[House Hearing, 118 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]


                    DEPENDENCE ON FOREIGN ADVERSARIES: 
                    AMERICA'S CRITICAL MINERALS CRISIS

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

                           OVERSIGHT HEARING

                             BEFORE THE

                     SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND 
                              INVESTIGATIONS

                                OF THE

                     COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
                     U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                    ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS

                             FIRST SESSION

                               __________

                       Thursday, February 9, 2023

                               __________

                            Serial No. 118-2

                               __________

       Printed for the use of the Committee on Natural Resources
       
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]       


        Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.govinfo.gov
                                   or
          Committee address: http://naturalresources.house.gov
          
                              __________

                                
                    U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE                    
51-158 PDF                  WASHINGTON : 2023                    
          
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------     
                    COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES

                     BRUCE WESTERMAN, AR, Chairman
                    DOUG LAMBORN, CO, Vice Chairman
                  RAUL M. GRIJALVA, AZ, Ranking Member

Doug Lamborn, CO			Grace F. Napolitano, CA		
Robert J. Wittman, VA			Jim Costa, CA
Tom McClintock, CA			Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan, CNMI
Paul Gosar, AZ				Jared Huffman, CA
Garret Graves, LA			Ruben Gallego, AZ
Aumua Amata C. Radewagen, AS		Joe Neguse, CO	
Doug LaMalfa, CA			Mike Levin, CA
Daniel Webster, FL			Katie Porter, CA
Jenniffer Gonzalez-Colon, PR		Teresa Leger Fernandez, NM
Russ Fulcher, ID			Melanie A. Stansbury, NM
Pete Stauber, MN			Mary Sattler Peltola, AK
John R. Curtis, UT			Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, NY
Tom Tiffany, WI				Kevin Mullin, CA
Jerry Carl, AL				Val T. Hoyle, OR
Matt Rosendale, MT			Sydney Kamlager-Dove, CA
Lauren Boebert, CO			Seth Magaziner, RI
Cliff Bentz, OR				Nydia M. Velazquez, NY
Jen Kiggans, VA				Ed Case, HI
Jim Moylan, GU				Debbie Dingell, MI
Wesley P. Hunt, TX
Mike Collins, GA
Anna Paulina Luna, FL
John Duarte, CA
Harriet M. Hageman, WY                               

                    Vivian Moeglein, Staff Director
                      Tom Connally, Chief Counsel
                 Lora Snyder, Democratic Staff Director
                   http://naturalresources.house.gov
                                 ------                                

              SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND INVESTIGATIONS

                        PAUL GOSAR, AZ, Chairman
                      MIKE COLLINS, GA, Vice Chair
                MELANIE A. STANSBURY, NM, Ranking Member

Matt Rosendale, MT                   Ed Case, HI
Wesley P. Hunt, TX                   Jared Huffman, CA
Mike Collins, GA                     Ruben Gallego, AZ
Anna Paulina Luna, FL                Raul M. Grijalva, AZ, ex officio
Bruce Westerman, AR, ex officio
                                
                                
                              -----------
                              
                               CONTENTS

                              ----------                              
                                                                   Page

Hearing held on Thursday, February 9, 2023.......................     1

Statement of Members:

    Gosar, Hon. Paul, a Representative in Congress from the State 
      of Arizona.................................................     1
    Stansbury, Hon. Melanie A., a Representative in Congress from 
      the State of New Mexico....................................     3
    Westerman, Hon. Bruce, a Representative in Congress from the 
      State of Arkansas..........................................     4
    Grijalva, Hon. Raul M., a Representative in Congress from the 
      State of Arizona...........................................    18

Statement of Witnesses:

    Loris, Nick, Vice President of Public Policy, C3 Solutions, 
      Arlington, Virginia........................................     7
        Prepared statement of....................................     9
    Moats, Michael, Professor and Department Chair of Materials 
      Science and Engineering, Missouri University of Science and 
      Technology, Rolla, Missouri................................    18
        Prepared statement of....................................    20
    Mintzes, Aaron, Senior Policy Counsel, Earthworks, 
      Washington, DC.............................................    26
        Prepared statement of....................................    27
        Questions submitted for the record.......................    32
    George, Jason, Business Manager, International Union of 
      Operating Engineers, Local 49, Minneapolis, Minnesota......    33
        Prepared statement of....................................    35

Additional Materials Submitted for the Record:

    Submissions for the Record by Representative Stauber

        E&E Article titled, ``Biden admin looks to overseas 
          mining for EV, renewable needs,'' dated January 23, 
          2023...................................................    52

    Submissions for the Record by Representative Luna

        Graphic on China's Exploitation of Child Labor...........    49

    Submissions for the Record by Representative Grijalva

        Cobalt Institute, Letter to the Committee................    68



 
        OVERSIGHT HEARING ON DEPENDENCE ON FOREIGN ADVERSARIES:.
                   AMERICA'S CRITICAL MINERALS CRISIS

                              ----------                              


                       Thursday, February 9, 2023

                     U.S. House of Representatives

              Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations

                     Committee on Natural Resources

                             Washington, DC

                              ----------                              

    The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:05 a.m. in 
Room 1134, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Paul Gosar 
[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.

    Present: Representatives Gosar, Rosendale, Collins, Luna, 
Westerman; Stansbury, Case, Gallego, and Grijalva.
    Also present: Representatives Lamborn and Stauber.

    Dr. Gosar. The Subcommittee is meeting today to hear 
testimony on the dependence on foreign adversaries: America's 
critical minerals crisis.
    I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from Colorado, 
Mr. Lamborn, and the gentleman from Minnesota, Mr. Stauber, be 
allowed to sit with the Subcommittee and participate in the 
hearing.
    Without objection, so ordered.
    Under Committee Rule 4(f), any oral opening statements at 
the hearing are limited to the Chairman and the Ranking 
Minority Member. I, therefore, ask unanimous consent that all 
other Members' opening statements be made part of the hearing 
record, if they are submitted in accordance with Committee Rule 
3(o).
    Without objection, so ordered.

    Good morning, and welcome to this important hearing titled, 
``Dependence on Foreign Adversaries: America's Critical 
Minerals Crisis.''
    I am honored to be the Chairman of the House Natural 
Resources Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, joined 
by our Vice Chairman, Mike Collins, our colleagues, and 
distinguished guests and experts.
    I also congratulate Ranking Member Stansbury on her new 
role. Being a neighbor from New Mexico, it is kind of a fitting 
title.
    This Subcommittee is excited to get back to work.

STATEMENT OF THE HON. PAUL GOSAR, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS 
                   FROM THE STATE OF ARIZONA

    Dr. Gosar. Today, we will examine the dependence of the 
United States on foreign adversaries for critical minerals, a 
dependence that undermines our national sovereignty, our 
economic prosperity, and our technological innovation. We will 
explore the current state of our critical mineral supply chain 
and the actions we must take to empower our national security 
and to unleash America's energy and mineral potential.
    This is an urgent matter, as we rely on critical minerals 
for our way of life, from smartphones and laptops, to renewable 
energy technology, to medical equipment, military gear, energy 
storage, defense systems, and many essential aspects of modern 
life and national security that depend on an abundance of 
critical minerals.
    The United States must lead in the production of these 
minerals and reduce our dependence on nations that do not share 
our values, interests, or our high environmental standards. By 
promoting the development of domestic minerals and streamlining 
the permitting process, we can create jobs here in America, 
increase economic growth, and enhance our energy and national 
security.
    Minerals are particularly essential for battery storage, 
and a lack of sufficient battery storage and transmission 
capacity means renewable resources cannot be stored in large 
quantities, like coal or natural gas. Without reliable 
conventional energy sources, communities are subject to rolling 
blackouts, endangering the health and safety of our local 
communities. We cannot afford to be dependent on foreign 
nations to power America.
    I say again, our country has a dangerous reliance on 
foreign nations for energy and critical minerals. Recycling 
plays an important role, but demand requires American mining, 
as well.
    Additionally, there is a case for climate optimism. It is 
called American innovation. Everyone here wants to maintain 
healthy lands and waters, especially many of my Republican 
colleagues who live in rural areas. Sadly and concerningly, 
most of our critical minerals come from foreign countries, 
particularly China, despite there being an abundance of 
valuable materials we could source here at home.
    Unfortunately, permitting a new hardrock mine in the United 
States can take more than a decade. Our unpredictable and 
overburdening regulatory framework pushes investment abroad, 
where environmental and labor standards are not nearly as 
stringent as our own. Promoting responsible renewable American 
energy development requires domestic hardrock mining to avoid 
supply chain disruptions and to reduce our import reliance on 
unfriendly nations.
    This hearing is an opportunity to have a constructive 
conversation about the challenges we face and the solutions we 
can implement to meet these challenges. So, let's work together 
with the common goal of unlocking that full potential of our 
country, to secure a brighter future for all Americans. 
Together we can balance our national security and environmental 
goals. Over-regulation, even if well-intended, will simply lead 
to more production in adversarial nations with few, if any, 
labor or environmental standards.
    I welcome our new Members and appreciate the important work 
we will do together.
    I also welcome and thank our guests for joining. Thank you 
all for joining us today.
    I now recognize the Ranking Member for any statement she 
may have.

STATEMENT OF THE HON. MELANIE A. STANSBURY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 
             CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO

    Ms. Stansbury. All right. Thank you, Mr. Gosar, Chairman. 
It is an honor to be able to serve alongside you, and welcome 
to our first Subcommittee of Oversight hearing. It is with 
great joy that I am able to serve as the Ranking Member.
    I want to thank our witnesses and guests today and, of 
course, all of our Members who are here for the first time 
today. I am Melanie Stansbury, and I represent New Mexico's 1st 
Congressional District, which is right in the heart of central 
New Mexico. It is a vast rural district that includes 
Albuquerque and many of the surrounding rural and tribal 
communities, which are greatly affected by the work of the 
agencies that this Committee and Subcommittee have jurisdiction 
over.
    These issues that we cover in the Natural Resources 
Committee at large, and especially the oversight that we do in 
this Committee, are of great personal concern to me and to the 
communities that I represent, not only because of the 
significance of the beauty and public lands and waters that are 
within my district and the tribal communities that I help to 
represent and collaborate with, but also because I myself am a 
science professional who has worked in natural resources for 
more than 20 years. I have worked in water resources and 
drought management since the beginning of my career, and worked 
on the counterpart of this Committee in the Senate Energy 
Committee for a number of years, and in the Office of 
Management and Budget.
    In fact, during my time working in the Office of Management 
and Budget, I was actually the budget and policy analyst who 
oversaw the budget for the Bureau--the USGS and the critical 
minerals issues that we are talking about today. So, this is 
actually a topic that I have worked on for many years, 
including during my time in the Senate Energy Committee, where 
I also worked on critical minerals issues in a bipartisan 
manner with my counterparts on the Committee.
    So, the issues that we are going to discuss today are near 
and dear to my heart. Of course, they are of national strategic 
importance.
    But before I dive into that, I just want to take a moment, 
since we are beginning the Subcommittee's work, to talk about 
some of the priorities that we are hoping to work on over the 
course of this Congress. And I hope and am optimistic that we 
will find opportunities for bipartisan collaboration, not only 
for policies to advance the needs of the American people that 
we represent, but also to conduct appropriate oversight and to 
root out waste, fraud, and abuse, which, of course, is our role 
here on the Oversight Committee.
    Among the many issues that this Committee will take up and 
which we are hoping to prioritize in our oversight and policy 
role are issues around the climate and clean energy transition 
and, in particular, helping to empower our communities so that 
they can determine their own economic futures in the process.
    New Mexico is an energy-rich state of all forms of energy. 
And as we are making this transition to a clean energy future, 
it is absolutely critical that our workers, our unions, and our 
communities have a strong voice in every aspect of how we plan 
those local, regional, and national economies.
    It is also crucial that we develop the workforces that help 
to support the development of those industries, and to help 
transition those who are going to see new opportunities as we 
build out a climate resilient grid and energy future.
    In addition to that, obviously, this Committee has broad 
jurisdiction over public lands, forests, and waters. And to the 
extent that the Oversight Committee takes up issues surrounding 
those, we will be working on those issues, as well as upholding 
our responsibilities to our tribes.
    So, the issue that we are here to talk about today, of 
course, is critical minerals. And as we know, critical 
minerals--and as the Chairman discussed--are crucial to the 
future of the United States.
    Up until the 1990s, the United States was a net exporter of 
rare earth minerals. And due to trade policies that began, 
obviously, in the 1980s and extended into the 1990s, American 
mining companies were no longer able to compete due to global 
prices. And as a result of that, we saw the rise in especially 
Chinese investment in mining, and not only in China but across 
the world.
    Recent efforts by the Chinese Government to stockpile and 
to restrict the trade of these elements have put the United 
States and other global countries at risk. For the United 
States, this is a national security issue. This is an issue 
that affects every aspect of our economy, as we are completely 
dependent, every single one of us, on these electronics that 
run our lives these days, and every aspect of our lives.
    So, the question before us is how do we responsibly develop 
our critical minerals supply chain through recycling, re-use, 
innovation, international trade relationships, and making the 
best and most appropriate use of existing resources in the 
United States?
    Let me be clear. We cannot mine and permit our way out of 
this problem. There may be mining solutions that may be a part 
of what we have to do, but that is not the sole solution to 
addressing our critical minerals and national security 
shortage.
    So, I look forward to working with the Chairman, and with 
that I yield back.
    Dr. Gosar. I thank the gentlelady. I now recognize the Full 
Committee Chairman, Mr. Westerman, for any statement.

  STATEMENT OF THE HON. BRUCE WESTERMAN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 
              CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ARKANSAS

    Mr. Westerman. Thank you, Chairman Gosar, and good morning, 
everyone. Thank you for joining us for our first Subcommittee 
hearing for the 118th Congress. And it is very fitting that 
this hearing be with the Oversight and Investigations 
Subcommittee.
    As I have said before, I think the purpose of this 
Committee, and the whole Committee, is to shine light, discover 
truth, and make changes as are needed. And this Committee is 
where much of that light-shining will take place.
    Oversight should be a bipartisan effort by Congress to 
exercise our constitutional duty to have checks and balances 
over an administration. And I believe that is true regardless 
of who the majority or the minority party is in the Congress, 
or who sits at the Oval Office.
    I do want to offer my congratulations to Chairman Gosar and 
Ranking Member Stansbury. You have an important role here, and 
I look forward to your leadership and the work of this 
Subcommittee. I appreciate the opening statements of both the 
Chairman and the Ranking Member. And I think, with that 
attitude, we should be able to do the work of the Committee.
    And I would add to what Ms. Stansbury said, that we can't 
mine and permit our way out of this. Actually, we would have to 
permit and then mine, but it is permit, mine, refine, and 
manufacture. We have to create those supply chains that allow 
us to compete with the--it is, basically, with the Chinese 
Communist Party, it is with Vladimir Putin and Russia. And it 
is a lot of bad actors around the world that are supplying the 
ingredients that go into these phones and other devices.
    In the last Congress, the Inflation Reduction Act, and 
there are, literally, hundreds of billions of dollars to build 
green energy systems. And all of those green energy systems are 
reliant on mining. It comes back to mining, and then the 
processes that take place after that.
    So, we have been blessed with energy and minerals here in 
the United States. Both the Chairman and the Ranking Member 
come from states that are abundantly blessed with energy and 
minerals and therein the focus of where a lot of these policies 
need to be addressed, as well as my friend Mr. Stauber from 
Minnesota.
    So, at the same time, Congress passed a law to spend 
billions of dollars on electrifying our economy. We are also 
seeing actions from the Administration to shut down mining, and 
those two things really don't go hand in hand. They are 
competing interests, and they make the problem even worse.
    We talked in the hearing yesterday about some of these 
issues, and the fact that the World Bank says we need to mine 
as much copper in the next 20 to 25 years as has been mined in 
the history of the world. That is a big challenge. If you just 
focused every effort that we had to do that, it would still be 
hard to meet those challenges. We need to do more recycling, 
but there is not enough to recycle to even come close to meet 
the demands that we have.
    When you look at the critical minerals list and you look at 
where those critical minerals are being supplied from, 
honestly, we should be embarrassed that we are so far down the 
list when we have been blessed with deposits of those critical 
minerals here in the United States. And if we develop those 
minerals here and develop the other parts of the supply chain, 
then that means generating huge amounts of wealth for the 
United States, for U.S. workers, for great jobs in rural 
communities.
    I live in a rural community, and I think just about 
everybody on this dais lives in an area that is either rural or 
close to a rural community, and we know how important these 
jobs are to the local economies.
    And we can do it cleaner and safer, and with less human 
rights violations, actually, I will say with no human rights 
violations.
    [Chart.]
    Mr. Westerman. And the situation we are in right now, as 
these pictures behind me depict, cobalt is Congolese cobalt, 
and it is coming from mines with child slave labor. And we have 
to be realistic, and understand what is happening. As we pour 
more money into an electrified economy, we are increasing the 
labor participation rate in Congo with forced labor, with child 
slave labor, and people forced to do jobs for as little as $2 a 
day or less.
    So, those are the challenges we face with Oversight. I look 
forward to the hearing, I look forward to additional hearings, 
and then I really look forward to taking what we learn from 
these hearings, putting it into substantive legislation, or 
else informing the Appropriations Committee what needs to 
happen on funding for these Federal agencies that are failing 
to do their job.
    And with that, Chairman, I yield back.
    Dr. Gosar. The Ranking Member is on his way. So, when he 
gets here, we will go back to him. We will start with our 
witnesses.
    Our first witness is Mr. Nick Loris, the Vice President of 
Public Policy, C3 Solutions from Arlington, Virginia.
    Our second witness is Dr. Michael Moats, Professor of the 
Department of Materials Science and Engineering, Missouri 
University of Science and Technology, Rolla, Missouri.
    Mr. Aaron Mintzes, Senior Policy Counsel of Earthworks, 
Baltimore, Maryland.
    I now yield to Representative Pete Stauber for 30 seconds 
to introduce our final witness, Mr. Jason George, Business 
Manager for the International Union of Operating Engineers, 
Local 49.

    Mr. Stauber. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Today, I have the 
pleasure of introducing my friend, Jason George.
    Jason serves as the Business Manager and Financial 
Secretary of the Operating Engineers Local 49, or 49ers, as 
they are known in Minnesota, North and South Dakota. There are 
few people that have the insight and leadership of Jason.
    Our 49ers span Minnesota, North Dakota, and South Dakota, 
operating the heavy equipment and doing plant management at 
facilities across the upper Midwest. Whatever the project may 
be, you are likely to find one of Jason's 49er members putting 
in the hard work to build the infrastructure.
    Thank you, Jason, and I look forward to your testimony 
today.

    Dr. Gosar. Let me remind the witnesses that, under 
Committee Rules, they must limit their oral statements to 5 
minutes, but their entire statement will appear in the hearing 
record.
    To begin your testimony, please press the talk button on 
the microphone.
    We use timing lights here. When you begin, the light will 
turn green. When you have 1 minute left, it will turn yellow. 
And at the end of 5 minutes it will turn red. Then I will ask 
you to please complete your statement very shortly.
    I will also allow all witnesses to testify before Member 
questioning.
    The Chair now recognizes Mr. Loris for 5 minutes.

 STATEMENT OF NICK LORIS, VICE PRESIDENT OF PUBLIC POLICY, C3 
                 SOLUTIONS, ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA

    Mr. Loris. Thank you, Chairman Gosar, Ranking Member 
Stansbury, and distinguished members of the Subcommittee. Thank 
you for this opportunity to testify this morning.
    My name is Nick Loris, and I am the Vice President of 
Public Policy for C3 Solutions, which stands for the 
Conservative Coalition for Climate Solutions. With my time, I 
would like to make three brief points: first, the importance of 
critical minerals for the economy and the requirements 
necessary to meet clean energy demands; second, the adverse 
environmental and social impacts from mining and processing 
critical minerals in certain places abroad; and third, 
exploring opportunities to capitalize on domestic mineral 
abundance, to diversify the market, and to reduce dependence on 
foreign adversaries.
    First, non-fuel critical minerals are essential for our 
quality of life, technological progress, national security, and 
environmental ambitions. Critical minerals are the foundation 
that empowers companies to build, manufacture, and innovate, 
and they are the foundation for the products that keep 
Americans and people around the world safe, healthy, and happy.
    Critical minerals are also necessary for renewable and 
clean energy technologies. Most low-carbon and zero-emissions 
technologies require a moderate or high amount of at least two 
critical minerals. And several sources, including wind, 
batteries, and hydrogen, have moderate to high needs for four 
or more critical minerals.
    Significant increases in critical mineral supplies will be 
necessary to address climate change. To meet the International 
Energy Agency's global net-zero targets by 2050, the agency 
estimates the world will need 43 million metric tons of 
critical minerals, a sixfold increase from 2020 levels.
    Granted, we need to take those estimates with a large grain 
of humility. But even under much less ambitious scenarios, it 
is almost certain that future critical mineral needs will be 
substantial.
    And to be clear, the massive critical mineral requirements 
are not by itself a reason to be pessimistic about the future 
of clean energy. Instead, policymakers must recognize the 
importance of these minerals, the realities of future demand, 
and the challenges and opportunities that lie ahead.
    Second, addressing the human rights abuses of critical 
mineral development and processing in certain countries will be 
essential for having socially just growth in clean energy, in 
electric vehicles, and for the continued use of modern 
technologies.
    The Democratic Republic of the Congo supplies nearly 75 
percent of the world's cobalt, and the mining practices are 
appalling, to say the least. Having visited and researched the 
practices, Harvard fellow Siddarth Kara has extensively 
documented the horrors and abuses of artisanal mining in the 
DRC, where tens of thousands of child laborers are digging the 
cobalt out by hand, while breathing in toxic fumes and dust. 
Chinese ownership of most of these mines and Chinese dominance 
of cobalt refining exacerbate the supply chain concerns.
    And speaking of China, the human rights exploitations of 
the Uyghur Muslim minorities and other Muslim minorities in the 
Xinjiang region of China has also been well documented, and is 
extremely concerning. A recent Breakthrough Institute report 
estimates that 42 percent of the global solar grade polysilicon 
production capacity was in that region in the year 2021.
    In addition to the egregious human rights tragedies, there 
are also economic and environmental concerns of over-reliance 
on China for minerals and processing. Poor environmental 
standards and weak enforcement in China have resulted in 
contaminated groundwater and soil, and dangerous levels of air 
pollution.
    Encouragingly, the rare earth market is diversifying 
worldwide to some extent, which will reduce the dependence on 
China, and promote more environmentally friendly ways to mine 
and process rare earths, which brings me to my third point.
    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. For instance, modernizing 
permitting processes should put America on par with countries 
like Canada and Australia that unlock mineral deposits, while 
maintaining rigorous environmental safeguards. The more the 
United States and other developed countries extract their 
resources, the fewer minerals we will need to import from 
countries that have lax environmental standards and use morally 
unconscionable labor practices.
    At a bare minimum, agencies should conduct an environmental 
review, rather than place a mining area off limits before any 
such review is even conducted.
    Further, Congress should continue to support research and 
development for critical minerals recycling, mining, and 
processing innovations. Collaboration among government labs, 
research universities, and the private sector could help unlock 
breakthrough technologies, improve efficiencies, and generate 
market viable alternatives.
    With any subsidies, Congress should also maintain policy 
neutrality. To the extent that the government provides any 
subsidies, technology neutrality will generate more efficient 
outcomes.
    In conclusion, rising prices for mineral commodities could 
slow the deployment of clean energy technologies moving 
forward. Alternatively, rising prices could be an opportunity, 
and should be the signal for markets to act, to increase 
supplies, to develop substitutes, to secure supply chains, 
diversify away from unethically sourced minerals, and reduce 
dependence on foreign adversaries where environmental standards 
are poor.

    Congress can act by removing the barriers that prevent the 
private sector from providing clean, reliable energy choices at 
lower prices.

    Thank you, and I look forward to your questions.

    [The prepared statement of Mr. Loris follows:]
  Prepared Statement of Nick Loris, Vice President of Public Policy, 
      Conservative Coalition for Climate Solutions (C3 Solutions)

    My name is Nick Loris, and I am the Vice President of Public Policy 
at the Conservative Coalition for Climate Solutions (C3 Solutions). 
Thank you for this opportunity to appear before the subcommittee to 
discuss America's dependence on foreign adversaries with respect to 
critical minerals.

