obtaining clarity in permitting processes so that they would know how long the processes would take. He stated that the open-ended nature of current permitting processes undercuts the ability of mining companies to efficiently allocate capital.
• Chairman Gosar then asked Dr. Moats to confirm that U.S. mining projects have royalties and that these royalties go to states (as opposed to the federal government).
  • Dr. Moats confirmed that U.S. mining projects have royalties.
• Chairman Gosar then expressed agreement with Mr. Loris and Dr. Moats regarding the need for certainty in federal permitting process for mining projects. He stated that the companies involved in the Resolution Copper mining project have followed the rules and have already invested over $1 billion in mine reclamation efforts. He then provided the witnesses with an opportunity to make additional statements to the Subcommittee.
  • Mr. Loris remarked that many of the policy conversations around mining projects involve environmental tradeoffs, which can be complicated. He commented that policymakers must acknowledge these tradeoffs. He also stated that policymakers should be cognizant of instances where tribes support mining projects. He mentioned how the McDermitt tribe is supportive of the Thacker Pass Lithium Mine in Nevada and how Indigenous groups have been supportive of oil and gas development in Alaska.
  • Dr. Moats remarked that the U.S. could produce rare earth minerals domestically and commented that waste concerns have prevented this production. He noted how the waste associated with rare earth products, such as thorium, is radioactive. He stated that the U.S. needs a policy and a plan to address thorium so that it is not beholden to other countries for rare earth mineral production.
• Chairman Gosar noted how La Paz County, Arizona contains a scandium deposit that does not have any thorium associated with it. He stated that this deposit should be mined.
  • Mr. Mintzes expressed disagreement with the other witnesses on the topic of the permitting process for mines. He noted how the GAO had found that it takes two years on average for the BLM and the USFS to permit a large hard rock mine on public lands. He also highlighted how the mining companies supply annual data to the Fraser Institute (which is a Canadian think tank). He noted how this data indicates that exploration permits in the U.S. take between 11 months and 14 months to complete. He stated that companies that discover valuable minerals under the Mining Law of 1872 can extract them. He concluded that the permitting process for U.S. mining projects is not overly burdensome.
  • Mr. George remarked that the communities surrounding mining projects tend to be very supportive of mining activities. He asserted that these communities would hold the mining companies responsible because they would be directly harmed if the projects experience issues. He asserted that these communities would never support local mining projects that did not adhere to stringent labor and environmental standards.
• Chairman Gosar noted how Arizona had been guaranteed the multiple use doctrine aspects of public lands for the maximum to be shared. He stated that the federal government has too much power within the permitting process for mining projects and asserted that states should have more of a role in this permitting process.