    My written testimony consists of the following sections:

     The importance of critical minerals for the quality of 
            life, economic well-being and, national security

     The need for critical minerals to meet clean energy 
            demands and climate ambitions

     The adverse environmental and social impacts from mining 
            and processing in certain places abroad

     Opportunities to capitalize on domestic mineral abundance, 
            diversify supply chains, promote ethical mineral sourcing, 
            and develop market alternatives

Section I. The importance of critical minerals to the economy and to 
        climate objectives

    Critical minerals are just that: critical. Non-fuel mineral 
commodities are essential for quality of life, technological progress, 
national security, and environmental ambitions. Nearly all the modern 
technologies Americans rely on such as cell phones, laptops, 
appliances, and vehicles require critical minerals. They are the 
foundation that empowers companies to build, manufacture and innovate. 
These minerals are necessary inputs to produce affordable energy, 
stable food supplies, defense technologies, and advancements in modern 
medicine. In short, critical minerals are the foundation for the 
products to keep Americans and people around the world safe, healthy, 
and happy.

    More broadly, mineral development is an important source of jobs 
and economic activity in the United States. According to the U.S. 
Geological Survey's (USGS) 2021 Mineral Commodity Summaries report, the 
estimated value of nonfuel mineral production was $82.3 billion in 
2020.\1\ While that figure represents all nonfuel mineral production 
(crushed stone account for 22 percent of that value), the value is 
nonetheless impressive. The USGS highlights just how essential minerals 
are to the overall economy, noting that: ``These mineral materials as 
well as imports of processed mineral materials, which increased by 83% 
in 2020, were, in turn, consumed by downstream industries creating an 
estimated value of $3.03 trillion in 2020, 3% decrease from that in 
2019.'' \2\ The United States supplied an additional 10,000 metric tons 
of rare earth concentrates, a 36 percent increase from 2019.\3\ The 
U.S. continues to be the second largest producer of rare earth 
concentrates, though well behind China.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ U.S. Geological Survey, ``Mineral Commodities Summary,'' 
January 29, 2021, https://pubs.usgs.gov/periodicals/mcs2021/mcs2021.pdf
    \2\ Ibid.
    \3\ U.S. Geological Survey, ``Mineral Commodity Summary February 
2021,'' February 2, 2021, https://www.usgs.gov/media/images/mineral-
commodity-summary-february-2021

    As characterized by The Energy Act of 2020, the other factor which 
makes minerals ``critical'' is their susceptibility to supply chain 
disruptions. Russia's invasion of Ukraine exemplified the economic 
uncertainties, supply chain vulnerabilities and fundamental pitfalls of 
reliance on mineral producers that are hostile to the interests of the 
United States. As a major supplier of nickel, copper, and palladium 
(important inputs for batteries and semiconductors), Russia's invasion 
and subsequent sanctions drove up prices for these elements.\4\ Though 
not a critical mineral, the nuclear industry's reliance on Russian for 
high-assay low-enriched uranium (HALEU) brought conversations about 
more domestic enrichment to the forefront.\5\ Disruptions around the 
world can threaten supplies of minerals necessary for modern 
technologies, including renewable, nuclear, and alternative energy 
technologies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\ Dr. Robert Johnson, ``Supply of Critical Minerals amid the 
Russia-Ukraine War and Possible Sanctions,'' Columbia Center on Global 
Energy Policy, April 2022, https://www. energypolicy.columbia.edu/
publications/supply-critical-minerals-amid-russia-ukraine-war-and-
possible-sanctions and Emily Pickrell, ``Russia-Ukraine War Helps Drive 
Nickel Prices, EV Headaches,'' Forbes, March 31, 2022, https://
www.forbes.com/sites/uhenergy/2022/03/31/russia-ukraine-war-helps-
drive-nickel-prices-ev-headaches/?sh=39a102357cd9
    \5\ Paul Day, ``US urges haste on domestic HALEU plan as Russia 
faces isolation,'' Reuters, March 22, 2022, https://
www.reutersevents.com/nuclear/us-urges-haste-domestic-haleu-plan-
russia-faces-isolation

    According to a recent report from the Citizens for Responsible 
Energy Solutions (CRES), the U.S. is completely import-dependent for 14 
critical minerals and greater than 50 percent-dependent for 17 other 
mineral commodities.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \6\ Phil Rossetti and George David Banks, ``Foreign Mineral Supply 
Chain Dependence Threatens U.S. National Security,'' CRES Forum, March 
2022, https://cresforum.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/
CRES_WhitePager_CriticalMinerals_03212022_v1.pdf

Section II. The need for critical minerals for clean energy and climate 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        ambitions

    As it stands today and for the foreseeable future, renewable and 
clean energy technologies are quite mineral dependent. A March 2022 
report from the International Energy Agency (IEA) details the critical 
minerals necessary for low- and zero-carbon dioxide power generation 
and transportation.\7\ Whether it is wind, solar, hydro, nuclear, 
electric vehicles, battery storage, hydrogen, geothermal, or bioenergy, 
every one of these clean energy technologies requires a moderate or 
high amount of at least two critical minerals.\8\ Several technologies, 
most notably wind, batteries, and hydrogen, have moderate to high needs 
for four or more critical minerals.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \7\ International Energy Agency, ``The Role of Critical Minerals in 
Clean Energy Transitions: World Energy Outlook Special Report,'' March 
2022, https://iea.blob.core.windows.net/assets/ffd2a83b-8c30-4e9d-980a-
52b6d9a86fdc/TheRoleofCriticalMineralsinCleanEnergyTransitions.pdf
    \8\ Ibid. See chart on page 45.
    \9\ Ibid.

    As indicted by the IEA charts below, clean energy technologies are 
much more mineral intensive than their conventional counterparts. When 
comparing electricity generating sources to a natural gas plant, 
offshore wind is 13 times more intensive, onshore wind is nearly 9 
times more intensive, solar photovoltaics are nearly 6 times more 
intensive, and nuclear power is 4.5 times more intensive.\10\ 
Similarly, electric vehicles are 6 times more mineral intensive than 
vehicles powered by an internal combustion engine.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \10\ International Energy Agency, ``The Role of Critical Minerals 
in Clean Energy Transitions: Executive Summary,'' March 2022, https://
www.iea.org/reports/the-role-of-critical-minerals-in-clean-energy-
transitions/executive-summary
    \11\ Ibid.

    Included in list of critical minerals for various clean energy 
technologies is rare earth elements (REEs). The value of REEs lies in 
their unusual physical and chemical properties that give them unique 
magnetic and optical capabilities. Rare earth elements are essential 
for solar cells, batteries, wind turbine magnets and hydrogen 
electrolysers.\12\ They are critical to scaling up clean energy 
deployment and global decarbonization.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \12\ International Energy Agency, ``The Role of Critical Minerals 
in Clean Energy Transitions: World Energy Outlook Special Report,'' 
March 2022, https://iea.blob.core.windows.net/assets/ffd2a83b-8c30-
4e9d-980a-52b6d9a86fdc/
TheRoleofCriticalMineralsinCleanEnergyTransitions.pdf

[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Source: International Energy Agency

    Addressing climate change will require significant increases in the 
critical mineral supply. Setting aside the attainability and potential 
costs of net-zero targets (both necessary considerations), a 
substantial number of critical minerals will be needed to meet any 
emissions target. To meet the IEA's global net zero targets by 2050, 
the agency estimates the world will need 43 million metric tons of 
critical minerals, a sixfold increase from 2020 levels.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \13\ International Energy Agency, ``The Role of Critical Minerals 
in Clean Energy Transitions: Executive Summary,'' March 2022, https://
www.iea.org/reports/the-role-of-critical-minerals-in-clean-energy-
transitions/executive-summary
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In IEA's less ambitious Sustainable Development Scenario (SDS), 
which is the trajectory of clean energy needed to meet the Paris 
Climate Agreement targets, critical mineral growth would need to 
quadruple. IEA estimates that, ``Lithium sees the fastest growth, with 
demand growing by over 40 times in the SDS by 2040, followed by 
graphite, cobalt and nickel (around 20-25 times). The expansion of 
electricity networks means that copper demand for grid lines more than 
doubles over the same period.'' \14\ Notably, these projections exclude 
the demand requirements for steel and aluminum.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \14\ Ibid.

    [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Source: International Energy Agency

    Regarding future critical mineral demand, IEA's sustainable 
development scenario and net-zero scenarios are very ambitious. Making 
these projections a reality would require ``an unprecedented push in 
clean energy.'' \15\ That push includes electric vehicle sales 
increasing from 5 percent in 2020 to 60 percent in 2030 and for 90 
percent of power generation to come from renewable sources, 70 percent 
being wind and solar.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \15\ International Energy Agency, ``Net Zero by 2050 A Roadmap for 
the Global Energy Sector,'' May 2021, https://
iea.blob.core.windows.net/assets/7ebafc81-74ed-412b-9c60-5cc32c8396e4/
NetZeroby2050-ARoadmapfortheGlobalEnergySector-
SummaryforPolicyMakers_CORR.pdf
    \16\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Nevertheless, even if the most ambitious net zero target is not 
met, it is very likely that critical mineral demand will be 
substantial. Energy analysts Philip Rossetti and George David Banks 
analyzed several studies that attempt to estimate the demand for 
critical minerals. Rossetti and Banks write, ``there is a significant 
range in the estimates required across all three analyses, which can 
largely be attributed to varying assumptions as to the rates of 
improvement in the efficiency of materials utilization and in 
recycling, as well as the substitutability of minerals. However, all 
three analyses estimate a non-trivial portion of the Earth's total 
critical minerals would be required to meet global clean energy demand 
[emphasis added].'' \17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \17\ Phil Rossetti and George David Banks, ``Foreign Mineral Supply 
Chain Dependence Threatens U.S. National Security,'' CRES Forum, March 
2022, https://cresforum.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/
CRES_WhitePager_CriticalMinerals_03212022_v1.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Certainly, projecting resource requirements across multiple decades 
is not a prediction but is instead an assessment of the potential 
demand for critical minerals. Expert projections of peak oil, food 
shortages, and resource exhaustion have come and gone, often with 
little accuracy. These projections often assume that past trends and 
the status quo will continue.\18\ However, markets change as innovators 
drive efficiency and technological progress. It is worth projecting 
future critical minerals needs with some humility and optimism that 
markets will find ways to responsibly meet consumers' needs, which may 
or may not include the use of these minerals.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \18\ ``Malthus, the false prophet,'' The Economist, May 15, 2008, 
https://www.economist.com/finance-and-economics/2008/05/15/malthus-the-
false-prophet
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Moreover, massive critical mineral requirements are not by itself a 
reason a reason to be pessimistic about the future of clean energy. 
Instead, policymakers must recognize the importance of these minerals, 
the economic and technological realities of future demand, and the 
challenges and opportunities that lie ahead.
Section III. The adverse environmental and social impacts from mining 
        and processing in certain places abroad

    When considering the environmental effects among all the energy 
sources and technologies available, policymakers must consider the 
broad range of environmental and social tradeoffs. Environmental 
impacts for one product may include impacts on: air quality, water 
quality, greenhouse gas emissions, land use, water use, and fish and 
wildlife habitat. There are direct, indirect, and cumulative effects to 
consider. Some risks are more well-known and others less known. Some 
environmental risks are immediate while others span decades or reach 
centuries into the future.
    Making matters even more difficult is that people weigh 
environmental tradeoffs differently and often neglect opportunity costs 
and unintended consequences. Does an unobstructed river hold more 
environmental value than the air quality and climate benefits from 
hydroelectric power? Does blocking a pipeline lead to more 
environmental risk because companies shift the liquid fuels transport 
to rail, truck, or ship? The reality is that decision-making that 
properly weighs costs, benefits, and trade-offs--using sound, 
transparent science as a guiding tool--is not an easy task.

    The ethics and environmental concerns regarding the sourcing of 
critical minerals have generated more public awareness and bipartisan 
concern. Addressing the human rights abuses and environmental harms of 
critical mineral development will be essential for ensuring socially 
just growth in clean energy and for reliance on many modern 
technologies.

    Rechargeable lithium-ion batteries for smartphones, laptops, and 
electric vehicles require cobalt, which primarily comes from the 
Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC). The DRC supplies nearly 75 
percent of the world's cobalt, and the ethical and social problems from 
cobalt mining in the DRC are appalling, to say the least. Harvard 
fellow Siddharth Kara has extensively documented the horrors and abuses 
of artisanal mining, or digging by hand, in the DRC. Having visited and 
researched the practices, Kara reports that more than 35,000 child 
laborers are digging the cobalt out by hand while breathing in toxic 
fumes and dust. They risk being buried alive by a collapsing tunnel, 
yet earn only a dollar or two per day.\19\ In a recent interview with 
NPR, Kara said:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \19\ Siddarth Kara, ``Is your phone tainted by the misery of the 
35,000 children in Congo's mines?'' The Guardian, October 12, 2018, 
https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2018/oct/12/phone-
misery-children-congo-cobalt-mines-drc and Siddarth Kara, ``I saw the 
unbearable grief inflicted on families by cobalt mining. I pray for 
change,'' The Guardian, December 16, 2019, https://www.theguardian.com/
global-development/commentisfree/2019/dec/16/i-saw-the-unbearable-
grief-inflicted-on-families-by-cobalt-mining-i-pray-for-change

        You have to imagine walking around some of these mining areas 
        and dialing back our clock centuries. ``People are working in 
        subhuman, grinding, degrading conditions. They use pickaxes, 
        shovels, stretches of rebar to hack and scrounge at the earth 
        in trenches and pits and tunnels to gather cobalt and feed it 
        up the formal supply chain. Cobalt is toxic to touch and 
        breathe--and there are hundreds of thousands of poor Congolese 
        people touching and breathing it day in and day out. Young 
        mothers with babies strapped to their backs, all breathing in 
        this toxic cobalt dust.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \20\ Terry Gross, ``How `modern-day slavery' in the Congo powers 
the rechargeable battery economy,'' NPR, February 1, 2023, https://
www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2023/02/01/1152893248/red-cobalt-
congo-drc-mining-siddharth-kara
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Despite attempts to rely on ethical practices for cobalt, cross-
contamination of cobalt from artisanal mines mixed with cobalt from 
industrial mining all but guarantees that unethically sourced cobalt is 
moving up through the supply chain.\21\ The rampant corruption in the 
DRC and the fact that the Chinese own most of the mines in the DRC 
exacerbate the problem.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \21\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Another extremely concerning region for sourcing of critical 
minerals and clean energy is China. The human rights exploitations of 
Uyghur Muslim minorities and other Muslim minorities in the Xinjiang 
region of China has also been well documented. The Department of Labor 
(DOL) has tracked and reported on forced labor connected to many 
products such as food, clothing, textiles, footwear, coal, thread/yarn, 
electronics, cotton, and coal.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \22\ U.S. Department of Labor Bureau of International Affairs, 
``Against Their Will: The Situation in Xinjiang,'' https://www.dol.gov/
agencies/ilab/against-their-will-the-situation-in-xinjiang
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    DOL and many outside organizations have also reported on the 
Xingjian region's connection to polysilicon, a key input for the 
production of solar panels.\23\ A recent Breakthrough Institute report 
estimates that 42 percent of the global solar-grade polysilicon 
production capacity was in that region for 2021.\24\ This percentage 
aligns closely with a May 2021 study from the Helena Kennedy Centre for 
International Justice at Sheffield Hallam University that found the 
Xinjiang region accounted for 45 percent of the polysilicon production 
capacity in 2020.\25\ The same research team recently exposed a 
connection between supply chains (mining, processing, and 
manufacturing) in the auto sector and forced Uyghur labor.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \23\ Ibid
    \24\ Seaver Wang and Juzel Lloyd, ``Sins of a Solar Empire: An 
Industry Imperative to Address Unethical Solar Photovoltaic 
Manufacturing in Xinjiang,'' Breakthrough Institute, November 15, 2022, 
https://thebreakthrough.imgix.net/Sins-of-Solar_Report_v5.pdf
    \25\ Murphy, L. and Elima, N., ``In Broad Daylight: Uyghur Forced 
Labour and Global Solar Supply Chains.'' Sheffield, UK: Sheffield 
Hallam University Helena Kennedy Centre for International Justice. 
https://acrobat.adobe.com/link/track?uri=urn%3Aaaid%3Ascds%3AUS%3 
Ad360ffab-40cc-4d83-8b8b-a8bd503286a3&viewer%21megaVerb=group-discover
    \26\ Murphy, L., Salcito, K, Uluyol, Y, Rabkin, M, et al, ``Driving 
Force: Automotive Supply Chains and Forced Labor in the Uyghur 
Region.'' Sheffield, UK: Sheffield Hallam University Helena Kennedy 
Centre for International Justice, December 2022, https://
acrobat.adobe.com/link/track?uri=urn%3Aaaid%3Ascds%3AUS%3A69ce4867-
d7e7-4a6a-a98b-6c8350ceb714&viewer %21megaVerb=group-discover
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Encouragingly, the federal government is ramping up its efforts to 
block imports of products made with forced labor. In December 2021, 
President Biden signed the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act into law. 
Last November, the U.S. Customs and Border Protection seized 1,053 
shipments of solar equipment from China over slave labor concerns.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \27\ Nichola Groom, ``Exclusive: U.S. blocks more than 1,000 solar 
shipments over Chinese slave labor concerns,'' Reuters, November 11, 
2022, https://www.reuters.com/world/china/exclusive-us-blocks-more-
than-1000-solar-shipments-over-chinese-slave-labor-2022-11-11/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In addition to the egregious human rights tragedies, there is also 
economic and environmental concerns of overreliance on China for 
minerals and processing. Currently, most rare earth minerals are mined 
and processed in China.\28\ According to the U.S. Geological Service, 
China accounted for 80 percent of the rare earth minerals imported into 
the U.S. in 2020.\29\ Poor environmental standards have resulted in 
contaminated water, air, and soil.\30\ Weak enforcement regarding the 
storage of mining waste and wastewater has contaminated groundwater, 
grasslands, and livestock. A history of illegal mining operations has 
created legacy sites that pose human health and environmental risks 
with no clear financial liability. While there has been some progress 
in enforcing more stringent labor and environmental standards, concerns 
remain and efforts in China have not gone nearly far enough.\31\ 
Rossetti and Banks also comment that ``it is estimated that mining and 
extraction of both energy and non-energy related products in China is 
2.2 times as carbon intensive as the United States, and mining support 
services are 5.2 times as carbon-intensive.'' \32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \28\ International Energy Agency, ``The Role of Critical World 
Energy Outlook Special Report Minerals in Clean Energy Transitions,'' 
March 2022, https://www.iea.org/reports/the-role-of-critical-minerals-
in-clean-energy-transitions/executive-summary
    \29\ U.S. Geological Survey, ``Mineral commodity summaries 2021: 
U.S. Geological Survey,'' U.S. Department of Interior, 2021, https://
doi.org/10.3133/mcs2021
    \30\ Jaya Nayar, ``Not So ``Green'' Technology: The Complicated 
Legacy of Rare Earth Mining,'' Harvard International Review, August 12, 
2021, https://hir.harvard.edu/not-so-green-technology-the-complicated-
legacy-of-rare-earth-mining/
    \31\ Rodrigo Castillo and Caitlin Purdy, ``China's Role in 
Supplying Critical Minerals for the Global Energy Transition,'' The 
Brookings Institute, July 2022, https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/
uploads/2022/08/LTRC--ChinaSupplyChain.pdf
    \32\ Phil Rossetti and George David Banks, ``Foreign Mineral Supply 
Chain Dependence Threatens U.S. National Security,'' CRES Forum, March 
2022, https://cresforum.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/
CRES_WhitePager_CriticalMinerals_03212022_v1.pdf

    While policymakers should take steps to diversify the market and 
prohibit the import of products using slave labor, fully decoupling 
from China is also likely unrealistic. One reason is that U.S. 
companies are not solely importing the rare earth elements or oxides 
but products that contain them. The processed rare earths are sent to 
another country for assembly and exported to the U.S. so China would 
have to restrict rare earths trade to all those countries. In many 
cases, the company making the final product also resides in China. 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eugene Gholz, professor of political science at Notre Dame, writes:

        In some cases, like the rare-earth content of Apple's iPhones, 
        the final assembly of the consumer product takes place in 
        China; to stop those rare earths from getting to U.S. 
        consumers, China would have to ban consumer product exports. 
        Perhaps the Chinese government would contemplate banning iPhone 
        sales in a huge trade conflagration, but at that point, access 
        to rare earths would be the least of America's concerns.\33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \33\ Eugene Gholz, ``Here's the dirty truth about China's rare-
earths threat,'' The Washington Post, May 31, 2019, https://
www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/05/31/heres-dirty-truth-about-
chinas-rare-earths-threat/

    An encouraging data point worth mentioning is that China tried to 
cut off rare earths to Japan a decade ago, and the rare earths markets 
diversified. Prices increased, and mines opened in other countries 
including Australia, Brazil, Malaysia, and Vietnam. The rare earths 
mining and processing market continues to diversify. Canada's rare 
earth mining project began shipping concentrated ore in May of last 
year and is functioning without any tailings ponds, making it much more 
environmentally friendly.\34\ Japan, through state backing, is 
investing to extract an abundance of rare earths off its coast.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \34\ The Canadian Press, ``First Canadian rare earth mine starts 
shipping concentrate from N.W.T.,'' CBC, May 23, 2022, https://
www.cbc.ca/news/canada/north/nechalacho-starts-shipping-from-nwt-
1.6462745
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Mountain Pass mine in California re-opened, and it has a processing 
facility. MP Materials, which owns Mountain Pass, ``is one of 3 percent 
of mining operations--the only one in the global rare earth industry--
that recycles the water used for the process and produces dry 
tailings.'' \35\ Several other mining projects and processing 
facilities opened in the U.S., and many non-Chinese rare earth 
processing facilities opened around the world. Market diversification 
is helping to reduce dependence on China and demonstrate more 
environmentally friendly ways to mine and process REEs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \35\ Laura Seligman, ``China Dominates the Rare Earths Market. This 
U.S. Mine Is Trying to Change That,'' Politico, December 14, 2022, 
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2022/12/14/rare-earth-mines-
00071102
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
IV. Opportunities to capitalize on domestic mineral abundance, 
        diversify supply chains, promote ethical mineral sourcing, and 
        develop market alternatives

    Many factors affect the current and future price of various clean 
energy technologies such as input costs, technological innovation, the 
availability of lower cost substitutes, and market efficiencies through 
economies of scale--just to name a few. Cost will be a predominant 
factor for the pace and scope of clean energy adoption in the United 
States and around the world. For instance, electric vehicles are more 
popular, and demand is up, but more than half the respondents of a 
recent poll said lack of affordability was, unsurprisingly, the biggest 
concern.\36\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \36\ ``More U.S. consumers want EVs but prices are a concern--
Deloitte survey,'' Reuters, January 4, 2023, https://www.reuters.com/
technology/more-us-consumers-want-evs-prices-are-concern-deloitte-
survey-2023-01-04/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Liberating the abundance of resources domestically and improving 
efficiencies for private investment and research, development, and 
demonstration programs will help combat rising prices for mineral 
commodities, establish more secure supply chains, and diversify away 
from unethically sourced minerals. American leadership in critical 
mineral development and on climate change should empower innovators to 
provide cleaner choices at lower prices.
    Thus far, the Biden administration has taken a frustratingly 
contradictory approach to procuring the minerals necessary for an 
energy transition. A lithium mine project in Nevada and nickel mine 
project in Minnesota, for example have faced permitting hurdles. Julie 
Padilla, the chief regulatory officer for Twin Metals Minnesota 
testified, ``We can mine here better than anywhere else in the world. 
But the United States will not be able to do that under the current 
regulatory process that is unpredictable, subject to political 
manipulation with changing rules in each administration, and in 
conflict with the priorities of our nation.'' \37\ The more the U.S. 
and other developed countries extract their own resources, the fewer 
minerals they will need to import from countries that have lax 
environmental standards and use morally unconscionable labor practices. 
At a minimum, domestic mining proposals should be granted a rigorous 
environmental review process rather than be placed off limits before 
any review is conducted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \37\ Press release, ``Twin Metals Testifies at U.S. Senate 
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources Hearing on Urgency of 
expanding Domestic Mining,'' Twin Metals Minnesota, March 31, 2022, 
https://www.twin-metals.com/press-release/twin-metals-testifies-at-u-s-
senate-committee-on-energy-and-natural-resources-hearing-on-urgency-of-
expanding-domestic-mining/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In addition to adding layers of red tape and blocking projects, 
President Biden's use of the Defense Production Act (DPA) is also 
misguided. Using the DPA not only sidesteps the necessary system 
reforms but sets a dangerous precedent to have the government usurp the 
role of competitive markets.\38\ Eugene Gholz also warns that, ``US 
government investments using the Defense Production Act to create still 
more rare earth production capacity would add to this glut.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \38\ Eli Lehrer, ``President Biden's Defense Production Act power 
grab,'' The Hill, April 9, 2022, https://thehill.com/opinion/national-
security/3262612-president-bidens-defense-production-act-power-grab/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The government investment could even drive the privately funded, 
already-operating US mine out of business again.'' \39\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \39\ Eugene Gholz, ``The rare earths industry can weather any 
Chinese trade battle,'' CNN, July 23, 2019, https://www.cnn.com/2019/
07/23/perspectives/rare-earths-china-argentina-trade-war/index.html

    Upstream mining and refining have been identified as a challenge to 
meet the objectives targeted in the infrastructure bill and the Biden 
administration's climate targets.\40\ Several private sector-led 
initiatives are at various stages of development to increase resource 
development, processing, and recycling.\41\ Companies and investors are 
also exploring substitutes and alternatives to critical minerals. 
Easing supply chain constraints and securing processed minerals will 
best be achieved by opening domestic and international markets to 
extraction, processing, and trade. Modernizing permitting processes 
should put America on par with countries like Canada and Australia that 
unleash energy abundance while maintaining rigorous environmental 
safeguards and input from communities.\42\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \40\ Camille Erickson, ``Infrastructure bill challenged by dearth 
of US upstream mining, refining,'' S&P Global Market Intelligence, 
November 10, 2021, https://www.spglobal.com/marketintelligence/en/news-
insights/latest-news-headlines/infrastructurebill-challenged-by-dearth-
of-us-upstream-mining-refining-67508084
    \41\ Alex Fitzsimmons, ``Time to Build a Domestic Critical Minerals 
Supply Chain,'' ClearPath, October 21, 2021, https://clearpath.org/our-
take/time-to-build-a-domestic-critical-minerals-supply-chain/
?gclid=CjwKCAiAuOieBhAIEiwAgjCvcqsyySUdaKtCmZeOMjwNGyJSeYSgN2M9kDgoSFY 
X_cy_CK5H70_krRoCOLIQAvD_BwE
    \42\ Minerals Make Life, ``Delays in the U.S. Mine Permitting 
Process Impair and Discourage Mining at Home,'' National Mining 
Association, May 2021, https://nma.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/
Infographic_SNL_minerals_permitting_5.7_updated.pdf

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Policymakers should:

     Strengthen partnerships with the private sector and with 
            allied countries to ensure that critical minerals are 
            ethically and responsibly sourced. While challenging, more 
            stringent verification of ethically sourced minerals is 
            imperative and should help reduce human rights abuses, 
            reduce dependence on corrupt, unethical actors, and develop 
            a more responsibly sourced critical mineral supply chain.

     Expedite permitting for natural resource extraction and 
            energy projects and infrastructure. Modernizing the 
            National Environmental Policy Act would significantly 
            improve the permitting process for energy security, 
            capitalizing on America's abundance of natural resources 
            and diversifying America's energy sources. Importantly, 
            sensible resource development in the U.S. and in allied 
            countries would have a smaller environmental and climate 
            footprint. Congress should also Prohibit both pre-emptive 
            and retroactive vetoes under Section 404 of the Clean Water 
            Act.
     Open opportunities for state-led environmental reviews and 
            permits. Empowering states to conduct the environmental 
            review and permits could create more efficient and 
            localized reviews that better address the needs of local 
            communities. State regulators could acquire technical 
            expertise from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 
            the Bureau of Land Management, and the Environmental 
            Protection Agency as necessary.

     Work with the private sector to maximize the efficiency of 
            money allocated for research, development, and 
            demonstration included in the Infrastructure Investment and 
            Jobs Act (IIJA). IIJA includes National Science Foundation 
            grants for basic research on domestic critical minerals 
            mining and recycling, $320 million for the U.S. Geological 
            Survey for its Earth Mapping Resources Initiative, and $140 
            million to build a Rare Earth Demonstration Facility.

     Continue research and development for critical minerals 
            recycling that can turn mine waste into useful products and 
            provide research and development support for developing 
            substitutes for critical minerals. For instance, the 
            Department of Energy's Advanced Research Projects Agency-
            Energy (ARPA-E) Mining Innovations for Negative Emissions 
            Resource Recovery (MINER) program could help unlock 
            breakthrough technologies that supply economically feasible 
            alternatives to critical minerals.\43\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \43\ Press release, ``DOE Announces $39 Million for Technology to 
Grow the Domestic Critical Minerals Supply Chain and Strengthen 
National Security,'' The Department of Energy, October 27, 2022, 
https://www.energy.gov/articles/doe-announces-39-million-technology-
grow-domestic-critical-minerals-supply-chain-and

     Maintain openness to alternative mining sources. The ocean 
            floor contains nodules that are rich in minerals that can 
            be used for batteries, renewable energy and defense 
            technologies. The nodules can effectively be scooped up 
            from the ocean floor and the deep ocean (down to 20,000 
            feet). There is no actual mining, extraction, or tailings 
            associated with deep seabed mining, and studies have shown 
            the climate and environmental impact is far smaller than 
            the conventional mining of minerals. While it is critical 
            to understand the ecological and environmental risks and 
            impacts of deep seabed mining, it is also important to 
            evaluate the trade-offs between the various ways to extract 
            and refine minerals. More collaboration among companies, 
            coastal countries, and scientists should establish a 
            transparent, science-based assessment of seabed mining.\44\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \44\ Cecilia Jamasmie, ``Extracting battery metals from seafloor 
may beat traditional mining--study,'' Mining.com, April 22, 2020, 
https://www.mining.com/extracting-battery-metals-from-seafloor-beats-
traditional-mining-study/ and Daina Paulikas, ``Life cycle climate 
change impacts of producing battery metals from land ores versus deep-
sea polymetallic nodules,'' Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 275, 
No. 123822, December 1, 2020, https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/
article/pii/S0959652620338671?via%3Dihub and Christina Jovanovic, 
``Precious and Few: Solving Renewable Energy's Critical Minerals 
Problem,'' LSU Journal of Energy Law and Resources, Vol. 9, Issue 1, 
Winter 2021, https://digitalcommons.law.lsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent. 
cgi?article=1204&context=jelr

     Maintain energy source and technology neutrality. The 
            critical minerals that the economy relies on today may look 
            much different in 20 or 30 years. Breakthrough technologies 
            could make certain critical minerals much less valuable if 
            companies develop an economically competitive alternative. 
            If government policy tips the scale toward specific mature 
            technologies, it will be that much more difficult for 
            innovators to disrupt the market. To the extent government 
            provides any subsidies, technology neutrality will generate 
            more efficient outcomes. Congress should also narrow 
            government procurement and purchase of rare earth elements 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
            to Department of Defense and national security needs.

                                 ______
                                 

    Dr. Gosar. Thank you, Mr. Loris.
    We have been joined by the Ranking Member for the Full 
Committee. He is now recognized.

  STATEMENT OF THE HON. RAUL M. GRIJALVA, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 
               CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ARIZONA

    Mr. Grijalva. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and other than to 
congratulate you and the Ranking Member on the positions, a 
very important Committee, and associate myself with the Ranking 
Member's opening remarks--I thought you said it much better 
than I could--and to just put in the hopper that I don't think 
we can look at this regulatory side and permitting side in 
terms of what needs to be done there, relative to mining and 
critical minerals without overlapping on that 1872 mining law, 
which many of the controversies that are occurring, not only in 
my state but across the country, are in relationship to how 
that law is not working for these times.
    With that, let me yield back, and thank you very much.
    Dr. Gosar. I thank the gentleman from Arizona. The Chair 
now recognizes Dr. Moats for 5 minutes.

 STATEMENT OF MICHAEL MOATS, PROFESSOR AND DEPARTMENT CHAIR OF 
   MATERIALS SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING, MISSOURI UNIVERSITY OF 
            SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, ROLLA, MISSOURI

    Dr. Moats. Thank you, Chairman Gosar, Ranking Member 
Stansbury, and distinguished members of the Subcommittee. I 
thank you for the opportunity to speak before you today on this 
important topic related to critical minerals.
    My name is Mike Moats, and I am a Professor of 
Metallurgical Engineering, the Chair of Materials Science and 
Engineering at Missouri University of Science and Technology. I 
have 30 years of experience as an extractive metallurgist. I 
have worked with many of the mining companies and metal 
producers in our country and abroad, and I offer you my 
experience and my observations from how to actually produce 
metals.
    As you know, critical minerals are very important to modern 
lives. We have already talked about the importance of what it 
is in the cell phone. We often focus on the battery minerals 
and the rare earths, but if you don't have gallium, you don't 
have WiFi; if you don't have indium, you don't have the touch 
screen; if you don't have tellurium, you don't have your solar 
panels. There is a lot more to it than just the battery 
minerals and the rare earths that are often talked about in the 
news.
    USGS produced their updated list in 2022. There are 50 
critical minerals. We use 87 elements on the periodic table for 
manufacturing; 50 of them are on a critical mineral list. This 
shows you the dire straits that our country is facing because 
of our lack of production.
    I appreciate Ranking Member Stansbury's comments this 
morning because, over my career, over my lifetime, I have 
watched the United States decline. We were once a metal mining 
powerhouse, and now we are not. I work with a lot of mining 
companies, and I have watched smelters and refineries close 
down. And we need to reverse course.
    Over the last 30 years, China has built 40 copper smelters. 
They will build another four in the next few years, and this is 
only to meet internal demand. They now produce 11 million tons 
of copper every year; the United States produces 2.
    If you produce the copper, if you refine the copper, you 
control the tellurium. Many of our critical minerals are by-
products. If you control the zinc production, you control the 
germanium which is needed for integrated circuits for 
satellites and the indium. If you control the aluminum--which 
they now control 40 percent of the world's production, and they 
produce over 40 million tons of aluminum, relative to our less 
than 1 million--you control gallium.
    It is not even on the critical mineral list, but steel 
production is essential for all of modern life. We produce 
about 82 million tons in the United States. Over two-thirds of 
that comes from recycling. The Chinese now produce 990 million 
tons of steel every year. That is enough to produce 14,000 
Nimitz-class aircraft carriers every year.
    While not all steel goes into aircraft carriers, what I am 
very concerned about is the fact that all of those plants that 
produce lead, zinc, copper, and steel, that are not on our 
critical mineral lists--some are--they are going to come out of 
their country. And when they do that, they are going to flood 
the world. And are we, as a country, going to do things to 
protect the plants that we need to produce the raw materials 
for our feedstocks?
    As we look at what has happened around the world, our 
plants, our mines, our facilities have declined, and the 
companies are trying the best they can. And again, as Ranking 
Member Stansbury--I think you had excellent comments--they are 
just not economical. Why? Because other countries are not 
playing on the same playing field as we are.
    We need to level the playing field for our corporations to 
make money and do the right thing. And they will. I work with 
many of them. They are on the cutting forefront of 
environmental responsibility. They live in the same communities 
that they produce in, and they want to do the right things. It 
is just hard to make money in this environment.
    So, with that, I would also like to point out that, if you 
are going to build these plants, if you are going to build 
these mines, if you are going to build these recycling 
facilities, you need the workforce. Just like the plants have 
been under-funded, so have the universities and some of the 
community colleges.
    We need not only really talented engineers, which, of 
course, I would be happy to produce for you, but we also need 
the tradesmen. I can tell you that most plants and most mines 
are mostly concerned about who is going to run the haul truck, 
who is going to put the pipe on, who is going to do the 
welding. We need to focus on the trades, as well as the 
engineers who are going to develop all of these things that you 
want to innovate.
    We need to look at how to create more value out of our 
existing operations in the short term, while looking at new 
deposits and new opportunities to expand our production of 
these critical minerals and all minerals and all metals in the 
United States. Thank you.

    [The prepared statement of Dr. Moats follows:]
  Prepared Statement of Dr. Michael S. Moats, Professor and Chair of 
Materials Science and Engineering, Thomas J. O'Keefe Institute for the 
   Sustainable Supply of Strategic Minerals, Missouri University of 
                         Science and Technology

    Chairman Gosar, Ranking Member Stansbury, and distinguished members 
of the Subcommittee. Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you 
today for this important hearing, ``Dependence on Foreign Adversaries: 
America's Critical Minerals Crisis.''
    My name is Michael Moats, and I am a professor of metallurgical 
engineering and chair of the Materials Science and Engineering 
department at Missouri University of Science and Technology. I have 
dedicated my career to the production of metals, developing technology 
to improve these processes and educating engineers. I offer my insights 
gained over 30 years in industry and academia. I have worked in 
industry for public and private corporations that serve the mining and 
metal production industries. In academia, I have worked for the 
University of Utah and now am a faculty/administrator at Missouri 
University Science and Technology. Today, I offer my own opinion and 
views, and not those of past or current employers.
Importance of Critical Minerals

    Critical minerals are elements or compounds that have been deemed 
by the United States government to pose a significant risk in terms of 
supply and impact on our country. The United States Geological Survey 
(USGS) has been tasked with maintaining the critical mineral list which 
was last published in 2022.\1\ The critical mineral list is created 
through an analysis of three criteria: (1) the likelihood of a supply 
disruption, (2) the impact to the nation's economy and defense if a 
supply disruption occurs, and (3) if there is a significant supply risk 
existing. Of the 87 elements that are used for manufacturing, 50 are on 
the list! This fact alone reveals the dire situation that our country 
faces in terms of raw material supply as we are dependent on foreign 
countries, some of which are adversaries.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ ``2022 Final List of Critical Minerals'', Federal Register, pp. 
10381-10382, 02/24/2022.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The importance of critical minerals can be seen in the modern 
devices that are important to all Americans. Gallium in the form of 
gallium arsenide phosphide and gallium nitride are essential for 
integrated circuits (semiconductor chips), laser diodes, light emitting 
diodes (LED)s, and radio frequency (RF) cellular used in smartphones. 
Tellurium is used in cadmium telluride, which is a high-efficiency 
solar collector utilized on 50% of the grid scale solar arrays in the 
United States and is combined with bismuth to produce thermal imaging 
night vision optics for civilian and military use. Indium is 
principally used as indium tin oxide in most flat panel displays and is 
growing in use in 5th generation (5G) fiber optic communications. Each 
of these critical minerals is captured during the processing of base 
metals. They are not mined and produced for their value alone. 
Therefore, the country that dominates base metal production controls 
the market for these minor tonnage elements.
Chinese Dominance in Base Metal Production

    I was born in 1970. In that year, the United States was a mining 
and metal producing powerhouse. The nation produced the majority of its 
metal needs. We produced 31% of the world's alumina, 35% of the lead, 
23% of the copper, and 17% of the world's zinc.\2\ While the 1970s was 
a time of energy crises and concerns over foreign oil dependence, metal 
production did not worry our nation. A snapshot of U.S. non-ferrous 
mining and metal production is provided in Figure 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ Bureau of Mines/Minerals yearbook: Metals, minerals, and fuels, 
Volume 1 (1970)

 Figure 1.--U.S. copper, zinc, lead and alumina/aluminum production in 
                                  1970
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


    Bureau of Mines/Minerals yearbook: Metals, minerals, and fuels, 
Volume 1 (1970)

    However, the seeds of decline were sown during that decade which 
would impact domestic metal production for years to come and eventually 
result in American dependence on the world to supply many of the metals 
needed for modern living. Many countries invested in new or upgraded 
metal production facilities that met heightened environmental 
standards. This did not occur in the United States. Many U.S. smelters 
and refiners could not compete economically against these newer 
facilities due to pressures to upgrade their plants to meet tighter 
environmental standards and declining ore grades at local mines. The 
1980s and 1990s witnessed the closure of primary and secondary smelters 
leading to consolidation within the industry, which resulted in few 
companies willing to invest in their operations to potentially meet 
domestic demand. By 1995, the U.S. was producing 33% less alumina and 
33% less zinc as compared to 1970. Due to a significant technology 
advancement pioneered in Arizona, copper production increased by 44% 
from 1970 to 1995.\3\ That advancement was an outcome of research on 
separation processes developed for uranium production with funding from 
the Department of Energy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\ USGS National Minerals Information Center's Mineral Commodity 
1996 Yearbook
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    While the United States seemed content to outsource its metal 
production, China executed a different plan. This resulted in 
significantly different outcomes between 1995 and 2022. Figures 2-6 
offer visual comparisons of mining and metal production for copper, 
zinc, lead, aluminum and steel in 1995 and 2022 for the United States 
and China.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\ USGS National Minerals Information Center's Mineral Commodity 
Summaries and Yearbooks, 1995 and 2023.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Over the past 27 years, the United States lost 30% of its copper 
mining capacity and 57% of its copper metal production (Figure 2). 
Meanwhile, China built 40 copper smelters and is presently planning to 
build four more to meet its internal demand.\5\ This resulted in 
Chinese copper production increasing by 1570 percent! While Chinese 
copper mining has increased, most of China's copper is mined elsewhere 
(e.g., Chile and Peru) and shipped as mineral concentrate. The Chinese 
mineral demand to feed its smelters and refineries occurs in several 
metal supply chains resulting in a ``Mine for China'' phenomenon that 
has swept through developing countries with mineral resources. China 
now produces 42% of the world's refined copper, while the United States 
produces only 4%.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \5\ Based on information made by Wang Wei (NFSoc) during his 
presentation ``Development of copper metallurgy technology in China'' 
on November 16, 2022, at the Copper 2022 Conference in Santiago, Chile.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In 1995, the United States and China mined and smelted similar 
tonnages of zinc (Figure 3). During the past 27 years, China has 
increased its zinc production by 580% and now produces 45% of the 
world's zinc. Meanwhile, U.S. production has declined 63% and only 
accounts for 2% of the world's zinc. Zinc was added to the 2022 
Critical Mineral list by the USGS.
    Lead mining and metal production declined in the United States by 
28% and 21% from 1995 to 2022 (Figure 4). Domestic lead metal 
production has shifted completely to recycling with the last primary 
smelter in Herculaneum, Missouri, closing in 2013. Lead mining, 
smelting and battery production provides a $2.3 billion impact on the 
Missouri economy \6\ and is still critical for all automobiles 
including EVs.\7\ Again, while the U.S. lead production declined, 
Chinese production expanded dramatically. Between 1995 and 2022, China 
expanded in lead mine and metal production by 465% and 1210%, 
respectively! China now produces 44% of the world's lead.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \6\ Doe Run Company Fact Sheet. Downloaded on 1/31/2023 from 
https://doerun.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/2021_Doe_Run-
Economic_Impact-Fact_Sheet-08.pdf
    \7\ ``How lead batteries could make EVs safer'', World Economic 
Forum, Aug 9, 2021.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

  Figure 2.--Changes in copper mine and metal production from 1995 to 
                  2022 for the United States and China

[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


 Figure 3.--Changes in zinc mine and metal production from 1995 to 
                  2022 for the United States and China

[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


 Figure 4.--Changes in lead mine and metal production from 1995 to 
                  2022 for the United States and China

[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


    .epsSimilar expansions and dominance in Chinese production of 
aluminum and steel also occurred (Figures 5 and 6). Steel and aluminum 
are two of the major building materials for human civilization. They 
are critical for infrastructure, transportation, and defense. While 
``critical minerals'' like rare-earths and battery metals have garnered 
headlines and grabbed the attention of many, the astonishing production 
increases by the Chinese in alumina, aluminum and steel have completely 
re-shaped the world's metal markets.
    In alumina and aluminum, the Chinese have increased their 
production by 3450% and 2100% in the past 27 years! They now produce 
54% and 58% of these materials needed for lightweight transportation, 
construction, consumer goods and military applications. At the same 
time, the U.S. production has decreased by 74% in both alumina and 
aluminum. Aluminum is considered a critical mineral by the United 
States.

Figure 5.--Changes in alumina and aluminum production from 1995 to 2022 
                    for the United States and China

[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


    .epsChina dominates the world's steel production with a staggering 
990 million metric tons produced in 2022 (54% of the world's total). 
China's steelmakers have increased their outputs by 1100% from 1995 to 
2022. China now produces enough steel each year to produce 14,000 
Nimitz class aircraft carriers. Again, while China expanded, the United 
States struggled to maintain its steel mills and declined by 14% over 
the same period.

Figure 6.--Changes in steel production from 1995 to 2022 for the United 
                            States and China

[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


Chinese Dominance in Critical Minerals from Base Metal Production

    A consequence of Chinese base metal dominance is its control of 
minor by-products that are captured during refining. Many of these by-
products populate the U.S. Critical Mineral list.\8\ Gallium, needed 
for advanced electronics, is recovered from alumina production. 
Tellurium, used in high efficiency solar panels and military grade 
night vision optics, is collected during copper refining. Indium, used 
in touch screens, is produced from zinc refining. Chinese dominance in 
several non-rare earth critical elements captured during base metal 
processing and refining are summarized in Table 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \8\ ``2022 Final List of Critical Minerals'', Federal Register, pp. 
10381-10382, 02/24/2022.

  Table 1.--Chinese Percentage of the World's Primary Production for 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Gallium, Tellurium, Indium and Germanium

[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


United States Metal Needs Examined

    Inherent to analyses and discussions related to metal production is 
what are the needs of the United States. Using data from the USGS 
(2018-2021), a comparison of mining and metal production that occurs in 
United States, Canada and Mexico to U.S. Consumption for aluminum, 
copper, zinc, lead and nickel is presented in Table 2.

 Table 2.--Mining and metal production of five metals compared to U.S. 
                    consumption (1000s metric tons)

[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


    These data indicate that through recycling (secondary), the 
U.S. can produce most of the aluminum it consumes and Canada with its 
``aluminum valley'' can supply higher purity metal as needed. The 
United States is completely dependent on mining of bauxite (aluminum 
ore) that occurs in other countries. There appears to be a deficit in 
copper, zinc and lead metal production in the United States as compared 
to our mining. The country exports mineral concentrates of copper, zinc 
and lead and then imports refined metal. This results in losses in jobs 
and critical mineral production. Existing smelters could be expanded, 
or new ones constructed. The United States relies on its allies for 
copper, zinc, and lead metal production.
    I have tried to avoid a discussion of battery metals and rare 
earths to this point because these elements seem to dominate the news 
and government focus. In short, the data shown in Table 2 reveal that 
the U.S. produces zero tons of primary nickel metal. The same is true 
for cobalt metal and rare earths. The U.S. is entirely dependent on 
other countries for these refined metals. Rare-earth, nickel and cobalt 
mining does occur in the United States, but not to the level needed for 
our consumption. Rare-earth mining and production including magnets is 
controlled by China and the U.S. has no refining capacity. Chinese 
companies have acquired many of the cobalt mines in Central Africa and 
refined the materials in China, so they control this critical element 
as well.
Closing Remarks

    When I chose to pursue a Ph.D. in extractive metallurgy in 1995, I 
was warned by senior colleagues to select a different field of study. 
They warned I would chase ever decreasing research budgets and 
opportunities. For most of the past 27 years, this has been true. In 
the past few years, the U.S. federal government has awoken to the 
problems we face in metal production. The difficulties caused by the 
global pandemic and heightened geopolitical tensions have only 
increased federal concerns.
    Federal funding is needed to overcome the uneven playing field 
caused by China's massive build-up of its metal producing capacity. 
Funding is also needed to ensure all existing smelters, refineries and 
mills are updated to maintain their international competitiveness. If 
the United States does not reverse the trends in metal production, we 
will continue to depend on others for our economy and defense which has 
increasing become controlled by current or potential adversaries.
    In the past few years, I have studied critical minerals in base 
metal supply chains and have been helping domestic metal producers to 
develop processes to capture critical minerals. Projects to recover 
more tellurium, gallium, germanium, indium, nickel, and cobalt from 
U.S. resources are on-going. I have provided input into federal policy 
discussions and project selection. I have participated in the annual 
critical minerals workshop at Missouri S&T sponsored by the National 
Science Foundation to connect and engage researchers and industry. 
There is still significant work to be done to create process to recover 
critical minerals from domestic sources.
    Universities focused on mining and metallurgy are doing our part, 
but we have suffered from underfunding for decades like the U.S. metal 
production facilities. As the country looks to onshore mining and metal 
production, highly trained personnel will be needed to design, build 
and operate these mines, smelters and refineries. Federal assistance to 
support the remaining mining and metallurgy schools is much needed.
    In closing, I wish to thank the subcommittee for this opportunity 
to present information on the implications of depending on our foreign 
adversaries for critical minerals, and why it is imperative that we 
work to solve America's critical minerals crisis. I hope the data and 
analysis that I presented before you today will help to inform policy 
discussions regarding the importance of critical minerals. Thank you 
for the opportunity to testify and I look forward to any questions you 
may have.

                                 ______
                                 

    Dr. Gosar. Thank you, Dr. Moats.
    The Chair now recognizes Mr. Mintzes for 5 minutes.

STATEMENT OF AARON MINTZES, SENIOR POLICY COUNSEL, EARTHWORKS, 
                         WASHINGTON, DC

    Mr. Mintzes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Gosar, Ranking Member Stansbury, members of the 
Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to testify before 
you on reducing America's dependence on irresponsibly sourced 
minerals.
    My name is Aaron Mintzes. I am with Earthworks, a non-
profit organization dedicated to protecting communities and the 
environment from mineral impacts, while supporting the just, 
equitable, and rapid transition to renewable energy.
    I would like to just adopt the Westerman-Stansbury approach 
about we can't permit or mine our way out of this crisis. 
Improving minerals supply chains means fixing the weaker links. 
The common misconception is that mining is the weaker link. 
Instead, we need to build stronger links of circular economy 
infrastructure in the midstream and end of life management for 
battery materials, cell phone materials, as well.
    The best way to meet this demand is to invest in facilities 
and methods to recycle, refurbish, reuse, and substitute the 
minerals we already have. The President's supply chain 
Executive Order, the Infrastructure Law, and the Inflation 
Reduction Act are making important strides toward opening 
access to recycled materials and reducing our dependence on 
mined minerals.
    Currently, the circular economies for mostly allied nations 
produce and help supply the markets for recycled materials. The 
United States remains years behind Asia's and Europe's circular 
economy infrastructure.
    Last month, the European Union finalized their battery 
directive. Soon, batteries of the EU will come with a traceable 
QR code known as a battery passport: recycled content 
requirements, producer responsibility, and supply chain due 
diligence. Research indicates that, with the right policies in 
place like these, we can create a more circular economy that 
may approximately have global demand for certain mined minerals 
like cobalt, lithium, nickel, key to the clean energy 
transition.
    Even greater reductions, up to 90 percent for lithium, are 
achievable through investments in mass transit and better 
battery design.
    As the market for secondary use of these materials matures, 
this further reduces the pressure to source from new mines. 
Government procurement and consumer pressure both play 
important roles in driving innovation, driving incentives 
toward more responsible material sourcing.
    Major consumers, including automakers and electronics 
companies, have directed their suppliers to source more 
responsibly by committing to the Initiative for Responsible 
Mining Assurance, or IRMA, which independently audits and 
certifies environmental and social performance at mines.
    We acknowledge the importance of supply chain security in 
certain minerals. However, we challenge the notion that our 
public lands agencies could or even should resolve the 
geopolitics of highly specialized internationally-traded 
commodities. While domestic mines will source some raw 
materials, the task of managing supply chains has almost 
nothing to do with mining.
    Congress designated that task to the agencies of the 
Critical Minerals Consortium, with well-established tools for 
managing that task. Those include authorities to stockpile 
minerals, impose trade restrictions, negotiate agreements, 
promote research development workforces, discover alternatives. 
They blend tradecraft and statecraft with engineering, R&D, all 
to reduce risk of supply disruptions and improve environmental 
outcomes.
    As the U.S. Government pursues these strategies, we urge 
agencies to require operators perform due diligence across 
their supply chains in accordance with internationally accepted 
standards. In particular, we call on the Biden administration 
to uphold Indigenous people's rights to self-determination and 
right to free, prior, and informed consent.
    No solution is perfect. Even with more robust material re-
use and collection, new hardrock mines on public lands will 
provide materials. However, mining public lands under a law 
explicitly designed for settler colonialism only furthers 
environmental injustice, and puts inequitable transition out of 
reach. Legislative and regulatory reform can create more 
responsible domestic mining policies that put protections for 
communities at the forefront.
    In conclusion, Earthworks strongly supports immediately 
transitioning to a justly-sourced renewable energy economy to 
prevent further disruption from the climate crisis. Thank you 
very much.

    [The prepared statement of Mr. Mintzes follows:]
 Prepared Statement of Aaron Mintzes, Senior Policy Counsel, Earthworks
    Chairman Gosar, Ranking Member Stansbury, and Members of the 
Subcommittee:

    Thank you for the opportunity to testify before you on reducing 
America's dependence on irresponsibly sourced materials. Please accept 
this testimony on behalf of Earthworks, a nonprofit organization 
dedicated to protecting communities and the environment from mineral 
impacts, while supporting the clean, just, equitable, and rapid 
transition to renewable energy.
Building Domestic Circular Economy Infrastructure to Responsibly Secure 
        Energy Transition Materials

    Improving supply chains for energy transition materials means 
fixing the weaker links. The common misconception is that mining is the 
weak supply chain link. Instead, we need to build stronger links of 
circular economy infrastructure in the midstream and end-of-life 
management of energy transition materials. The best way to meet demand 
is to vest in facilities and methods to recycle, refurbish, reuse, and 
substitute the materials we already have.
    The President's America's Supply Chains Executive Order, the 
Infrastructure Investment in Jobs Act (IIJA), and the Inflation 
Reduction Act are making important strides toward opening access to 
recycled materials and reducing our dependence on mined minerals. 
Currently, the circular economies from mostly allied nations produce 
and help supply markets for recycled materials. The United States 
remains years behind Asia's and Europe's circular economy 
infrastructure to supply our demands for responsibly sourced energy 
transition materials.
    Last month, the European Union finalized their Battery 
Directive.\1\ This regulation establishes the key suite of standards to 
responsibly secure supplies for energy transition materials. Batteries 
sold in the EU market will come with a traceable QR code/label known as 
a battery passport and requirements for recycled content, extended 
producer responsibility, and supply chain due diligence. These are 
similar to the standards a California state working group recommended 
to their legislature \2\ as well as what IIJA directed the Department 
of Energy grants to consider.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Please see https://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-
5469-2023-INIT/en/pdf
    \2\ Please see Lithium-ion Car Battery Recycling Advisory Group 
Final Report. Prepared by CalEPA and UC Davis, March 16, 2022. 
Available at: https://calepa.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/sites/6/2022/05/
2022_AB-2832_Lithium-Ion-Car-Battery-Recycling-Advisory-Goup-Final-
Report.pdf
    \3\ Please see IIJA, Public Law 117-58, Sections 40207, 40208, and 
40209.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Research indicates that with the right policies in place, we can 
create a more circular economy that may approximately halve global 
demand for certain minerals, like cobalt, lithium, and nickel, key to 
the clean energy transition.\4\ As the market for secondary use of 
materials from electric vehicle batteries matures, this further reduces 
pressure to source from new mines.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\ Please see Dominish, E., Florin, N., Wakefield-Rann, R., 
(2021). Reducing new mining for electric vehicle battery metals: 
responsible sourcing through demand reduction strategies and recycling. 
Report prepared for Earthworks by the Institute for Sustainable 
Futures, University of Technology Sydney.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In addition to policy fixes, the US Government has several tools 
available to enhance material supply chain security and reduce pressure 
to source from irresponsible mines. Government procurement and consumer 
pressure both play important roles driving incentives and innovation in 
more responsible material sourcing. Major consumers, including 
automakers and electronics companies, have also directed their 
suppliers to source more responsibly. Some have committed to the 
Initiative for Responsible Mining Assurance (IRMA), which independently 
audits and certifies environmental and social performance at mines.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \5\ Please see responsiblemining.net
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
America's Critical Mineral Industrial Complex Designed to Reduce Supply 
        Chain Disruption

    We acknowledge the importance of supply chain security in certain 
materials. However, we challenge the notion that our public lands 
agencies should, or even could, resolve the geopolitics and economics 
of specialized, internationally-traded commodities. While domestic 
mines will source some raw materials, the task of managing supply 
chains has almost nothing to do with mining. Congress designated that 
task to other agencies, aside from those managing public lands, with 
well-established tools to reduce supply chain risk, including for 
energy transition materials.
    The Energy Policy Act of 2020 and IIJA directed the Departments of 
Commerce (DOC), Defense (DOD), Energy (DOE), State (DOS), Interior's 
United States Geological Survey (USGS), and other agencies to build a 
vast critical minerals consortium.\6\ Congress has repeatedly provided 
these agencies with broad authorities to stockpile minerals, impose 
trade restrictions, negotiate agreements, promote research, develop 
workforces, and discover alternatives. They blend tradecraft and 
statecraft with engineering, research, and development to reduce a 
material's criticality. Often, this means finding substitutes, 
diversifying supply, imposing trade restrictions, or increasing 
recycling, reuse, and collection. President Biden's America's Supply 
Chains Executive Order, with support from the 117th Congress, uses 
three main strategies to manage supply chain risks in energy transition 
materials.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \6\ See Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2021, Public law 116-260 
Sections 7001 IIJA Public law 117-169 Sections 40201-40211
    \7\ Please see White House's 100 Day Reviews under Executive Order 
14017 (June 2021). Available at: https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/
uploads/2021/06/100-day-supply-chain-review-report.pdf

  1.  Lowering geopolitical risk of a supply chain disruption by 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
            diversifying sources;

  2.  Secondary recovery of materials from oil, gas, and mine waste; 
            and

  3.  Materials recycling, reuse, design, substitution, and building a 
            circular economy

    To diversify sources, in March 2022, the Biden Administration 
invoked the Defense Production Act to secure a reliable supply chain 
for five minerals used in batteries that power electric vehicles and 
other clean energy infrastructure.\8\ The Defense Department has also 
vested in mining and mineral processing projects in California,\9\ 
Texas,\10\ and Idaho.\11\ Last year, Congress provided DOD $1 billion 
in the FY 23 NDAA for their National Defense Stockpile.\12\ The State 
Department has engaged in diversifying sources through their Mineral 
Security Partnership,\13\ Energy Resources Governance Initiative,\14\ 
Clean Energy Resources Advisory Committee,\15\ and USAID's ``Green 
Minerals'' Challenge,\16\ to name a few.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \8\ Please see Presidential Determination No. 2022-11 of March 31, 
2022. (87 Fed. Reg. 19775, April 6, 2022). The order refers to lithium, 
cobalt, nickel, graphite, and manganese.
    \9\ Please see Press Release (February 22, 2022) DoD awards $35 
million to MP Materials to Build U.S. Heavy Rare Earth Separation 
Capacity. Available at: https://www.defense.gov/News/Releases/Release/
Article/2941793/dod-awards-35-million-to-mp-materials-to-build-us-
heavy-rare-earth-separation-c/
    \10\ Please see Press Release (February 1, 2021) DOD Announces Rare 
Earth Element Award to Strengthen Domestic Industrial Base. Available 
at: https://www.defense.gov/News/Releases/Release/Article/2488672/dod-
announces-rare-earth-element-award-to-strengthen-domestic-industrial-
base/
    \11\ Please see Press Release (December 19, 2022) DoD Issues $24.8M 
Critical Minerals Award to Perpetua Resources. Available at: https://
www.defense.gov/News/Releases/Release/Article/3249350/dod-issues-248m-
critical-minerals-award-to-perpetua-resources/
    \12\ Please see Congressional Research Service: FY 2023 NDAA 
National Defense Stockpile. Available at: https://
crsreports.Congress.gov/product/pdf/IN/IN12041
    \13\ Please see Media Note (September 22, 2022): Minerals Security 
Partnership Convening Supports Robust Supply Chains for Clean Energy 
Technologies. Available at: https://www.state.gov/minerals-security-
partnership-convening-supports-robust-supply-chains-for-clean-energy-
technologies/
    \14\ Please see State Department ERGI fact sheet, available at: 
https://www.state.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/Energy-Resource-
Governance-Initiative-ERGI-Fact-Sheet.pdf
    \15\ Please see Media Note (March 18, 2022) Inaugural Meeting of 
the Clean Energy Resources Advisory Committee. Available at: https://
www.state.gov/inaugural-meeting-of-the-clean-energy-resources-advisory-
committee/
    \16\ Please see Press Release (November 15, 2022) USAID Calls for 
Innovators to Counter Corruption in the Green Minerals Industry. 
Available at: https://www.usaid.gov/news-information/press-releases/
nov-15-2022-usaid-calls-for-innovators-to-counter-corruption-in-the-
green-minerals-industry
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    As the US Government diversifies supply chains for energy 
transition materials, we urge agencies to require due diligence in 
accordance with internationally accepted standards. In particular, we 
call on the State Department and other agencies to uphold Indigenous 
Peoples' rights with explicit mention of their right to self-
determination and right to Free Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC), as 
described in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous 
Peoples (UNDRIP) \17\ and the International Labour Organization 
Convention 169 (ILO 169).\18\ While voluntary standards do not 
substitute for required due diligence, multi-stakeholder certification 
standards like IRMA can help some mining-impacted communities verify 
compliance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \17\ Please see Resolution Adopted by the U.N. General Assembly 
September 13, 2007, Article 19. Available at: https://www.un.org/
development/desa/Indigenouspeoples/wp-content/uploads/sites/19/2018/11/
UNDRIP_E_web.pdf
    \18\ Please see International Labour Organization C169--Indigenous 
and Tribal Peoples Convention (1989) (No. 169). Available at: https://
www.ilo.org/dyn/normlex/en/f?p= 
NORMLEXPUB:12100:0::NO::P12100_ILO_CODE:C169
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    For mine waste recovery, IIJA provided a huge boost to the United 
State Geological Survey's new Earth MRI to, among other things, map and 
characterize the concentrations of energy transition materials in 
existing mine waste.\19\ USGS established pilot projects in Colorado 
and New Mexico for this purpose. USGS has also partnered with the DOE's 
National Energy Technology Laboratories (NETL) on promising research 
and development in recovering materials by dissolving magnets with 
copper-salt solutions, microbial bioleaching, phytomining, and other 
mine waste processing techniques that reduce carbon footprint and 
adverse environmental impact.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \19\ Please see https://www.usgs.gov/special-topics/earth-mri
    \20\ Please see Science News (Jan. 20, 2023): Recycling rare earth 
elements is hard. Science is trying to make it easier. By Erin Wayman
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    For the circular economy, the Department of Energy announced the 
American Battery Minerals Initiative providing $2.8 billion in IIJA 
funds for domestic mineral processing and battery manufacturing.\21\ 
DOE also announced a subsequent award of about $73.9 million devoted to 
battery recycling.\22\ These DOE Loan Program Office awards should be 
subject to the same due diligence standards as support from other 
federal agencies (i.e. State Department), where applicable.\23\ DOE's 
partnerships with the Critical Materials Institute, NETL, USGS and the 
West Virginia University Water Resources Institute offer exciting 
opportunities to strengthen supply chains for energy transition 
materials and stimulate domestic circular economy infrastructure.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \21\ Please see DOE IIJA Battery FOA-2678 Fact sheet Available at: 
https://www.energy.gov/sites/default/files/2022-10/
DOE%20BIL%20Battery%20FOA-2678%20Selectee%20Fact%20Sheets %20-
%201_2.pdf
    \22\ Please see DOE IIJA Electric Drive Vehicle Battery Recycling 
and Second-Life Applications FOA-2680. Available at: https://
www.energy.gov/sites/default/files/2022-11/Recycling%20and%20 Second-
Use%20Selections%20Factsheets%2011-16.pdf
    \23\ Please see DOE's LPO RFI at 87 Fed Reg. 33141 (June 1, 2022) 
See also DOE's 2022 Unified Regulatory Agenda at: https://
www.reginfo.gov/public/do/eAgendaViewRule?pubId= 202210&RIN=1901-AB54
    \24\ Please see note 20.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Providing the right blend of incentives and mandates will drive 
more investment where it is actually needed: in battery manufacturing, 
collection facilities, and related midstream green infrastructure. 
Transitioning the minerals we already mined once, to build what we now 
need, will drive the circular economy forward. These alternatives to 
mining may help source the materials we need with fewer adverse impacts 
to climate, sacred and cultural sites, wildlife, and water.
    No alternative is perfect. Even with more robust material reuse and 
collection, new hardrock mines on public lands will still provide 
minerals. However, sourcing minerals from public lands under a law 
explicitly designed to further settler-colonialism only furthers 
environmental injustice and puts an equitable transition out of reach. 
Legislative and regulatory reform can create responsible mining 
policies that put protection for communities at the forefront, to 
ensure that any new mines are built with the best standards in place.
Policy Developments and Resources Devoted to Domestic Mine Permitting

    Even though domestic mining is not the weak supply chain link, 
Congress has already invested significant time and resources into mine 
permitting. The Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) included $1 billion to 
support timely and effective environmental reviews across federal 
agencies, which should lead to better, more equitable outcomes, and 
help avoid litigation.\25\ Additionally, the Fiscal 2023 budget will 
help fund public lands management agencies to perform more thorough 
mining reviews.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \25\ Please see IRA, Sec. Sec. 23001, 40003, 50301-03, 60402, 
60116, 60505.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    These mine permitting developments build upon those in the 
Infrastructure Investment in Jobs Act (IIJA). IIJA made permanent the 
Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act Permitting Council 
(Permitting Council), which, in January 2021, added hardrock mining as 
a covered sector.\26\ In November 2022, the Administration announced 
the Permitting Council will devote $5 million to support consultations 
with federally recognized Tribes in hardrock mine permitting.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \26\ Please see 86 Fed. Reg. 1281 (January 8, 2021).
    \27\ Please see DOI Press Release (December 1, 2022) Departments of 
Interior, Agriculture Advance Mining Reforms Aimed at Protecting and 
Empowering Tribal Communities. Available at: https://www.doi.gov/
pressreleases/departments-interior-agriculture-advance-mining-reforms-
aimed-protecting-and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    IIJA also required the Interior Department to identify process 
improvements to hardrock mine permitting.\28\ A coalition of Tribes, 
Indigenous-led organizations, and conservation groups have also 
petitioned Interior for rules that, if finalized, would result in more 
timely, efficient decisions for hardrock mine permits without 
sacrificing necessary public input.\29\ In response to both, the 
administration convened the mining reform Interagency Working Group, 
which we hope recommend mining rule improvements consistent with the 
petition.\30\ These updates would also help lead to a fair hardrock 
mine permitting process, delivering more certainty to both the mining 
industry and impacted communities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \28\ Please see IIJA Section 40206 Critical minerals supply chains 
and reliability
    \29\ Please see https://www.regulations.gov/document/DOI-2022-0003-
14647
    \30\ Please see 87 Fed Reg. 18811 (March 31, 2022)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The IRA also created an advanced manufacturing production tax 
credit (45X) for mining companies to receive an additional handout 
equal to 10% of their production costs for the value of the 50 metals 
listed in the IRA.\31\ The law also allows taxpayers who buy an 
eligible clean vehicle to receive a credit of up to $7,500 (30D). The 
IRA's 30D mineral sourcing requirements will likely spur more mining 
and mineral processing, both within the United States and in free trade 
agreement countries. These same sourcing requirements could also spur 
most needed investment, innovation, and development in circular economy 
infrastructure to refurbish or recycle these cars' batteries.\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \31\ Please see Public Law 117-269 IRA Section 13502 Advanced 
Manufacturing Production Credit 45X(b)(1)(M) ``in the case of any 
applicable critical mineral, an amount equal to 10 percent of the costs 
incurred by the taxpayer with respect to production of such mineral.''
    \32\ Please see IRA Section 13401(e). By January 1, 2024, 40% of 
the value of the battery's critical minerals must be mined in the 
United States or free trade agreement countries. Or recycled within 
North America. The percentage increases annually until 2028 when the 
threshold reaches 80%.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Today, it is possible to make some clean vehicles with the IRA's 
sourcing requirements. But to truly benefit from this credit, the 
United States and our allies need better circular economy 
infrastructure to supply demands for energy transition materials. 
Congress and the Treasury should view the mineral sourcing provision as 
an opportunity to allow more taxpayers to claim the credit and build 
domestic supply chain strength within the circular economy links.
    The European Union Battery Directive already contains recycled 
content requirements similar to the IRA's optional recycling provision. 
The Treasury Secretary should issue 30D mineral sourcing rules that 
allow constituent materials from the EU to qualify for the credit in 
order stimulate investment and help supply meet demand for recycled 
battery materials.\33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \33\ See Treasury Department Revenue Procedure 2022-42 December 12, 
2022. Available at: https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-drop/rp-22-42.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conclusion

    Earthworks strongly supports immediately transitioning to a justly-
sourced renewable energy economy to prevent further destruction from 
the climate crisis. The climate crisis has disproportionately harmed, 
and continues to harm, those who have contributed to it the least. We 
also share serious concerns about mining's impacts to communities under 
the current laws and rules.
    Rather than rely on extraction, we urge Congress and the 
Administration to drive innovation and development of circular economy 
infrastructure to collect, recycle, reuse, substitute, and reduce 
minerals used in existing clean energy technologies, thereby lowering 
overall demand for new mining. Where mining is absolutely necessary, it 
must occur in a more sustainable, just, and equitable way.
    For companies, this means accountability to human rights and 
environmental due diligence standards, and only operating with the full 
consent of the communities they impact. IRMA is the only voluntary 
standard that helps achieve this goal.
    For Congress, this means passing circular economy legislation and 
the Clean Energy Minerals Reform Act. Converting to a leasing system 
for hardrock minerals--just like the one that oil and gas companies use 
today--would help provide certainty to the permitting process and 
result in more timely and socially acceptable decisions.
    For public lands agencies, this means modernizing their mining 
rules to deliver a more fair, just, and equitable hardrock mine 
permitting process for mining-impacted communities.
    For other federal agencies, this means forming the linear supply 
chain links for minerals into a circle, and requiring companies perform 
gender-responsive human rights and environmental due diligence across 
their supply chains.
    The renewable energy transition must not touch off the kind of 
mining rush that has historically killed or displaced untold numbers of 
Indigenous and other marginalized peoples, destroyed sacred and 
cultural resources, stolen lands, scarred landscapes, and polluted 
water and climate. Building a sustainable economy based on clean energy 
gives us an historic opportunity to confront the legacy of injustice to 
Indigenous communities and damage to the public lands held in trust for 
future generations. Seizing that opportunity requires policies 
prioritizing recycling and reuse over new mining. Where new mining is 
acceptable, the mining industry must undertake the most responsible 
methods. Thank you for your consideration.

                                 ______
                                 

  Questions Submitted for the Record to Aaron Mintzes, Senior Policy 
                          Counsel, Earthworks
             Questions Submitted by Representative Grijalva
    Question 1. Can you expand on the policies that the U.S. should put 
in place to develop the circular economy? How does the U.S. compare to 
its international competitors in developing a circular economy?

    Answer. Ranking Member Grijalva, thank you for these thoughtful 
questions. Circular economy policy for energy transition minerals has 
the following main components: 1) labeling 2) producer responsibility 
3) battery design for recycled content with high environmental 
standards 4) supply chain due diligence.
    The 117th Congress began to develop the right policies to create a 
more circular economy for energy transition minerals. The Investment in 
Infrastructure and Jobs Act (IIJA, Public law 117-58, Sections 40207, 
40208, and 40209) provided grants and directed the Department of Energy 
and Environmental Protection Agency to recommend effective battery 
design, labeling, recycling, and producer responsibility models. The 
Inflation Reduction Act also provided electric vehicle tax credits for 
batteries made from recycled minerals in North America (IRA, Public Law 
117-269, Section 13401(e)).
    The United States should, where appropriate, open our circular 
economy markets to European and Asian investment. If we can responsibly 
source more refurbished battery materials from allied nations, the 
United States can grow our circular economy and help secure supply 
chains. The European Union recently finalized their Battery Directive. 
Soon, almost all batteries (in most vehicles with exceptions) sold in 
the EU market will come with a QR label (battery passport), recycled 
content, producer responsibility, and supply chain due diligence. The 
European Parliament begins debate soon on their response to our IRA, 
the EU Raw Critical Materials Act. Both continents appear to support 
circular economy subsidies.
    Congress and the Biden Administration could benefit the domestic 
circular veconomy by adapting the IRA's electric vehicle tax credit 
(30D mineral sourcing provisions) to take advantage of the market 
created by the EU Battery Directive. In addition, applicable free trade 
agreements or other State, Treasury, and Commerce Department financing 
mechanisms must reinforce our strengths and maintain our global due 
diligence commitments, especially to free, prior, and informed consent.

    Question 2. During your testimony you spoke about the importance 
free, prior, and informed consent in ensuring that any mining in the 
U.S. and abroad is respecting the rights of local and Indigenous 
communities. Can you describe what free, prior, and informed consent 
means and describe specific ways that the U.S. can implement that 
practice domestically and throughout the international supply chain?

    Answer. Thank you for this question. Free, prior, and informed 
consent (FPIC) is a right derived from the United Nations Declaration 
on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (Article 19 of UNDRIP) and 
International Labour Organization C169 (Indigenous and Tribal Peoples 
Convention No. 169). The U.S. can help operationalize FPIC by requiring 
recipients of U.S. Government financial, diplomatic, or technical 
support (especially original equipment manufacturers OEMs) to perform 
ongoing due diligence across their supply chains, in accordance with 
the U.N. Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights.
    In practice this means, as an express condition of government 
support, OEMs must receive FPIC as they develop, review, publish, 
enforce, and periodically revise their supply chain due diligence 
plans. Those plans must also create effective grievance and remedy 
mechanisms for compliance failures.
    In the domestic context, the same FPIC principle applies to 
Government support through the Defense Production Act (DPA), Department 
of Energy's Loan Program Office, or other mechanisms. On public lands, 
the Interior and Agriculture Departments must also update their mining 
rules to respect treaty reserved rights and clarify the Secretary's 
authority to deny mines impacting sacred sites and other Indigenous 
resources (43 USC 3809 and 36 CFR part 228).

    Question 3. In your testimony you talked about the need for due 
diligence at all stages of the critical mineral supply chain. Can you 
please elaborate on the responsibilities of the U.S., as well as 
private companies, in performing due diligence? What policies should 
the U.S. be pursuing to improve due diligence standards at home and 
abroad?

    Answer. Due diligence is an ongoing obligation companies must 
perform across their supply chains. Those companies receiving federal 
support through an IIJA grant, DOE loan guarantee, or DPA investment, 
(or various State Department financing mechanisms) must do more than 
merely consult with Tribes. They must receive free, prior, and informed 
consent. For instance, DOE loan guarantee terms for domestic lithium, 
nickel, or graphite mineral processing facilities should require OEMs 
certify ongoing FPIC, specify community benefits, conduct third party 
audits, publish audit results, and provide impartial dispute resolution 
and effective remedies throughout all phases of the project.

    Question 4. Under current mining laws, how much do mining companies 
pay in royalties for extracting on federal lands? How does that compare 
with other countries that allow companies to mine on public land, such 
as Canada and Australia?

    Answer. Under the 1872 mining law, companies pay zero royalty to 
the Federal Government. Every other nation charges a federal royalty 
for mineral extraction. Most other nations, like Canada and Australia, 
charge federal royalties through a leasing system. Canada's provincial 
governments in British Columbia, Ontario, and Quebec have each passed 
leasing statutes that, in principle, require FPIC.

    Question 5. Please elaborate on any additional points you would 
like to make for the record.

    Answer. Mining is not the weak link in energy transition mineral 
supply chains. While public lands mines will source some minerals for 
the energy transition, Congress designated the task of managing mineral 
supply chains to the Departments of Commerce, Defense, Energy, State, 
Interior's U.S. Geological Survey, and the Environmental Protection 
Agency via the Critical Materials Consortium (Consolidated 
Appropriations Act of 2021, Public law 116-260 Section 7001, and IIJA 
Public law 117-169 Sections 40201-40211). Public lands agencies can 
play an important role by updating their mining regulations to provide 
more fairness and certainty to the permitting process.
    Congress should reform our mining laws and provide EPA and DOE 
authorities to grow the circular economy, joining our allies in opening 
our markets to responsibly sourced energy transition materials. In 
particular, Congress should pass legislation modeled after the EU's 
Battery Directive and IIJA's recommendations on battery design, 
labeling, recycled content, and due diligence, while maintaining high 
environmental standards.
    Leading researchers at the Institute for Sustainable Futures at the 
University of Technology Sydney estimate that the right mix of circular 
economy policies can reduce demand for new lithium mines by 25% and new 
nickel and cobalt mines by half. As the 21st century rush for energy 
transition minerals unfolds, we must avoid the tragic mistakes of the 
19th century rush for precious metals and 20th century rush for 
uranium. Seizing this historic opportunity to confront this legacy of 
injustice means reforming our mining laws and advancing a more circular 
economy to more responsibly secure supplies for energy transition 
minerals. Thank you again for your consideration.

                                 ______
                                 

    Dr. Gosar. Thank you, Mr. Mintzes.
    I now recognize Mr. George for 5 minutes.

  STATEMENT OF JASON GEORGE, BUSINESS MANAGER, INTERNATIONAL 
 UNION OF OPERATING ENGINEERS, LOCAL 49, MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA

    Mr. George. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members. I want to 
thank my friend, Congressman Stauber, for the introduction, as 
well. There is no greater champion for workers in their 
district than my friend, Pete. And thank you for that.
    My name is Jason George. I am the elected leader of 
Minnesota's largest construction union, the Operating Engineers 
Local 49. Our members operate and repair the heavy equipment 
that builds every aspect of our region. Thank you for inviting 
me here today to discuss this very serious issue facing our 
nation and members I represent.
    The mining of critical minerals--specifically, where they 
are mined--will have a profound impact on our collective 
future. I was born, raised, and currently live in Minnesota. 
The vast majority of our nearly 15,000 members live and work in 
Minnesota.
    Our state has a long, proud history of mining. We like to 
remind people that our state mined the ore that produced the 
steel that won two world wars. The mining industry has been and 
remains the lifeblood of northern Minnesota.
    Today, we are at a precipice of a generational opportunity 
that could launch another 100 years of prosperity through 
mining. Our nation and the world are in desperate need of 
critical minerals such as nickel, cobalt, and copper. These 
minerals are necessary to build the batteries, wind turbines, 
solar panels, and other products the world needs in order to 
transition to a clean energy economy.
    Ninety-five percent of our domestic nickel resources, a 
vast majority of our cobalt, and about a third of our copper 
deposits are beneath the ground in northern Minnesota. The only 
question before us is whether or not we will be allowed to mine 
them. And that, really, is the only question, whether we will 
be allowed to do this or not. There really is no debate about 
whether we can. We have been doing it for 100 years or more.
    We have the technological know-how to extract these 
minerals safely. The people who live near the potential mines 
want the opportunity. I don't believe--and Congressman Stauber 
can correct me--that there is an elected body anywhere where 
these minerals are located that does not support these projects 
being explored. Not one. They all support it. Everyone who 
lives there wants this opportunity. It is people that don't 
live there that are preventing that.
    What we also don't have is a fair process for permitting 
mines that is based on science and reason, from my experience. 
Instead, we have a hyper-political process that has been 
hijacked by a combination of wealthy cabin owners, wealthy 
tourists, business owners who supply their outfitting needs, 
and anti-development extremists. This small group of people is 
highly influential within the Democratic Party structure in my 
home state. They are loud, they give a lot of money, and too 
many Democrats in my area and my state are advancing their own 
narrow political agenda at the expense of Minnesota and the 
American people, in my opinion.
    The latest example is a decision by the Department of the 
Interior to ban mining on more than 225,000 acres of northern 
Minnesota land that contain the vast majority of our mineral 
resources. The Department did so without studying any specific 
mine plan. It is purely based on hypothetical scenarios and not 
specific data. It issued a blanket ban based on hypothetical 
scenarios. The decision had nothing to do with science, and 
everything to do with Democratic politics, in my opinion.
    Too much is at stake to allow this to happen. Good-paying 
union jobs are on the line. Members of my union and others will 
build these projects, earn family-sustaining wages, world-class 
health care, and pensions that ensure a dignity of good life 
and retirement. Unlike the data used to ban mining, these jobs 
aren't hypotheticals.
    Like any good union representative and union leader, we 
have it in writing. We have project labor agreements with all 
the mining companies that are proposing mines in this area. 
They will be built by my members, and they will be good-paying 
jobs, and we have it in writing.
    As a Labor leader, I would be remiss if I didn't point out 
also what happens if we don't mine it in Minnesota. And you see 
the pictures behind the gentleman up there about where these 
products and where these minerals will be mined if we don't do 
it here.
    I am running out of time. I will just sum up by saying that 
we are extremely frustrated back home. We know how to do this. 
We have the minerals in our backyard. The people that live 
there want these jobs and want to explore these opportunities. 
We absolutely have the know-how to do it safely.
    The cleanest water in Minnesota exists where mines have 
existed for more than 100 years. The dirtiest water in 
Minnesota exists in the districts where the people are trying 
to stop us from mining, in the Twin Cities. And that is a fact. 
And that is something that is extremely frustrating to 
everybody that I represent. And most people in Minnesota, 
especially the people that are trying to raise families and 
have these good-paying job opportunities in northern Minnesota.
    So, I thank you for your time, and I will end with that.

    [The prepared statement of Mr. George follows:]
 Prepared Statement of Jason George, International Union of Operating 
                        Engineers, Local No. 49
    I submit the following written testimony in advance of my 
appearance at the House Committee on Natural Resources, Subcommittee on 
Oversight and Investigations hearing titled, ``Dependence on Foreign 
Adversaries: America's Critical Minerals Crisis.''
    My name is Jason George, and I am the elected leader of Minnesota's 
largest construction union, the International Union of Operating 
Engineers, Local 49. Our members operate and repair the heavy equipment 
that builds every aspect of our region. Thank you for the invitation to 
be here today to discuss a very serious issue facing our nation and the 
members I represent. The mining of critical minerals--specifically, 
where they are mined--will have a profound impact on our collective 
future.
    I was born, raised and currently live in Minnesota. The vast 
majority of our nearly 15,000 members live and work there. Our state 
has a long and proud history of mining. We like to remind people that 
our state mined the ore that produced the steel that won two world 
wars. The mining industry has been and remains the lifeblood of 
northern Minnesota.
    Today, we are at the precipice of a generational opportunity that 
could launch another 100 years of prosperity through mining. Our 
nation, and the world, are in desperate need of critical minerals such 
as nickel, cobalt, and copper. These minerals are necessary to build 
the batteries, wind turbines, solar panels, and other products the 
world needs in order to transition to clean energy.
    95% of our domestic nickel resources, a vast majority of our 
cobalt, and about a third of our copper deposits are beneath the ground 
in northern Minnesota. The only question before us is whether or not we 
will be allowed to mine them. There is no other question.
    We have the technological knowhow to extract these minerals safely. 
The people who live near potential mines want the opportunity. We have 
the skilled union workforce to build the projects, and a productive, 
hard-working population ready to operate the mines once they are built.
    What we don't have is a fair process for permitting mines that is 
based on science and reason. Instead, we have a hyper-political process 
that has been hijacked by a combination of wealthy cabin owners, 
wealthy tourists, business owners who supply their outfitting needs, 
and anti-development extremists. This small group of people is highly 
influential within the Democratic Party structure. They are loud. They 
give a lot of money. And too many Democrats, including in my home 
state, are advancing their own narrow political agenda at the expense 
of Minnesota and the American people.
    The latest example is a decision by the Department of the Interior 
to ban mining on more than 225,000 acres of northern Minnesota land 
that contain the vast majority of our mineral resources. The department 
did so without studying any plan for a specific project. In fact, it 
refused to study a mine plan submitted in this area. Instead, it issued 
a blanket ban based on hypothetical scenarios. This decision had 
nothing to do with science and everything to do with Democratic 
politics.
    Too much is at stake to allow this to happen. Good-paying union 
jobs are on the line. Members of my union and the others that will 
build these projects earn family-sustaining wages, world-class health 
care, and pensions that ensure the dignity of a good life in 
retirement. Unlike the data used to ban mining, these jobs aren't 
hypotheticals. Like any good union representative, we have a signed 
contract. All of the companies that have or will soon produce mine 
plans in this area have signed project labor agreements with the local 
trade unions ensuring we will build their mines.
    Our members aren't the only workers with a lot at stake. Mining 
plant operation jobs are among the highest paid in the region. The 
number of jobs generated by businesses that will pop up to support the 
mines is limitless and will pay well. As I said, the opportunity for 
workers is generational.
    As a labor leader, I would be remiss if I didn't point out what is 
happening now and will continue to happen to workers if we don't mine 
these minerals in America. Many news sources have documented the 
working conditions in mines around the globe where these minerals are 
currently produced. A recent program on NPR titled, ``How `Modern-Day 
Slavery' in the Congo Powers the Rechargeable Battery Economy,'' is 
worth listening to.
    It details the conditions people face mining cobalt in the Congo. 
This mineral is toxic to touch and breathe in raw form if not mined 
properly. Right now, hundreds of thousands of Congolese people, 
including many women and children, are mining it with their bare hands, 
being poisoned every day.
    Siddharth Kara, a fellow at Harvard's T.H. Chan School of Public 
Health who has researched modern-day slavery for two decades, said this 
on the program:
    ``We shouldn't be transitioning to the use of electric vehicles at 
the cost of the people and environment of one of the most downtrodden 
and impoverished corners of the world. The bottom of the supply chain, 
where almost all of the world's cobalt is coming from, is a horror 
show.''
    The Biden administration has agreed these conditions are abhorrent 
and must not be supported. Just last year the Department of Labor said 
it would add lithium-ion batteries to a list of goods made with 
materials known to be produced with child or forced labor under a 2006 
human trafficking law. It was widely reported that this decision was 
based on the batteries containing cobalt, a mineral largely mined in 
the Congo.
    I simply cannot understand how our government can rightly 
acknowledge the human atrocities in countries like the Congo that mine 
our minerals, while the same administration moves to ban the mining of 
these minerals in America, where we can ensure such atrocities do not 
happen.
    This is a shameful position. It is rife with hypocrisy, and it is 
an embarrassing example of partisan politics at its worst.
    You can't say you are for human rights and then be OK with the 
metals in your Tesla batteries being mined in the Congo by women and 
children poisoning themselves because you don't want these mines in 
your backyard, where they might obstruct your view.
    You can't say you are serious about a clean-energy future, knowing 
that recycling won't produce an adequate supply of minerals to get the 
job done, and yet oppose domestic mining to meet our needs.
    You can't say you are serious about protecting our national 
security when you are banning mining in America while China buys up 
mineral mines in the rest of the world.
    Enough is enough. We as a nation must stand up to this small but 
vocal class of elite obstructionists. Mining technology has advanced. 
We can do this safely here. We have the best-trained union construction 
workers in the world ready to build our mines. We have workers hungry 
for family-sustaining jobs in operations right here at home. We have 
businesses chomping at the bit to support a domestic mining industry.
    I will repeat what I said a few minutes ago. The only question is 
whether or not the U.S. government will allow us to mine.
    A lot is at stake. Opportunities for workers. The lives of poor 
people in foreign lands. Our energy future. Our national security. We 
must find the will to do the right thing.

    Thank you, Mr. Chairman and committee members, for your time today, 
and for drawing attention to this critical issue.

                                 ______
                                 

    Dr. Gosar. Thank you, Mr. George. It is always great to 
have somebody coming from the ground level to give us some 
reality checks.
    I am now going to recognize Members for 5 minutes. We are 
going to go to Mr. Lamborn first this morning. The gentleman 
from Colorado is recognized.
    Mr. Lamborn. Thank you, Mr. Gosar, for having this meeting. 
Thank you for the witnesses for being here.
    And besides being on Natural Resources, Representative 
Gosar, I am also on the Armed Services Committee, so I am going 
to ask questions that have to do with both of the Committees. 
In other words, the connection between critical minerals and 
national security. And that is something I think we should all 
be aware of.
    The balloon incident with China shows us that there are 
countries out there that are not seeking to really help us out.
    Dr. Moats, that leads to my first question: What country or 
countries does the United States source many of its critical 
minerals from?
    Dr. Moats. Thank you, gentleman. Of course, the answer for 
all metallurgical answers, ``It depends.''
    So many of the--like the rare earths for the magnets mostly 
come out of China. The nickel and cobalt is mined. Cobalt is 
mostly mined in Central Africa, and then processed in China to 
make the lithium ion batteries that we need.
    There are other elements that come from allied countries. 
Like, aluminum mostly comes from the Aluminum Valley in Quebec. 
And that is probably an OK thing, from a geopolitical 
standpoint.
    So, it is a very broad answer to a question.
    Mr. Lamborn. I am going to probe a little more on the China 
connection. We know that China supplies 26 different minerals, 
of which the United States is over 50 percent import reliant. 
That is far more than from any other country. And some of those 
minerals, the United States is 100 percent reliant on China.
    So, what implications does this have on our national 
security, when a country like China, who is--I won't go into 
all the threats that they are posing to our national security, 
but what does our dependence do to our national security?
    Dr. Moats. One of the critical minerals is tellurium. 
Tellurium is added with bismuth to make----
    Mr. Lamborn. Could you speak into the microphone a little 
better?
    Dr. Moats. Sure. Tellurium comes from copper refining. 
China dominates copper refining, so most of the tellurium in 
the world comes out of China.
    From a military standpoint, tellurium is mixed with bismuth 
to make thermoelectric night vision materials. So, whoever 
controls the tellurium--we do produce some tellurium in the 
United States, but it is exported, and then refined, and 
brought back into the United States.
    But right now, the tellurium that is needed for night 
vision goggles and for solar panels--over 50 percent of the 
grid storage solar panel uses cadmium telluride--we are heavily 
dependent on China for that.
    Mr. Lamborn. Yes, and thank you for focusing on those 
military applications.
    There are tremendous economic applications the Ranking 
Member talked about: cell phones, things like that, computers. 
We know that there are chip making, there are tremendous needs 
there for critical minerals that only come out of China, either 
mining or refining.
    How can the United States increase its national security, 
though, by securing new materials higher up in the supply 
chain?
    What should we do to make our situation not so precarious?
    Dr. Moats. In the short term, I think we need to look at 
every mine and every processing plant that is here currently in 
the United States, and we need to look at where can we get 
critical minerals that we are already processing, and we are 
working at that at our university.
    I personally work with companies looking at evaluating 
where they can get gallium, which is important for WiFi and all 
the semiconductor chips that we have. Gallium, right now, could 
be--at least a large chunk of it could come out of our two zinc 
plants in Tennessee and North Carolina, specifically the one in 
Tennessee. Currently, gallium is not recovered. The germanium 
is shipped to Europe for refining and brought back.
    So, there are lots of opportunities. Cobalt and nickel 
could be recovered from the Missouri mines, could be recovered 
from cobalt. There is a new cobalt mine that is opening up in 
Idaho. There are companies that are looking at their existing 
plants right now to determine if they can recover, and what 
innovations.
    And I am a member of the Critical Materials Institute, 
which is funded by the Department of Energy. We specifically 
have a project looking at gallium, germanium, and indium 
recovery from our zinc plants.
    Mr. Lamborn. Are some of our environmental regulations too 
stringent to currently allow the productive use of raw or by-
products for these critical minerals?
    Dr. Moats. I am not a policy person, so I am not going to 
say what is stringent or not stringent. That is for----
    Mr. Lamborn. We will say that.
    Dr. Moats. Yes, you can say that. I will say that the need 
to require--the needs of the policies have shut down plants. 
So, there are no primary lead smelters in the United States 
anymore because of the requirements that are put on by the EPA 
and the local states. The last lead smelter was shut down in 
Herculaneum, Missouri in 2013.
    We recycle a lot of lead, but any new lead that comes into 
the country has to be imported, and most of that comes from 
China.
    Mr. Lamborn. Thank you very much.
    I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
    Dr. Gosar. I thank the gentleman. I now recognize Ranking 
Member Stansbury for her 5 minutes.
    Ms. Stansbury. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to 
start by welcoming Mr. George first.
    My mother was an operating engineer, and I come from a 
union-strong family, so I really appreciate you being here with 
us, and representing the workers of your Local and, of course, 
all the operating engineers.
    And I wanted to also use this opportunity to say--I shared 
this with the Committee yesterday as we were talking about both 
mining and oil and gas issues--that I was born while my parents 
were actually working. My mom was a machine oiler that worked 
at a coal-fired power plant in Farmington, New Mexico, and my 
dad was a welder in the oil and gas fields. And it was because 
of the fallout of the oil and gas industry in the early 80s 
that my family actually had to leave that community and, 
ultimately, why I grew up in the biggest city in New Mexico.
    So, I understand very intimately, because of my own family 
history, how big, international, global issues around our 
domestic production of minerals and fossil fuel production 
really affects the families and workers of this country. And we 
take those issues very, very seriously. And I think, obviously, 
your testimony highlights that.
    But I also think that it is important to recognize that 
much of what has happened around mining in the United States 
and its decline is not because of domestic policy, but because, 
as we heard here from Mr. Moats and others, it really has to do 
with international trade and commodity prices at the 
international level.
    And I think Mr. Mintzes highlighted this in his testimony, 
but it is important to recognize in this hearing that this is 
not only an issue of strategic and national security for the 
United States, this is a problem for every major country in the 
world who is our ally, who depends on these resources for 
manufacturing, for national security purposes, and for just 
general economic development. This is not just a U.S. problem.
    In fact, there are dozens of countries in Europe, Asia, 
Africa, and others that are dependent on these resources, and 
are unable to source them through the global supply chain right 
now. And we are not just talking about one mineral. We are 
talking about dozens of minerals, right?
    So, just opening a mine in a place is not going to solve 
this problem, because we are talking about dozens of minerals 
that would have to be sourced from many different geologic 
formations from all over the world, as they currently are. But 
the problem is that we cannot responsibly source these 
materials right now because they are in places where we do not 
have ally relationships, there are human rights abuses 
happening, and because we do not have responsible practices 
happening.
    So, there is not a simple solution here. That is one of the 
things that I really want to highlight. We need a multi-pronged 
approach. We are going to have to work with our allies who are 
also seeking these minerals to ensure that we are doing 
responsible sourcing, especially if that is abroad. It doesn't 
mean we just open a mine to do it here in the United States. It 
means that we have to actually utilize and help use our 
international support systems and policies to help ensure that 
we are holding accountable those multi-national corporations, 
some of which are based in the United States and elsewhere, to 
the highest possible human rights and environmental standards, 
whether they are operating here in the United States and 
employing our operating engineers and all of our miners, or 
whether they are operating abroad. So, we really need to use 
every possible tool at our disposal.
    But I want to take the rest of my time to really focus on 
the circular economy that Mr. Mintzes brought up here. We know 
that recycling, re-use, and design is not going to be the only 
solution. It is only part of the solution. But it represents a 
significant portion of the supply chain that is under-developed 
right now in the United States and, as Mr. Mintzes stated, is 
under-developed from a policy standpoint with respect to other 
countries.
    So, Mr. Mintzes, could you please share more? What exactly 
is the circular economy? What is entailed in it? And what does 
the United States need to do to really advance its circular 
economy?
    Mr. Mintzes. Thank you, Ms. Stansbury, for that question.
    Some of us may remember bottle bills, or deposits when you 
could turn in a can or a bottle and receive a nickel or a dime 
back. That is effectively what we are talking about.
    In Europe, it really boils down to four things: you have a 
producer responsibility, you have supply chain due diligence, 
you have recycled content standards. And the state of 
California is looking at some of these ideas, because they have 
a large EV market, too, as you indicated. And the nations of 
Japan and South Korea have really good markets for this.
    I want to make one other quick point. In response to the 
trade dispute that you spoke about in 2010 between China and, 
really, the rest of the world, what happened was Japan and 
South Korea did, in fact, begin to build a more circular 
economy to recycle there, because they don't have as many mines 
as we do, right? So, they are building it, Europe is building 
it. And I think that we can do it here, too. We can do it with 
union jobs, as well.
    Dr. Gosar. I thank the gentlewoman. The Chairman of the 
Full Committee, Mr. Westerman, is recognized.
    Mr. Westerman. Thank you, Chairman Gosar. Thank you to the 
witnesses.
    Mr. Mintzes, I know you stated in your opening remarks that 
you agreed with the Ranking Member and my position on you can't 
mine and permit your way out of it. But I also added to my 
remarks you have to permit, mine, refine, and manufacturing. 
And under mining you could put recycling in there. So, I just 
want to make sure you are in agreement with the whole statement 
I said, not just the part about mining and permitting.
    Mr. Mintzes. Thank you, Mr. Westerman. Yes, we need to mine 
and permit the whole supply chain. We need to do it more 
responsibly.
    And I appreciate the tenor of bipartisanship that you are 
setting for this Committee already.
    Mr. Westerman. And going back to Ms. Stansbury's comments, 
there is a whole lot we agree on on this.
    And we have been taking advantage of foreign countries 
through our trade program. I have testified in these trade 
disputes before, and the Chinese Government, they don't care 
about price fixing, they don't care about playing fair. They 
exploit our system of free markets and rule of law to gain 
market share. They will use low labor, they will use slave 
labor. They will use no environmental regulations to produce 
commodities to get them into the U.S. market, to drive our 
producers out of business, to capture that market share, and 
they do it in many different industries.
    So, we do need to work on trade. We do need to make 
American, not only mining, but processing and manufacturing, 
stronger than ever before. And we have the ability to do that, 
because we are blessed with the resources.
    And Mr. George, I have been to northern Minnesota, I have 
seen the taconite mining, and talking about steel, Arkansas has 
become one of the largest producers of steel, and it is all 
recycled steel.
    But as I think, Mr. Moats, you mentioned in your testimony, 
we are like one-tenth or less of the steel production of China.
    Dr. Moats. Yes, we are one-tenth of the steel, and about 
two-thirds of our recycled. And yes, I was recently in 
Mississippi County visiting--which, if you didn't know, more 
steel is produced in Mississippi County than any county in the 
United States.
    Mr. Westerman. Right. But is there any way that recycling 
meets the future demands?
    Dr. Moats. Obviously, with growth, we can't have a circular 
economy to supply all of our new needs. I think any reasonable 
person would say we need to recycle. And for lithium ion 
batteries, we already have redwood materials, we have life 
cycle. People are already building plants in the United States 
to recycle the lithium ion batteries.
    Mr. Westerman. So, we talk about an all-of-the-above energy 
approach. We also need an all-of-the-above minerals approach: 
new mining, recycling, and being as efficient and effective as 
we can.
    And I want to go back to Mr. George. An interesting thing 
that I think we fail to take into account all the time is the 
mining in northern Minnesota is huge for that area. But when 
that taconite is shipped off to the refineries, there is a 
value added part to that. And then, if that steel out of those 
refineries goes into automobile manufacturing or building 
construction, there is even more value added to that.
    And I talked yesterday about how we produce about $90 or 
$120 billion worth of raw materials through recycling and 
mining in the United States, that when that gets processed, it 
becomes a value of about $900 billion, but when that process 
material gets manufactured, it adds about $3.6 trillion to the 
U.S. GDP. And this is about much more than mining, it is about 
national security, it is about supply chains, but it is also 
about creating incredible jobs for union workers and non-union 
workers alike, and being able to grow our economy and prosper 
here. But it starts with mining. If you don't have the raw 
materials, you can't do the other part of it.
    And Mr. Moats, I am a little biased to your testimony 
because we are fellow engineers, and I know Missouri Rolla has 
one of the best mining engineering programs that is out there. 
But I also know that there seems to be a shortage of mining 
engineers. And you so aptly talked about the shortage of 
workers in these mines and in America. We have to automate and 
make things more efficient, safer.
    I just used all my time, but--thank you all for your 
testimony. It is something we need to really follow up on more.
    And if we will work on the real issues and the real 
problems, we can really do great things for our country and for 
the world, and prevent situations like are represented in these 
posters behind me.
    Thank you, Chairman. I yield back.
    Dr. Gosar. I thank the gentleman, the Chairman of the Full 
Committee. I now recognize the Ranking Member, Mr. Grijalva for 
5 minutes.
    Mr. Grijalva. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Dr. Moats, during your testimony, the reference that you 
made--and I apologize for the way I ask questions, I am not a 
linear thinker like Mr. Westerman, so sometimes I----
    [Laughter.]
    Mr. Grijalva. I got a liberal arts education. It has messed 
me up, I guess.
    [Laughter.]
    Mr. Grijalva. Anyway, Dr. Moats, the history of decline on 
the critical mineral extraction, production, where does 
regulatory, environmental standards, clean air, clean water, 
for example, and the permitting, where does that fall into that 
percentage decline? What part of the cause is that, if that is 
what we are talking about here?
    Dr. Moats. Yes, I have thought a lot about why our smelters 
and mines have closed.
    Some of it is just the natural resources. Our smelters and 
refineries were built near mines, and as the mines played out, 
they were not set up to bring in concentrates from other parts 
of the country and other parts of the world. So, economically, 
it was not viable.
    There are other places where the smelters have shut down 
because of the implementation of more stringent environmental 
policy. I think we can all acknowledge the history of our 
mining and metallurgy was dirty, but that is before my 
lifetime. The plants now all operate within the standards that 
are set by the local, the state, and the Federal Government. 
They do so willingly. But because plants were built before 
that, it took money to upgrade and improve them, and the United 
States was very happy to shut down plants and outsource that 
production to other countries.
    So, there is some that is policy, there is some that is 
just economics. And I think, like, again, Ranking Member 
Stansbury, I think it is a complex situation, and there is no 
one answer fits all, but policy is definitely part of it. And 
permitting for getting new mines on just takes forever.
    Mr. Grijalva. And the 1872 mining law, what role does that 
play in the----
    Dr. Moats. I am going to defer to that, because I know of 
the law, but I am not a mining engineer by trade, and I don't 
feel like I know the law well enough to offer an opinion on 
that.
    Mr. Grijalva. See, so linear thinkers do so well, they 
could just kind of defer.
    Mr. Mintzes, in your testimony, I think one of the things 
that--and I back-referenced to the 1872 mining law--I have said 
that many of the controversies that we confront in terms of 
siting, and permitting, extraction have to do with the public's 
right to know and the public's involvement in it, in 
particular, Indigenous communities that have become much more 
active, involved, and assertive about sacred sites, cultural, 
and historic resources. 1872 does not address that, and yet we 
have the conflict that is going on now in terms of consultation 
and trust responsibility to these Nations.
    Talk a little bit more about that role that you referenced 
in your testimony, in particular.
    Mr. Mintzes. Thank you, Mr. Grijalva. I really appreciate 
that. I also appreciate your long-standing support for reform 
of the 1872 mining law. And we are urging Congress to pass the 
Clean Energy Minerals Reform Act again this Congress.
    Let me just highlight the Hualapai Nation, just for 
example.
    Mr. Grijalva. OK.
    Mr. Mintzes. If you have an exploratory mine and it is 
fewer than 5 acres, which many of them are going to be. Under 
the law what happens is you stake your claim, you go to the 
local BLM office, you file a piece of paperwork and a fee. The 
way that the government interprets the law is that they have no 
discretion to deny that exploratory project.
    Now, the Hualapai have no idea that the exploration is 
going to happen until the drills hit the ground, because the 
notice that the mining company needs to provide is only to the 
government, but not to any of the people. So, Mr. Grijalva, 
that is actually part of the real source of most of the 
conflict in mine permitting. It is because we are operating 
under a 19th century statute, where we could stake claims, and 
then those minerals go wherever the claim owner wants them to 
go, unlike a leasing system, which the rest of the world does.
    Mr. Grijalva. OK.
    Mr. Mintzes. Thank you.
    Mr. Grijalva. I appreciate it. And I think royalties is an 
issue, as well. If we are going to fund dealing with the due 
diligence on the chain, expediting permitting processes, a 
source of revenue should come from those that are profiting 
from that extraction. And since we have no royalties at all on 
mining except for coal, I think that is open for discussion, as 
well, going forward in this overall discussion about permitting 
and critical minerals, and accessing those.
    And I yield back, Mr. Chairman, and thank you.
    Dr. Gosar. I thank the gentleman from Arizona. The 
gentleman from Montana, Mr. Rosendale, is recognized for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. Rosendale. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
    Everyone on this Committee is extremely interested in 
protecting our land, air, and water quality across the nation 
and, quite frankly, around the world. And most of us, as 
Chairman Westerman said, have extremely close ties to the land 
ourselves.
    We also recognize the need and the benefits realized by 
utilizing our natural resources, in most cases, rendering the 
land more productive after the extraction or harvesting of 
timber, making the land actually more productive than it was 
prior to any of that activity taking place.
    Mr. Mintzes, I would like to ask a couple just real basic 
questions.
    If the raw materials that are necessary to, literally, 
support civilization have not even been produced yet, they 
haven't been, as we have heard, permitted, mined, and refined, 
we just can't recycle our way out of this situation, either. We 
need some more materials.
    Do you believe that we should produce them in the most 
environmentally friendly methods that are available?
    Mr. Mintzes. Thank you, Mr. Rosendale, for that question. 
Yes.
    Mr. Rosendale. OK. Do you believe that they should utilize 
the safest and most advanced labor standards as they mine these 
materials?
    Mr. Mintzes. Yes, thank you.
    Mr. Rosendale. Thank you. And do you believe that China 
uses the most advanced and friendly environmental standards and 
labor standards?
    Mr. Mintzes. Thank you, Mr. Rosendale, for that question. 
My understanding from the State Department is no, at least in 
some regions they are in, yes.
    Mr. Rosendale. OK. I appreciate that. I don't know why we 
would continue to allow them to take on all these activities, 
as we see on the posters behind us, and not take over some of 
this production ourselves.
    Mr. Moats, I have a couple of questions here for you. 
Yesterday, we heard testimony about the refining process, and 
that the United States has dramatic limitations on the 
processing itself. So, it is not just the need to mine these 
materials, but, obviously, they have to be smelted, they have 
to be processed, all of the above.
    What, in your opinion, is the primary reason that we don't 
have these facilities in the United States?
    You mentioned it a little bit earlier, but, if you could, 
expand on that some.
    Dr. Moats. Yes. So, we export minerals and many of the 
metals that I have referred to. We don't have the smelting 
capacities we used to. They, again, shut down for both economic 
reasons, because of the lack of a level playing field, because 
when you sell into a commodity market, everybody sells into the 
same commodity market. And if you are subsidized, if your 
competition is subsidized, then you are in an economic 
disadvantage.
    Additionally, the environmental regulations that have been 
put into place created more costs to operate in the United 
States, and so, therefore, it became more difficult.
    Mr. Rosendale. So, as many people around the room continue 
to raise the questions about colonialism and the management of 
our resources, and accusing us of that, by exporting all of our 
raw materials to another country, having them process it, and 
then us having to purchase the finished product back, doesn't 
that sort of relegate the United States to be acting like a 
colony of yet one of these other powers?
    You don't have to answer that. That would just be it.
    We did learn a lot during COVID that the supply chains are 
completely disruptable, and that it presents major problems 
with us, whether we are talking about medications or other 
finished products that are necessary for our life.
    I have another avenue. The Northern Crow, the Northern 
Cheyenne and the Crow in Montana, they rely heavily on the coal 
resources that they mine in Montana. And while I know coal 
hasn't been the top of the subject today, I want to go down a 
different little road.
    The regulatory conditions that have been imposed on the 
power industry has caused the closure of 50 percent of the 
Colstrip Electric plant that the Crow and Northern Cheyenne 
depend on completely for jobs and for revenue. Without it, they 
would have 65, 70 percent unemployment rates. It is a mine-to-
mouth operation, so they mine it and then it goes directly to 
this power plant.
    If we don't have the baseload electricity, what challenges 
does that present for processing, and manufacturing, and things 
like that?
    As we talk about trying to electrify the nation for not 
only the electric cars, but also to the processing of the very 
materials.
    Dr. Moats. Am I allowed to answer the question?
    Mr. Rosendale. Mr. Chair, I have expired all my time, but--
--
    Dr. Gosar. The gentleman can answer the question.
    Mr. Rosendale. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
    Dr. Moats. Obviously, you have identified the ability to 
generate electricity is going to be substantial if we are going 
to electrify our vehicles, and then the raw materials that we 
need to do that.
    Obviously, the United States sits on 250 years of coal 
reserves to supply all of our electrical needs. We have chosen 
not to do that. We have a lot of natural gas reserves because 
of fracking and other things. So, they are there. And the 
opportunity to use those energy resources responsibly, I think, 
are still available.
    Mr. Rosendale. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, and I would 
yield back. Thank you for your----
    Dr. Gosar. I thank the gentleman from Montana. The 
gentleman from Arizona, Mr. Gallego, is recognized.
    Mr. Gallego. Thank you, Chair Gosar and Ranking Member 
Stansbury.
    As a member of both the Natural Resources and Armed 
Services Committee, I agree that securing our supply of 
critical minerals is a national security concern. That is why 
we need to look seriously at all possible solutions for 
sourcing and securing responsibly produced minerals.
    My first question is to Mr. Mintzes.
    In your testimony, you describe the actions this 
Administration and the 117th Congress took to manage supply 
chain risks for critical minerals. Could you please elaborate 
on why this diversified approach is strategic for national 
security?
    Mr. Mintzes. Thank you, Mr. Gallego, for that question.
    The Biden administration and Congress have really taken 
three major approaches: diversifying supply, pursuing 
recycling, and also looking at mine waste. The steps that the 
Administration and the Congress last took, I wanted to just 
disclaim I don't necessarily support all of them.
    But I just wanted to share that the infrastructure law made 
the FAST Act permanent. The FAST Act has included hardrock 
mining as a covered sector therein. The IRA funded $1 billion 
to our agencies to help speed permitting. The infrastructure 
law also created a working group designed to help speed 
permitting. We will be seeing those reports coming out soon.
    So, when you think about the infrastructure law, the 
funding for the agencies through Fiscal Year 2023 budget, 
making the FAST Act permanent, and also the tax cuts for mining 
in the Inflation Reduction Act, and the mineral sourcing 
provisions of the electric vehicle battery tax credit, we have 
a lot of incentives to go mine, and also to responsibly source 
materials that we need.
    So, we have already taken a lot of steps through the IRA 
IIJA in that respect.
    Mr. Gallego. Thank you. To make our nation secure, we must 
proactively plan also for the future.
    Mr. Loris, in your testimony you note that the critical 
minerals that the economy relies on today may look much 
different in 20 or 30 years. Could you please elaborate on the 
importance of investing in research and development to reduce 
our critical mineral dependency?
    Mr. Loris. Yes, sure. I think we have heard a lot of 
different predictions over the years about peak oil, about 
running out of food. A lot of them have not come true. And in 
terms of research and development, our national labs have been 
critical in exploring ways to recycle, ways to extract 
alternative resources. And I think the more we can have 
flexibility in those processes so that they can shift in case 
of national security needs shift or economic shift, the better 
off they are going to be, and I think the better off the 
private sector, working with the national labs, will be able to 
pivot.
    So, I view the national labs, I view our research 
universities, as fundamental in the solution to this all-of-
the-above approach that we need to take.
    Mr. Gallego. Right. And again, all of the above.
    So, taking this kind of long-term, all-of-the-above 
approach to national security, it is clear that our critical 
mineral needs and sources will also change. Mr. Mintzes, you 
have spoken about the benefits of a circular economy. Why is a 
circular economy an effective, long-term national security 
solution?
    Mr. Mintzes. Thank you, I appreciate that. The reason is we 
are not really sure, Mr. Gallego, today what mineral we will 
need tomorrow. So, if we build the infrastructure to recycle it 
now, we will already have it.
    Let's speak about cobalt for a second. Cobalt is not going 
to be around in batteries in 5 or 10 years, I don't imagine. It 
will be a different metal, won't it? So, why don't we recycle 
the batteries now, and the materials we have now, so that if we 
make it to the 22nd century, and we are on the verge of another 
minerals rush, by then we have reformed the law, surely. But by 
then, at least we will have the circular economy infrastructure 
we need to actually source the material that we are looking for 
at the time.
    Mr. Gallego. OK. Thank you. I am not going to ask about 
your if we make it to the 22nd century thesis, but I appreciate 
everyone's testimony here. And I think to, at least to re-
emphasize, I think both sides have actually had some very valid 
claims, and we do need to look at this, but at least I look at 
it from a national security perspective. Let's have an all 
above, all methods to get that approach.
    And I appreciate everyone's testimony. Thank you.
    Dr. Gosar. I thank the gentleman from Arizona. The 
gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Collins, is recognized, the Vice 
Chair of the Committee.
    Mr. Collins. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and before I get started 
with my questions, I just want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, for 
the honor of serving as Vice Chair for this very important 
Subcommittee. I am looking forward to serving under you as we 
look to unleash American energy and hold the Biden 
administration accountable for the America-last policies that 
have caused energy prices to rise as high as Chinese spy 
balloons.
    Now for my questions. Mr. Loris, the Chairman mentioned in 
his opening statement that permitting a new hardrock mine in 
the United States can take more than a decade. Can you or any 
of the other witnesses tell us why this is, and what exactly 
causes this process to take so long?
    And how has the Biden administration made this even more 
difficult?
    Mr. Loris. Yes, I am happy to start, and welcome input from 
others.
    If you look at some of our bedrock environmental laws, 
chiefly the National Environmental Policy Act, it has gotten 
much harder to permit processes for everything from clean 
energy projects to conventional fuel projects. And that, in 
conjunction with the seemingly endless litigation for a lot of 
these projects, just holds up any type of investment and any 
type of development for years in the courts.
    And Congressman Lamborn said our environmental regulation 
is too stringent, and I think that is the wrong way to look at 
it. I think it is that they are incredibly inefficient. We 
should welcome strong, stringent environmental safeguards that 
protect air quality and water quality. But we can't have 
processes where they are just held up for years by certain 
agencies.
    There is a lot of overlap, there is a lot of duplication, 
and then there are a lot of lawsuits from public interest 
groups, too. I think sometimes public interest groups can be 
helpful for people who don't have the resources to bring forth 
litigation, but a lot of times they are doing it because they 
just don't want the project being built, which is something I 
think Mr. George commented on in his oral testimony.
    So, if you look at some of the data, the private landowners 
and tribal groups from the years, I think, 2001 to 2013 brought 
only 3 percent of the litigation for filing NEPA lawsuits; over 
50 percent was from public interest groups. So, we just need a 
much more efficient process to get an up-or-down vote on 
whether these projects should move forward.
    And I think a lot of the private sector in the United 
States welcomes stringent environmental safeguards. They just 
want some regulatory certainty, more than anything else.
    Mr. Collins. Good, thank you.
    Would anybody else like to comment on that?
    Yes, sir, Mr. George.
    Mr. George. Thank you. Yes, I would just add that, in my 
experience working on projects that need these types of 
permits, whether it be--we just replaced an old oil pipeline in 
Minnesota with a brand new one and that took 8 years to permit 
and get done--lawsuits, process.
    We have a mine right now in Minnesota that has gone through 
a process for 20 years. They had their permits, lawsuits. Some 
of them were taken back. Now they have been repealed. It is in 
the Supreme Court. And that is on an existing mine site, where 
they have mined before.
    So, the frustration is real. I think certainty is exactly--
what Mr. Loris is talking about--is what is critical.
    What I have seen--you asked about what has been done--
banning mining in 225,000 acres where you have these minerals 
is a chilling impact on business and exploration and on 
companies' willingness to put up money to explore these 
projects. There was a particular project in that area that is 
now banned, and it has spent hundreds of millions of dollars 
already, just to see their leases pulled and mining banned in 
the region arbitrarily.
    So, I think all of these things are troubling. I think what 
you all can do is provide certainty, and not allow government 
agencies to bypass a process. Hold them accountable to that, 
because right now they are just doing whatever they want, from 
my experience.
    Mr. Collins. Yes, sir. And I don't want to cut anybody else 
off, but I want to go to a quick question that really plays 
into that, Mr. George, because there is a lot of talk about 
mining and jobs versus tourism jobs in certain parts of the 
country. And it seems as though some opponents of domestic 
mining like to pit these industries against each other.
    As someone in the mining industry, and based on your 
experience, how much do tourism jobs pay in comparison to what 
mining jobs pay?
    Mr. George. Thank you for the question. I can tell you, our 
members that will build these mines make, on average, $40 an 
hour on the check, in addition to world-class health care, 
where there is no family coverage, where there are no premiums, 
low deductibles, in addition to a defined benefit pension, 
defined contribution plan.
    And I can tell you that the tourism jobs--I actually went 
on one of the outfitters' websites to see exactly how much they 
are paying. They don't advertise how much they pay, but we know 
how much they pay, and it is about $15,000 a year with no 
benefits.
    So, when people in northern Minnesota are told, well, we 
just need to innovate our economy and have more tourism jobs, 
people up there know exactly what that means. It means a lower 
standard of living, period.
    Mr. Collins. Thank you.
    Mr. Chairman, I had one more question, but----
    Dr. Gosar. You will get another chance.
    Mr. Collins. Thank you.
    Dr. Gosar. I thank the gentleman from Georgia. The next one 
is a young lady from Florida, Mrs. Luna.
    Mrs. Luna. Thank you, Chairman Gosar. If I can just ask for 
unanimous consent to enter this into the record?
    Dr. Gosar. So ordered.

    [The information follows:]

    [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]   

                                                              

    Mrs. Luna. Thank you. I can't stop thinking about, Mr. 
Loris, what you told us earlier about some of this stuff that 
you had witnessed with some of the human rights abuses.
    Real quickly, what is the youngest age of some of the 
children that you have heard have been working in these mines?
    Mr. Loris. Ranging from 5 to 6 years old. And sometimes 
teens will have babies strapped to them while they are digging 
out the cobalt by hand. So, I mean, you are literally talking 
about infants at these mindsets.
    Mrs. Luna. I just want to share a stat with everyone on the 
panel. Children who work in these mines are frequently drugged 
to suppress extreme hunger and fatigue of working in such harsh 
conditions.
    If you can, just pass it that way.
    From our perspective, I think everyone on this panel would 
agree that if there is a way to move our industry away from 
China, it is probably the best thing, from a human rights 
perspective.
    But my question is, Mr. George, because I am not from a 
mining community, I am from a fishing community--how does the 
United States' mining standards differ from countries, 
specifically in the Congo, or where China is operating to 
conduct some of these mineral mining processes?
    Mr. George. Well, I can talk about labor standards in the 
terms of our rights here in this country to organize unions, 
which we have done. And the standards, the people that have 
done that, and people have literally died for those rights here 
in this country to obtain those rights. And when people 
organize and they have unions, that lifts everybody up.
    So, whether you are union or non-union, you benefit from 
those standards that we set. And----
    Mrs. Luna. And sorry to interrupt you. Is it in your 
opinion that this Administration's policies have put a 
hindrance on domestic mining operations?
    Mr. George. One hundred percent, yes. When you ban 225,000 
acres of land where these minerals exist, I don't see how you 
could argue otherwise.
    Mrs. Luna. So, I guess this would bring me to my next 
question, Mr. Mintzes.
    I had heard your perspective, and I understand what you are 
saying about respecting the rights of Indigenous peoples in 
regards to mining. However, this Committee has the ability to 
recognize that, and I think it is in, again, our opinion, to do 
the least harm possible, not just to the environment, but to 
other people, as well, right, the human rights perspective.

    And if we have the ability in the United States to bring in 
these resources, and then export them and ensure that people 
are not only being respected, but also, too, that we are 
protecting the environment in the process, don't you think that 
that would be an opportunity for us to responsibly harvest 
these minerals, even if it is on Indigenous lands?

    Mr. Mintzes. Thank you, Mrs. Luna, for that thoughtful 
question. I think that there are a lot of really great 
opportunities for us----

    Mrs. Luna. Sorry, can you pause for a second?

    I didn't know if that was funny, but I was asking a 
question, and so I am just asking for you guys to be respectful 
while I am asking the question, thank you.

    Go ahead.

    Mr. Mintzes. Thank you, Mrs. Luna. I do think that there 
are opportunities for us to be able to onshore the stronger 
links of the circular economy infrastructure here in the United 
States, and that we ought to be able to raise standards here, 
labor standards, environmental standards here and everywhere 
around the world, which is why, in particular, when the Biden 
administration is going to the Mining Indaba in Cape Town, we 
are urging real due diligence standards.

    And part of the bipartisanship, I think, of this Committee 
is we all want oversight. We all want accountability from the 
Biden administration. I want to know what those due diligence 
standards really are. I want to know.

    So, Mrs. Luna, I think we can work together in trying to 
figure out how we can raise the standards here and abroad.
    Mrs. Luna. Then my final question for you would be, right 
now the United States has re-entered the Paris Climate Accord, 
and that has enabled places like China to not only go forward 
and economically just completely dominate us, but also, too, 
from an energy perspective and a mining perspective, they are 
not only complicit in human rights abuses, but they are also 
destroying the environment.

    If we have the opportunity to pull back, would you say that 
that would be in the best interest of our country to do so?

    Mr. Mintzes. Thank you, Mrs. Luna. That is a really good 
question.

    I would actually like to associate myself with Mr. Loris' 
comments with respect to China's position vis-a-vis rare earth 
elements and their position in the market. It is my view that 
they have actually lost market share since the recent 2010 
trade dispute. So, there are, I think, as we have discussed, 
some trade options available to sort of reduce our dependency 
that way.

    Notably, Senator Wyden, earlier this week, just sent 
several letters to a number of original equipment 
manufacturers, mostly domestic ones, who were sourcing 
materials from the Xinjiang region of China, allegedly. So, 
what they are saying, what Senator Wyden is asking, same thing 
I am asking, ``Where is your due diligence plan?''

    So, we are asking the Administration, we are asking OEMs to 
show us how it is that we are making sure that slave labor 
isn't happening within their supply chains, so that we can all 
responsibly source the materials that we need.

    Mrs. Luna. Thank you.

    Dr. Gosar. Does the gentlelady yield back?

    Mrs. Luna. Yes, sir.

    Dr. Gosar. Thank you very much. The gentleman from 
Minnesota, Mr. Stauber.

    Mr. Stauber. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And Mr. Chair, I ask 
unanimous consent to enter into the record an E&E News article 
titled, ``Biden admin looks to overseas mining for EV, 
renewable needs,'' and it was dated January 23, 2023.

    Dr. Gosar. No objection. So ordered.

    [The information follows:]
GREENWIRE

Biden admin looks to overseas mining for EV, renewable needs

A State Department official says the Minerals Security Partnership with 
allied nations has zeroed in on projects to support around the world 
and will require a host of environmental and social governance 
standards.

    By: HANNAH NORTHEY / 01/23/2023 01:46 PM EST

    Politicopro.com/eenews

                                  ****

GREENWIRE -- The Biden administration plans to back as many as 16 
overseas projects to mine, refine and recycle minerals for electric 
vehicle batteries and other renewable technology, while moving forward 
with requirements to ensure those deals don't result in environmental 
degradation and human rights violations.

Jose Fernandez, the undersecretary of for economic growth, energy and 
the environment at the State Department, said during a wide-ranging 
interview that the United States and other members of the so-called 
Minerals Security Partnership are carefully vetting ``critical'' 
minerals projects across the globe to support--either through advocacy 
or funding.

In doing so, the White House is threading a needle, pushing to advance 
climate goals and wrest more control over foreign-produced minerals and 
supply chains, even as questions loom about labor abuses and pollution 
at mines in some countries. Meanwhile, House Republicans are gearing up 
to probe Biden's climate and mineral agenda (E&E Daily, Dec. 13, 2022).

In addition to addressing a massive vulnerability for the U.S. given 
skyrocketing demand for battery and green-tech minerals, Fernandez said 
the partnership is zeroing in on a host of environmental and social 
governance, or ESG, standards that companies and foreign governments 
will need to abide by.

``It may be it's not every country will want to adhere to those 
principles, in which case, simply, that's been part of what we've had 
to do in winnowing out from 170 projects to 16,'' said Fernandez. 
``It's our business model, and it's a conviction, but it's also an 
understanding that if it gets to see who can extract the most while 
doing the least for communities, we're not going to win that game.''

The Biden administration is touting the partnership investments as 
complementary to a surge of cash-flowing into the domestic market from 
the newly minted Inflation Reduction Act, a climate law that promises a 
financial boost for the mining industry in this country given its 
mineral sourcing requirements for EVs (Greenwire, Aug. 18, 2022).

Members of the partnership include the U.S., Australia, Canada, 
Finland, France, Germany, Japan, Korea, Sweden, the United Kingdom and 
the European Union.

House Republicans in recent days have launched a legislative effort to 
limit environmental reviews and curb lawsuits to bolster domestic 
mining (E&E Daily, Jan. 10). They also want to restrict any business 
relationship with the Democratic Republic of Congo, where the Labor 
Department last year said a large share of cobalt is mined at 
facilities ``where thousands of children work in hazardous conditions'' 
(Energywire, Oct. 5, 2022).

But Fernandez said any support overseas, should it be done responsibly, 
would complement the initiatives in the 2021 bipartisan infrastructure 
law and the Inflation Reduction Act, noting that the U.S. is already 
seeing more domestic manufacturing.

The partnership, he said, will offer up everything from political 
backing to technical guidance, loans, financing through the Export-
Import Bank or International Development Finance Corp., and political 
risk insurance, as well as imposing high environmental and social 
standards. The potential funding of about a dozen projects was first 
reported by Axios.

Federal studies, he said, show demand for minerals that the U.S. 
Geological Survey has been deemed ``critical'' to the economy, and 
national security will increase fivefold by 2040 as the clean energy 
transition unfolds, as well as a forty-twofold increase in demand for 
lithium.

``You cannot leave, no pun intended, any stone unturned,'' he said. 
``We have to look at domestic supply chain projects, and we also have 
to look abroad, and that's what we're trying to do.''

`It is not about China'

The national focus on critical minerals spiked during the Trump 
administration amid a trade war with China and has carried over, with 
fervor, under President Joe Biden, said Simon Moores, founder and CEO 
of the U.K. mining data firm Benchmark Mineral Intelligence.

Minerals have taken on an urgency for the Biden administration as 
officials seek to jump-start the energy transition away from fossil 
fuels, which will require materials needed to build turbines for 
offshore wind farms or EV battery components, as well as other 
technology.

``All of this started with the Trump administration . . . they kicked 
off the concept . . . they put critical minerals back on the map 
because of the trade war with China, and that's been carried through to 
the Biden administration with some intensity,'' Moores said.

Fernandez said the focus today goes beyond China, emphasizing that the 
goal is to diversify and create a more resilient supply chain both 
domestically and abroad given how little of the needed minerals are 
produced in the U.S.

``It is not about China. If we've learned anything from the Covid 
pandemic, it's that we cannot depend on single-point supply chains,'' 
he said. ``If you look at rare earths and critical minerals, the U.S. 
produces very little. We've got to be able to secure supplies, and the 
[Minerals Security Partnership] is intended to be one of the means 
through which we do that.''

A recent International Energy Agency echoes that point, noting that the 
market for clean energy technology could more than triple in size by 
2030 as countries push to fulfill their climate and energy pledges 
while also facing supply chain pitfalls (Energywire, Jan. 13).

``As we have seen with Europe's reliance on Russian gas, when you 
depend too much on one company, one country or one trade route, you 
risk paying a heavy price if there is disruption,'' IEA Executive 
Director Fatih Birol said in a release.

China, according to IEA, currently dominates the solar and wind energy 
supply chain, while critical minerals are mined in only a small number 
of countries. Australia, Chile and China, for example, produce more 
than 90 percent of the world's lithium.

The report concludes that international collaboration will be key to 
preventing supply chain bottlenecks, a point Fernandez also emphasized, 
calling it a challenge that the U.S. and private market cannot solve 
alone, but instead a ``vulnerability we're trying to solve with our 
partners.''

Each member country of the partnership, he explained, submitted 
projects that had company interest, and the coalition winnowed more 
than 170 proposals down to 16 ``pilot'' projects--based on factors like 
demand for the mineral and investment potential. Once a final lot of 
projects is selected for support, the partnership will reach out to 
private companies to attract investments, financing or offtake 
agreements, he said.

``We've got to get some deals in the door,'' he said, ``but obstacles, 
actually, have been surprisingly few.''

`Race to the top'

The partnership spent months discussing what's meant by ESG, said 
Fernandez, and is now zeroing in on existing standards that companies 
and countries will need to meet in order to receive assistance.

``It will not be a new standard,'' he said. ``I think you will see that 
there'll be a choice of different standards, and any of those will 
suffice, but they will be standards that will be and that are well-
known and respected in the industry.''

The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, or OECD, 
for example, provides so-called due diligence guidance for responsibly 
sourcing of minerals in conflict-affected and high-risk areas, while 
the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative, or EITI, is a global 
standard for the good governance of oil, gas and mineral resources.

Environmental groups have for months been calling for more 
accountability both here in the U.S. and abroad, namely through 
requiring companies supplying minerals to commit to obtaining ``free, 
prior and informed consent'' from nearby communities and relying on the 
use of third-party verification and certification for any voluntary 
industry standards.

The Biden administration has already made moves overseas, some of which 
have raised eyebrows. The Energy Department, for example, has provided 
a $102 million loan to build out a refinery in Louisiana that will 
process raw graphite from a mine in the Cabo Delgado region of 
Mozambique, where militant insurgents have a history of attacking 
resource projects owned by Western companies (Greenwire, May 11, 2022).

Fernandez said countries seeking help from the partnership will need to 
display transparency around any bidding process, for example, and 
ensure local communities and Indigenous populations are consulted. 
``You will see that all around the world, mining projects often run 
into local community opposition because they don't take the time to 
develop support, and they don't take the time to explain the 
benefits,'' he said.

While a recent memorandum of understanding the State Department inked 
with Congo and Zambia--two countries rich in cobalt and nickel--did not 
stem from the Minerals Security Partnership, Fernandez said it's a good 
example of the collaboration that can happen in what he calls a ``race 
to the top.''

The State Department pledged to help establish battery processing and 
manufacturing facilities in the two African nations, which currently 
send most of their raw materials to China--and have been criticized for 
child labor in various sectors (Energywire, Jan. 20).

The agreement, Fernandez said, shows how the U.S. can offer its 
financial institutions, technical assistance and some of the best 
environmental practices in the world to help countries develop supply 
chains for battery minerals while meeting high ESG standards.

``We can't compete in a race to the bottom,'' he continued. ``We can 
only [succeed] if we . . . follow higher standards and bring more 
benefits to local communities.''

                                 ______
                                 

    Mr. Stauber. Mr. Gosar, again, thanks for allowing me, for 
waiving me on, and allowing me to question some of our 
witnesses.
    Mr. George, thank you once again for coming here. I think 
this is three Congresses in a row that you have testified on 
behalf of mining and your membership in Minnesota. Your 
testimony speaks for itself. Banning mining in 225,000 acres of 
a working national forest--Superior National Forest is a 
working industrial forest.
    And guess what? They banned 225,000 acres without any 
environmental impact statement, without looking at the specific 
mine plan. It was purely political. The biggest copper nickel 
find in the world, and this Administration, not only did they 
pull the leases and ban mining, including taconite mining, what 
they did was take union jobs away because there was a project 
labor agreement in place, the best labor standards and best 
environmental standards, and this Administration turned a blind 
eye.
    Yet, the article that I just entered, Biden administration 
goes to foreign overseas mining that used child slave labor. It 
is unacceptable and immoral that this Administration is using 
child slave labor to mine the critical minerals to get to the 
green economy.
    Meanwhile, many anti-mining lawmakers and advocates look 
down on union jobs building our mines, saying they are not 
lifetime employment. They are lifetime employment. They are 
multi-generational jobs with project labor agreements.
    Mr. George, can you explain real quick the importance of 
these jobs, and the project labor agreements, the union 
membership, and what it does for our communities?
    Mr. George. Thank you, Congressman, happy to. These jobs 
are dignity. These jobs are respect. These jobs allow people to 
raise families. These jobs, those mining jobs in northern 
Minnesota are the only reason people are there. And they spin 
off. Every industry is related to the mines, as was pointed out 
earlier.
    So, these jobs could not be more important. And they are 
that quality because the standard of living and the labor 
standards in our area have been raised by unions like mine.
    Mr. Stauber. Mining is our past, our present, and our 
future. This Administration banned mining in northern Minnesota 
to include taconite mining.
    The union members, they have children, they go to our 
hospitals, they go to our grocery stores, they recreate up 
there. It is simply unacceptable.
    Mr. Moats, it is great to see you again, and thank you for 
joining us today. And I appreciate you mentioning China's 
already enormous and growing percentage of global steel. As you 
know, we have been mining iron for steelmaking in my district 
for over 135 years. And, as Mr. George says, we have the 
cleanest water in the state of Minnesota in the heart of our 
mining region.
    The mineral withdrawal we discussed earlier includes a ban 
on taconite in the 225,000 acres of the Superior National 
Forest, which is an industrial working forest. As the United 
States loses its steel supply to China, how damaging would it 
be to take known and possible taconite reserves off-line to our 
production?
    Dr. Moats. Thank you for the question. While we recycle a 
lot of steel, it always gets degraded. Copper is a bad element, 
so we always need a certain amount of virgin material coming 
from our iron ore mines.
    Therefore, if you want the lightweight steels that are 
needed for cars, for tank armor, those types of things, we need 
to have mining capabilities in the United States to produce it. 
And, of course, your state produces most of our mine from 
taconite mines.
    Mr. Stauber. Eighty percent of it.
    Dr. Moats. Yes.
    Mr. Stauber. Thank you.
    Mr. Loris, thank you for joining us in the last 30 seconds.
    I introduced the Permit for Mining Needs Act, which 
provides needed updates to our broken permitting process. It is 
supported by the National Association of Building Trades 
Unions, energy groups, mining trades, and more. Can you please 
discuss quickly how permitting reform and the provisions to 
improve mining permitting in my bill will actually lead to 
lower emissions in the long run?
    Mr. Loris. Yes, as several members and witnesses have 
mentioned, if we are not doing the permitting, and processing, 
and extraction here in the United States and other developed 
countries, it is going to happen elsewhere, especially with a 
lot of policies, government-induced demand that is going to 
increase the demand for these minerals, and therefore the 
prices are going to increase, and that is only going to 
increase supplies in other parts of the world.
    So, if we don't do it here, where those emissions standards 
are the most stringent, emissions worldwide are going to be 
likely higher.
    Mr. Stauber. Thank you.
    Mr. Chair, I yield back, and again thank you for waiving 
me----
    Dr. Gosar. I thank the gentleman. I am going to recognize 
myself.
    Mr. George, I want to come back to you. Trust is a series 
of promises kept. So, I would look at it that, when we make 
agreements in regards to national forests or multiple use of 
public lands, you are forming an internal treaty.
    On the forest we are talking about, the national forest, 
there is something very unusual about this agreement, because 
it actually had a buffer system enclosed. Right?
    Mr. George. I am not an expert on--are you talking about 
the boundary waters, and----
    Dr. Gosar. Absolutely.
    Mr. George. Yes. Yes, there was. When the boundary waters 
were created--and I am not an expert in that policy, but my 
understanding is--and we have all come to understand that 
mining was an activity that was supposed to happen in the 
region.
    Dr. Gosar. Right, there were areas set aside for logging 
and for mining.
    Mr. George. Correct.
    Dr. Gosar. So, we have to start looking at this.
    And Dr. Moats, actually, one of my other points, you just 
can't recycle. You have to add virgin material into almost all 
the stuff.
    Mr. Mintzes, have we started really any of the recycling 
for the solar cells right now?
    Mr. Mintzes. Thank you, Mr. Gosar. Thank you for that 
question.
    Yes, recycling of the solar products is fairly robust. It 
is a growing industry. And, in fact, the truth is that, with 
respect to the solar industry, I don't think we will need to do 
much mining to source the minerals we need for the solar 
technologies. We do have weak links in other areas of the solar 
supply chain. It is just not in mining.
    Dr. Gosar. Dr. Moats, you are shaking your head. Do you 
want to respond to that question?
    Dr. Moats. So, I agree with him that most solar panels are 
already recycled here in the United States. I am very familiar 
with some of the processes. They are very robust.
    But if you look at--and there have been multiple studies 
done that the growth of solar energy that is being projected, 
there is no way we are going to be able to recycle to supply 
all of the silicon panels and the tellurium that is needed. I 
have written several research papers on this, looking at where 
we can get more tellurium in the world. And the simple answer 
is we need to produce more from our existing operations and 
future mines. Thank you.
    Dr. Gosar. And you made a statement, I think several of you 
made statements in regards to we don't know what the needs are 
for the future. And when you start looking that way, you have 
to inventory these minerals as we go.
    So, are you familiar with some of the new technology, and 
actually the smelting process in regards to extraction of some 
of these metals, or minerals? In fact, all of the minerals out 
of the ore body, Dr. Moats?
    Dr. Moats. Yes, we have several research projects ongoing 
at the university, and I am aware of other ones, as well, where 
we are looking at advanced technologies to really analyze why 
are we not recovering more.
    The current research believes that about--again, we will go 
to tellurium, because that is what I have been looking at most 
recently--60 to 90 percent of the tellurium that is mined is 
not being recovered. Why is that? Why are we not doing that? 
So, we are using advanced technologies and looking at why that 
is, and that can be applied across the board to all of our 
mining operations, all of our processing plants. And that is 
what I would encourage you to look at.
    Dr. Gosar. Thank you.
    Mr. Mintzes, again, why would it be a problem that we have 
existing mine sites--for example, a manganese mine site--in my 
district?
    Why would the Federal Government, because of technology 
that we have today that we can extract almost all the manganese 
from those tailings that are sitting there, why would the 
Federal Government resist and say no to that?
    Mr. Mintzes. Thank you, Mr. Gosar, for that question. The 
Federal Government has said yes, resoundingly has said yes. The 
infrastructure law funded $320 million to the United States--I 
think that is right--to USGS to do exactly what you just 
described.
    And it is my understanding, it is my belief--and I am not a 
geologist, but I think the geologists are pretty excited right 
now, because there are real opportunities to, for example, look 
at mine waste as a potential source of some of these materials. 
I think it is really important.
    There are some places where that actually may--I am going 
to just speak for some of Earthworks' constituents. We have had 
some people come to us and say, ``Under some circumstances that 
could be a good idea, that could work.'' Others have said, 
``No, no, no, we are already an EPA Superfund site. Please 
don't come back here and start mucking around in the metals 
already.''
    So, the answer is yes, Mr. Gosar, at least in some areas, 
under some circumstances, that is a viable opportunity.
    Dr. Gosar. Well, I would agree. But we need to make it 
uniform all the way across the board. If these are sites that 
have had previous mining, yes, we ought to make sure that those 
areas are prioritized. And that has not been the case in 
Arizona, with the manganese.
    My time has expired. We have votes any time now, if I am 
not mistaken.
    Do we want to do a second round?
    OK, you are up.
    Ms. Stansbury. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate 
it, and I am trying not to talk with my mouth full, so I 
apologize.
    But I do want to take this opportunity as we are closing 
out this hearing to just revisit some of the discussion today. 
And I really want to frame this conversation around the urgency 
of this issue. I think some of that got lost in the details 
today.
    This is not only a national security emergency for the 
United States. This is about making sure that we can make good 
on our responsibility to ensure that we are not passing a 
global tipping point in climate change over the next decade. If 
we do not address these supply chain issues, we will not be 
able to implement the technologies and changes to our energy 
systems that will enable us to cut carbon emissions so that we 
can hit our carbon emissions standards to prevent catastrophic 
climate change.
    So, this is an urgent issue. It is a national security 
issue. It is an economic issue for the United States, and it is 
a global issue. But in the pursuit of addressing these global 
and national security issues, we cannot return to this. We 
cannot mine and permit our way to a solution, I think as we 
have heard here today.
    And I don't think anyone in this room--obviously, those of 
us who serve on this Committee care deeply about nature, the 
environment, the outdoors--I don't think anyone in this room 
wants to return to the past, where corporations went into 
communities, made mining claims, and then strip-mined them. I 
bet we have a lot of outdoors people here, a lot of fishermen, 
a lot of people who are hikers and spend time outside. Can you 
imagine?
    What I am hearing in this hearing--and I think oftentimes 
the false equivalency that gets put forward--is the idea that 
if we just gutted our environmental laws, if we just took away 
the Clean Water Act, if we just took away the Clean Air Act, if 
we just got rid of NEPA, we could just open up all these mines 
and solve this problem.
    Well, first of all, that is not true. That is not going to 
solve the problem. And I don't think that anyone in this room 
wants to return to an era when we had rivers on fire, when 
smelters were poisoning children and communities across the 
country, and where, when people went to their favorite fishing 
spot or a tribal community went to pray in one of their most 
sacred sites, they found that a mining claim had been laid and 
strip-mined. I don't think anyone wants to return that to that 
era. And, certainly, I don't think American workers want to 
return to that era.
    So, what we need to do is really take an approach that is 
smart, that is science-based, that is a human-rights-based 
approach that really addresses this issue from all aspects.
    Of course, we have to address the international security 
and trade issues. Of course, we have to address the human 
rights abuses that are happening from the sourcing of some of 
these minerals.
    And I want to be clear. This is a mine with cobalt. We are 
talking about dozens of different minerals across the world. 
There are mines that are doing responsible sourcing that do 
have good labor practices. But what we need is to make sure 
that we have a multi-pronged approach that addresses these 
issues.
    Finally, I just want to say that this body has already 
taken significant action to help address these issues. This 
last Congress we passed a Bipartisan Infrastructure Law. It 
makes some of the largest investments in infrastructure in the 
history of our country in certain sectors, particularly in 
natural resources, and it includes a number of provisions that 
will help to build out a sustainable supply chain for our 
critical minerals.
    We also passed the Inflation Reduction Act in August. And 
while we did not have bipartisan support for that bill here in 
the House, what I can tell you is that it is the largest single 
investment in climate action, not only in the history of the 
United States, but the history of the world. And it sets us on 
a path not only to clean energy for the United States, but 
energy dependence and the ability to address the catastrophic 
change that will happen from global climate change.
    The future of our country, of our communities, and of our 
children depends on bipartisan action on this issue. And, Mr. 
Chairman, I deeply appreciate your bipartisanship this morning, 
and truly look forward to working with my colleagues across the 
aisle, because the urgency of this issue demands that we do.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back.
    Dr. Gosar. I will take the liberty of making one comment.
    If we are worried, really worried, about climate change, we 
ought to be looking at bringing the smelting process back to 
the United States. Think about this. This is heavy material. It 
is being transported out, transported back. That is an 
unnecessary type of a process. So, we need to start looking 
differently, and that is what Einstein said. Don't think more, 
think differently. And I think we can make this all work.
    The gentleman from Montana is recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Rosendale. Thank you, Mr. Chair. We have been hearing a 
lot of discussions about the mining law of 1872, and that is 
the only thing that groups act like that we are relying upon in 
order to authorize, permit, and open a mining facility. And I 
just really, really think that that premise needs to be 
clarified here.
    There is an awful lot of additional regulation, and the 
problem is that this body has allowed those regulations to be 
drafted and created by outside agencies, thereby granting them 
the ability to impose those just like they are the rule of law. 
Well, we are supposed to be the lawmakers, and we need to make 
sure that we provide that clarity for industry.
    We need to provide that clarity for the agencies, and it 
hasn't happened. And because of that, there are groups that 
have emerged across the nation that have financially benefited 
from the different laws that are put in place, making sure that 
they are able to get their legal fees back again once they tie 
up many of the mines, and extractive industries, and harvesting 
of timber, things that, again, would not only benefit the 
nation economically, financially, and from a national security 
standpoint, but actually help the environment, as well, because 
it is just good management of the land.
    So, Mr. Moats, I would like to ask you, it is clear that we 
don't rely just upon the mining laws of 1872. Could you tell me 
just a few of the things that an organization would have to go 
through, and the permitting that they would have to achieve in 
order to open up one of these facilities?
    Dr. Moats. Thank you for the question. Again, I am not 
sure, as I am not a mining engineer, and I am not sure that I 
know the depth of the knowledge that I would like to have to 
answer your question.
    I do know that the 1872 law is one of the laws. There were, 
again laws in 1970, and a revision in 1977, and another one in 
the 1990s. And then every state and every local community can 
have their own laws.
    I think before the House, the National Mining Committee, or 
National Mining Association, brought before you, and it is in 
your minutes from the last Congress where they brought forth 
the poster that they made to permit a mine in the state of 
Nevada. And it started over there, and it went all the way 
around the room, and it is quite extensive. And there are now 
mines in Minnesota and Arizona that have been trying to be 
permitted for 13 to 15 years.
    And I would just echo what has already been said by my 
fellow witness, which is I don't think we are asking to get 
away and gut existing laws. I think the mining industry and the 
processing industry just wants certainty.
    If you look at the Australians and the Canadians, they have 
a 2-, 3-year permitting turnaround. You can make business 
decisions. Right now, with the uncertainty, open-endedness of 
whether or not, who is in the administration that is in charge, 
and whether or not licenses will be pulled and so forth, it is 
the uncertainty.
    I can give you numerous examples over my career where 
people have brought in--we could have a copper smelter in Texas 
right now, except for that a company from, we will say an Asian 
country, not an allied Asian country was going to put one in in 
Japan. I mean, Japan was going to put in a smelter in Texas. 
And after having to deal with the permits for 10 years, they 
said, no, we are not going to do that. So, it is a real 
problem.
    Mr. Rosendale. Thank you very much. And, again, if none of 
us are sure what minerals and elements are going to be utilized 
and most efficient in 10 years from now, it certainly makes it 
difficult to drive permitting today for something that is 
unknown.
    Once we determine what we need, if it is going to take 
another 10 years or 20 years before you can actually refine it, 
mine it, and utilize it, by then it very well could be replaced 
by yet another mineral.
    And I can tell you that, in the state of Montana, which is 
known as the Treasure State because of all of the minerals that 
we produce, we have not issued a new mining permit in 20 years, 
in 20 years, and that is a shame.
    Mr. Chair, I yield back.
    Dr. Gosar. I thank the gentleman from Montana. The 
gentleman from Arizona is recognized, the Ranking Member.
    Mr. Grijalva. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I am one that, 
in my time on this Committee, I have hated this second round of 
questions, but I am going to take advantage of it today.
    [Laughter.]
    Mr. Grijalva. Dr. Moats, this time sequence issue. We are 
dealing today--the urgency is that, as my colleagues across the 
aisle have made pointedly clear today, and yesterday, and the 
day before, is that the Biden administration is effectively not 
only standing in the way, but making it impossible for the kind 
of critical mineral extraction in this topic to get done. That 
is the timeline that we are dealing with right now, politically 
and, I guess, in terms of a reaction to a policy. It is the 
Democrats, it is this, and that, and that is the timeline, 2 
years.
    Things were much rosier for the previous administration 
during those 4 years? Everything was fine? The regulatory 
demand wasn't there? NEPA wasn't there? Litigation wasn't 
there?
    Dr. Moats. Thank you for the question. No, this has been a 
problem for 20, 30 years.
    Mr. Grijalva. And the root of the issue is still, in my 
mind and your reaction, an antiquated mining law that has not 
been reformed, updated to this particular century we are in?
    Dr. Moats. I would not classify my comments that way. I 
think the mining law has been modified, maybe the mining law 
has not, but there has been additional legislation that has 
been passed that all the mining companies and processing 
companies have to adhere to.
    Mr. Grijalva. And it was around issues of public health, 
primarily, where they started to get generated in the 70s, when 
health issues became the critical question.
    So, that is the root of why this discussion is going on, 
the practices and abuses of the past. And that legacy is not 
something that people want to repeat. The processes that are 
being put in place and being talked about now are--in terms of 
permitting reform--to begin to eliminate some of those 
protections. And as the Ranking Member said, the complexity of 
this issue doesn't mean that you leave something behind that 
was put in place in order to protect public health and 
communities.
    I think this question is not simplistic, and this question 
is not going to be solved by just talking about permitting 
reform and the poor mining companies.
    The other question I would like to ask, Mr. Mintzes, is 
ownership. I mean, this isn't the guy that was putting things 
on his boot and going up the mountain to look for gold and 
silver, 1872 kind of style. We are talking about multi-
national, foreign-owned companies across the whole area.
    One of the things I have been promoting, if we are serious 
about, is that those mining companies that have those 
horrendous human, environmental, and labor abuses, and are 
doing businesses in other parts of the world, wouldn't it be 
prudent for the United States to ban them from doing business 
on our public lands and waters, as a consequence to those 
practices, as a deterrent to those practices, as an incentive 
to stop those practices?
    Mr. Mintzes. Forgive me, Mr. Grijalva. Do you mean as an--
go ahead.
    Mr. Grijalva. We keep talking about this as an American 
issue, and it is. But the ownership and the exploitation of 
most of these minerals is foreign, including Chinese. Even some 
of the mines in Arizona have a percentage of which are Chinese-
owned. So, should they be banned? Because they are the bad 
guys.
    Mr. Mintzes. Thank you, Mr. Grijalva. You illustrate a 
really important point about the way the 1872 mining law 
functions. And I am going to defer to you and to your 
colleagues who serve on Armed Services to make decisions about 
what is in our national security.
    What I am suggesting, though, is that if anybody, foreign 
or domestic, friendly or not, can stake a claim to American 
minerals, and then they own those by virtue of this statute, I 
am suggesting that makes me feel insecure, so that is why we 
are urging your reform, so that we have a leasing system for 
public lands minerals, where we can have an upfront suitability 
determination, and know who is going to be leasing these 
things, and other reforms, too.
    Mr. Grijalva. And apply and provide assurety to the private 
sector and assurety to the workers at that level. I think that 
is why this law works against that assurety, I think.
    Anyway, I yield back.
    Dr. Gosar. I love the gentleman's--where he is going with 
this. But you never do treaties from a weak point, you do it 
from a power of strength. So, in the aspect of trying to say no 
to China, we actually make it worse for us and better for them.
    Look what we did with Russia, with oil. We said we were 
barring them. Oil shot up. They had more profits. They had more 
tanks. They had more things to buy with that money.
    So, once again, this goes back to what Einstein said: Don't 
think more. Think differently. I will give you an example.
    What if I told you about oil sands, and the gentlemen, the 
three chemists who figured out how to extract oil sands, want 
to give it to the American people? They don't want to give it 
to a company, they want to give it to the United States. It is 
very profitable. They can produce a barrel of oil, sweet crude 
that we have very little of, for $11 a barrel. Wow. Wow. So, we 
have to think creatively here, and we can't pick one aspect.
    The gentleman from Georgia is recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Collins. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Before I get into some other comments, Mr. Moats, or Dr. 
Moats, I think your comment on 20 to 30 years is exactly why I 
am here today. We are sick and tired of the agencies in this 
Federal Government regulating and pushing people out of 
business. It is one of the reasons we have an oversight in 
every Committee that we have up here. They act like they are a 
fourth branch of government, and they need to be brought under 
control. So, I appreciate your comment.
    The Chairman was talking about solar panels. As someone 
that is in the transportation industry, you may not realize 
this, but we utilize solar panels. And, today, we can't hardly 
get them because there is such a backorder on them. So, they 
are being utilized more and more, and we really don't know what 
the potential for solar panels are. So, that is just another 
added example of how we need to be mining, instead of just 
recycling.
    Mr. George, I wanted to follow up on something real quick. 
You were talking about replacing a pipeline that took 8 years, 
an old mine that was trying to get re-permitted, and it took 
over 20 years. I understand there are regulations and then 
there is Federal Government just dragging their feet.
    Do you have percentages of how much of that was litigation 
versus just the Federal Government dragging their feet?
    Mr. George. I probably can't give you a percentage, but it 
is both. It is local, state government dragging its feet, those 
agencies, it is the Federal Government permits dragging their 
feet or just ignoring permit requests. It is lawsuits. It is 
litigation. It is all of it.
    And I would just add real quickly, my friends here who are 
talking about recycling, I don't know if you have ever been 
around a metal recycling plant, but good luck getting those 
permitted.
    Mr. Collins. Thank you.
    Mr. Loris, I had a question at the very beginning. We 
didn't get to it. You referenced a decline in metal smelters 
and refineries in the United States. And why have we lost our 
domestic facilities, and how do we compare with competitors 
like China?
    I think we are down to, what, two, maybe three copper 
smelters in the United States? Three? Versus what, 50 in China?
    Mr. Loris. That might be more for Dr. Moats. I think he has 
more information on that.
    I will just say I think it is a combination of factors. I 
think regulations certainly play a part. I think the flooding 
of markets and competition abroad certainly play a part and 
certainly render some of these things uneconomical.
    But Dr. Moats is more of an expert on that than I am.
    Dr. Moats. We currently have three copper smelters and two 
copper refineries in the United States. There is a German 
company who is looking to install a secondary or a recycling 
smelter in Georgia. Aurubis is getting the permits and, I 
believe, is starting to break ground.
    Why did we used to have 13 to 14 smelters when I started my 
career and have shut down? It is because of (1) the mining 
grades have declined; (2) because it is more profitable for 
mining companies to export the minerals than to upgrade their 
existing smelters, so they shut them down from an economic 
standpoint.
    Mr. Collins. Is that due to regulations?
    Dr. Moats. That is part of it. I mean, they have to adhere 
to the Clean Air Act, and the Clean Water Act, and all the 
other acts, and all the local things. So, they made an economic 
decision that it was more profitable to ship the minerals 
elsewhere. It is not just copper, it is lead, it is zinc. It is 
many.
    Mr. Collins. Thank you.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will yield back.
    Dr. Gosar. The gentleman from Minnesota is recognized.
    Mr. Stauber. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I just want to 
reiterate some comments from Chairman Westerman, and this is to 
our Ranking Member.
    We have to reform our permitting process in order for us to 
mine, bring processing and manufacturing back to our country. 
That is a great start. That is going to help secure our 
strategic national security.
    I have a question for Mr. Moats, and the question is this: 
If today China and Russia stopped selling us rare earths and 
critical minerals, what would it do to our national security?
    Dr. Moats. It would be devastating. I mean, we can't 
survive. Not just us, but the entire world is dependent on 
China, specifically. But the Russians produce some nickel and 
some platinum group metals, so we are also dependent on them. 
It is an inter-connected world economy. And if you take off the 
China, specifically, because they produce 40 to 50, to 80 to 90 
percent of each of these things, it would be devastating.
    Mr. Stauber. I just want everyone to understand his answer 
to my question. If today the Communist country of China and 
Russia stopped selling us their rare earths and critical 
minerals, his response, it would be devastating to the United 
States.
    How can we allow that to happen, the strategic national 
security, when we have these natural resources in the palm of 
our own hand, in our country, using our environmental and labor 
standards? How did we get this way? Why?
    And then I entered into the record the E&E News article, 
where this Administration goes to foreign nations to process 
these. Give me a break.
    I want to just reiterate something that was the question my 
friend from Georgia asked. The Boundary Waters Canoe Area 
Wilderness was incorporated in 1978. The Democrat Member of 
Congress who sat in this position, James Oberstar from 
Minnesota, did not support that. He did not support the 
wilderness, taking that off-line.
    But the fact of the matter is the wilderness was made, and 
then a buffer zone around the wilderness was put forth. And I 
want everybody to know there will be no mining in the Boundary 
Waters Canoe Area Wilderness, and there will be no mining in 
the buffer zone around it. But like my colleague way back in 
the late 70s said, ``If you are going to make this wilderness 
on that outside, do not take our livelihood away,'' and he was 
referring to timber, harvesting, and mining. He was so far 
ahead of us in his thinking, because he knew today we would be 
fighting for these jobs and these minerals. That is how far 
Congressman Oberstar was ahead of the thinking.
    And it really, really pains me to hear your answer that it 
would devastate the United States of America. We need to have 
permitting reform to mine in our country, to process, and 
manufacture. We, for strategic reasons, need to do this, and I 
am looking forward to a healthy debate on how we can do that, 
how we can bring back our manufacturing, and our mining, and 
our processing to the shores of this country.
    If we didn't learn anything from COVID, shame on us. Shame 
on us. The dependency that we have allowed this nation to go 
forward and depend on adversarial nations for our strategic 
national security, we can't allow that. We have to change 
course today.
    And I yield back.
    Dr. Gosar. I thank the gentleman. I am going to recognize 
myself, and then I want to prepare the witnesses. One of the 
things I have always done in the past is ask you, after I am 
done with questions, what was the one question you wanted to 
have been asked? What is its answer, but it was never asked?
    So, I thank the gentleman from Minnesota. I want to enter 
into a colloquy with him, if he will stay behind.
    Are mining and enjoying the wilderness and the environment 
mutually exclusive?
    Mr. Stauber. We can do both. We have proved we can do both, 
because we have been mining for 135 years in northern 
Minnesota, and northern Minnesota is a great recreational area 
to live, work, raise a family, and make a good wage.
    Dr. Gosar. I also would ask him, who is more stringent on 
things in our backyard, the Federal Government or the people of 
the towns, counties, and cities of Minnesota?
    Mr. Stauber. The towns, counties, and cities have their 
pulse on these issues. And as Mr. George said, they support 
mining on the Iron Range.
    Dr. Gosar. Do they also believe in the same principle that 
I brought up of Einstein, think differently, not more, 
particularly with the re-purposing of the taconite mines?
    Mr. Stauber. That is correct.
    Dr. Gosar. Great fishing there, right?
    Mr. Stauber. Very. I would say, Chair Gosar, would you 
yield to me for 20 seconds?
    Dr. Gosar. Sure.
    Mr. Stauber. You came up to northern Minnesota several 
years ago with my predecessor in the Western Caucus. The same 
issues that we were dealing with back then, the same two major 
mines, it has been how many, 7, 8 years ago. And the permitting 
for one of the mines is in its 20th year, and another going 
into its 10th year.
    And the biggest copper nickel find in the world, 95 percent 
of the nickel, 88 percent of the cobalt, over a third of the 
copper and other platinum group metals are sitting in a 
beautiful reserve in northern Minnesota.
    Dr. Gosar. I am going to take it from there.
    Dr. Moats, there were comments made today in regards to the 
permitting process. Part of the problem that I have found--and 
I am the one responsible to getting the Resolution Copper 
through Congress, but we still haven't mined a damn thing--is 
the bureaucracy. The bureaucracy, you have people inserted that 
believe that they are there to stop something. That is not what 
I understand. My understanding is they are here to facilitate 
the implementation of the laws that Congress passes. Are you in 
agreement with that?
    Dr. Moats. Having done my degree at University of Arizona, 
bear down.
    I have listened to Rio Tinto talk a lot about the 
Resolution Copper project over the years and, of course, they 
are very politically sensitive, and don't really say anything. 
But it seems very clear that, when they make a step forward, it 
is two steps back for many years. And we are now over 13, 15 
years trying to permit that, and I know there are lots of 
problems with that. There are tribal lands, there are deep, 
deep mines, there are lots of issues related to that.
    So, I think, again, what my colleague next to me said, I 
think the mining companies are just looking for clarity on--
there is a fixed time, and if we don't make it through, then we 
don't make it through, so we can make an investment somewhere 
else, as opposed to just the uncertainty of if we will ever be 
allowed to do this.
    Dr. Gosar. And I also want to set the record straight.
    So, royalties. There are royalties that are paid for this, 
right? They just go to the state.
    Dr. Moats. Yes, there are royalties.
    Dr. Gosar. Yes, that is what I thought.
    I agree with the certainty. And one of the things that I 
have been very poignant with Resolution Copper is trust is a 
series of promises kept. Everything you do, go for transparency 
and go above the grade.
    They have done more than their fair share. They have 
invested over $1 billion to reclaim the mine that was there 
before, $1 billion. No one talks about that. None, notsoever.
    So, now I am going to go to Mr. Loris. And what was the 
question you wanted to ask that wasn't asked, and what is its 
answer?
    Mr. Loris. Just quickly, one, I think, is just a lot of 
these conversations are about trade-offs, and those trade-offs 
can be very difficult conversations from an environmental 
standpoint. Some people might like an unobstructed river, some 
people might like a dammed-up river, because it provides clean 
electricity. So, having those conversations about environmental 
trade-offs is often complicated, and we should acknowledge 
those complications.
    I would also add that we have talked a lot about community 
engagement and respecting the rights of tribes, which I think 
is critically important for any process moving forward.
    I think we also need to be cognizant of when tribes are 
supportive of these projects. The Thacker Pass mine in Nevada, 
the McDermitt Tribe is supportive of that. Indigenous groups 
have been supportive of oil and gas development in Alaska. So, 
I think it cuts both ways.
    Dr. Gosar. Thank you.
    Dr. Moats?
    Dr. Moats. Thank you. I feel like I have been asked a lot 
of questions. I think the question that I would like to have 
been asked is why don't we do rare earths in the United States? 
And the short answer is we know where they are. We know how to 
get them. We know how to make the metal. So, why aren't we?
    And that resides to--many of the questions that we have 
here is whenever we are doing this, we will always produce 
waste. And that waste that comes out of rare earths is 
radioactive. It is the thorium, it is the elephant in the room. 
So, until we come up with a policy and a plan to deal with 
thorium, we are going to be beholden to other countries, and we 
are going to export our wastes somewhere else. Thank you.
    Dr. Gosar. I am very aware of that. In fact, in La Paz 
County we have a deposit of Scandium that has no association 
with thorium. So, why aren't we mining? Just FYI.
    Mr. Mintzes, your question?
    Mr. Mintzes. Thank you, Mr. Gosar, I appreciate this. I 
actually want to take a shot at the permitting question.
    Dr. Gosar. OK.
    Mr. Mintzes. Is that OK? OK. I disagree with my dear 
friends here sitting next to me.
    I believe that the average time it takes the BLM and the 
Forest Service to permit a large hardrock mine on public lands 
is 2 years, according to the Government Accountability Office. 
And when you look at the mining company's own data that they 
annually supply to the Fraser Institute, which is a Canadian 
think tank that is supported by the mining industry, for 
exploration permits the amount of time is 11 to 14 months here 
in the United States, 8 to 10 sometimes, OK?
    And just quickly noting that, as we discussed, under the 
1872 mining law, if you explore, you discover the valuable 
minerals, that is kind of the ball game. So, 8 to 10 months, 
maybe 14 months to get an exploration permit, then it is ball 
game under the 1872 mining law. So, that is my two cents on 
mine permitting reform, besides what the Congress did last 
time.
    Thank you, Mr. Gosar.
    Dr. Gosar. Thank you, Mr. Mintzes.
    The gentleman from Minnesota is recognized for his 
question.
    Mr. George. Mr. Chairman, you touched on this briefly. The 
question that I was hoping would be asked is, and I touched on 
it briefly, too, what do the people that live where the 
resources are think? They want to mine the resources, is the 
answer to that question.
    And why don't we trust them? Because they want to mine them 
responsibly. It is their back yard. They are the ones that are 
going to hold the mining companies accountable to labor 
standards, to environmental standards. They are never going to 
support a mine that would not follow those. I wouldn't. Why 
aren't we allowed to do what we know we can do, and why doesn't 
anybody trust the people that live in these areas is the 
question that I have.
    Dr. Gosar. That is a great, great question. And one of the 
things that I will tell you, and particularly on the way that 
Arizona was admitted into the country, they were forced to take 
the Federal Doctrine, but they were actually guaranteed the 
multiple-use doctrine aspects of public lands for the maximum 
to be shared.
    So, in that aspect, it implies contract. And in that 
contract, it is not the Federal Government as a last resort, it 
is the State. So, we have to start looking at this creatively. 
The Federal Government has been given way too much power. That 
was the exercise that happened earlier this year. We had made a 
speaker much too powerful. It wasn't the person, it was the 
position. And the correcting aspect is the 10th Amendment.
    Folks, this has been a great meeting, great conversation. 
And with that, I adjourn this meeting.

    [Whereupon, at 11:13 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]

            [ADDITIONAL MATERIALS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD]

Submission for the Record by Rep. Grijalva

                            COBALT INSTITUTE

Hon. Bruce Westerman, Chairman
Hon. Raul Grijalva, Ranking Member
Natural Resources Committee
1324 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515

Hon. Paul Gosar, Chairman
Hon. Melanie Stansbury, Ranking Member
Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee
Natural Resources Committee
1324 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515

    Dear Chairman Westerman, Ranking Member Grijalva, Chairman Gosar, 
and Ranking Member Stansbury:

    I write on behalf of the Cobalt Institute noting that your 
Committee conducted hearings last week to examine the critical minerals 
supply chain. The Cobalt Institute is a global trade association 
composed of producers, users, recyclers, and traders of cobalt, and our 
members include companies in the US and North America.

    Cobalt is vital for lithium-ion batteries as used in our phones, 
computers, and electric vehicles. It is also essential for defense and 
aerospace applications, for example through the production of 
corrosion-resistant super alloys, and well as in magnets, wear-
resistant tools, high-strength steel, pigments and coatings, and as a 
catalyst for the desulfurization of oil.

Summary

    In the coming decade, the cobalt value chain, batteries and green 
technologies will be a major driver of growth and job creation in the 
United States. With the right conditions for industry, the US has the 
potential to be a leader, securing market share and creating resilient 
supply chains based on successful home-grown businesses. This will only 
happen with early, decisive actions, taken in cooperation with 
international partners. Areas and regions that are first movers will be 
well-placed to benefit from the industry's growth. The Cobalt Institute 
is a leading authority on the cobalt industry and can support 
understanding of the industry and the opportunities that exist.

    In terms of the topics being explored by the Committee.

    On diversification, the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) will 
remain an important source of cobalt. Its government has indicated its 
eagerness to work closely with the United States and develop ``win-
win'' partnerships on the supply of critical minerals, including 
investment in mining, processing, refining and infrastructure. 
Diversification is possible, with the world's second largest cobalt 
reserves being in Australia, and large reserves being available in 
Canada, Indonesia, the and the Philippines. Cobalt is typically mined 
as a byproduct of copper and nickel mining. Additionally, cobalt is 
highly recyclable and--with the right policies--the United States can 
establish a largely circular economy for cobalt.

    On human rights: Conditions at artisanal and small-scale mining 
(ASM) sites in the DRC are generally poor. The ASM cobalt sector is 
largely informal and connected to some very negative impacts including 
highly hazardous working conditions, gender discrimination, unfair 
trading practices, and, in certain instances, child labor. ASM remains 
a business reality in the Congolese cobalt supply chain and cannot 
simply be shut down. Cutting ASM out of the cobalt supply chain is 
neither feasible, due to the interwoven nature of the cobalt supply 
chain, nor desirable from a development perspective. Rather than 
excluding the ASM sector from markets, a truly just transition would 
bring artisanal workers and communities along by promoting 
formalization, capacity building, professionalization of mining 
techniques, and fair-trading practices, among other drivers to improve 
outcomes for ASM communities.

Diversification

    There is enough cobalt for the US to achieve a resilient long-term 
supply of cobalt, albeit it also needs to take steps to ensure it can 
continue to access these resources. Globally, new cobalt streams can be 
brought online in a number of ways, including undeveloped mining 
assets, extracting cobalt from tailings sites, recycling, and--assuming 
it can be done sustainably--nascent exploration of deep-sea resources 
(where there is estimated to be 120m tons of cobalt, compared to 8.3m 
on land \1\). While the US does have exploitable cobalt reserves, there 
will remain a need to source cobalt by other means.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ United States Geological Survey, Mineral Commodity Summaries 
2023--Cobalt.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Lithium-ion batteries will be the main driver of demand for cobalt 
over the next decade. This growth is expected to be significant, 
primarily driven by the increased use of electric vehicles. While there 
are many alternative cathode chemistries available for electric 
vehicles, none can match the range, performance, durability, and 
sustainability of those containing cobalt, which is why they have been 
the preferred technology choice for manufacturers.
    It is possible to achieve increased diversification of supply 
chains for cobalt, but there will remain a need to source from the 
Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC). Therefore, it is important for 
the US to engage in the DRC and invest in it as well at the same time 
as seeking partnerships outside of the DRC. The recently signed 
Memorandum of Understanding is a step in the right direction. The DRC 
recently outlined plans to secure more of the battery value chain, 
including refining and cathode manufacturing, domestically. There is an 
opportunity for the US to support and benefit from this.
    One advantage cobalt-containing chemistries have versus some other 
cathode types is their high recyclability. The US can take advantage of 
this if it plans ahead. Cobalt is a valuable metal, and this makes 
cobalt-containing batteries economically attractive for recyclers. 
Cobalt is also highly recyclable from cathodes (90%+) and endlessly 
recyclable, helping used batteries be efficiently transformed into new 
batteries, while reducing the need for primary cobalt. It's worth 
nothing that alternative cathode chemistries may also use critical 
minerals but without the ability to be well recycled. Recycling rates 
have doubled through 2010-2021, going from 4% to 9% in 10 years. 
Recycling is expected to continue to rise especially due to new 
technological innovations that will come onstream. It is expected to 
reach 20% of the total cobalt supply in 2030.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ The Global Cobalt Socio-Economic Analysis (SEA), Cobalt 
Institute/Wood Mackenzie, 2021 (can be made available on request).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    However, whilst recycling can play an important role in the medium 
term, there will also be a need to use primary cobalt in the coming 
years. Reserves of cobalt in the DRC constitute about 48% of all global 
reserves; Australia has the second largest (18%), with Indonesia third 
(7%. Significant reserves also exist in Canada, Madagascar, and the 
Philippines. Diversification is therefore achievable.
    As with many industries, refining of cobalt is currently 
concentrated in China (72% \3\). Cobalt refining does take place in 
developed Western economies, and there is the potentially for this to 
be ramped up if there is a political desire to do so. The second 
largest refining country is Finland albeit at only 8% of global supply 
and Canada at 4%.\4\ The DRC recently outlined plans to try to secure 
more of the battery value chain domestically--including domestic 
refining of cobalt and cathode production--to secure more value 
addition from their natural resources. This plan will require 
investment, both in facilities themselves but also in associated 
infrastructure, and the US is well-placed to support them.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\ Wood Mackenzie.
    \4\ ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    It is also important to note that batteries can be used for years 
once manufactured. This means supply chain fluctuations would likely be 
more of an industrial concern than a consumer one.
    We suggest a number of ways to achieve stable long-term cobalt 
supplies. This includes broad mining capacity (DRC, rest of world, and 
domestic) as well as investment in domestic mining capacity and 
exploring possibilities for sea-based resources.
    Below are some specific policy recommendations for each of these, 
the totality of which will contribute significantly to supply chain 
resilience:

  1.  Domestic mining--the US is unlikely to be self-sufficient for 
            cobalt from its own land-based reserves however it does 
            have reserves that it can exploit, and this can certainly 
            support supply chain resilience.

  2.  Democratic Republic of the Congo--the current administration in 
            the DRC has a reasonable relationship with the US and is 
            keen to secure economic growth from its natural resources. 
            There is an imperative on the US to engage proactively with 
            its government, to support its ambitions and to make 
            strategic investments in projects and infrastructure. This 
            would help the US secure access to cobalt whilst also 
            creating additional supply. It should be a key part of its 
            international engagement.

  3.  Invest outside the DRC--more mining capacity needs to be 
            developed in the next decade to meet the expected demand 
            for cobalt. US and Western companies can make those 
            investments across the world in order to ensure long-term 
            stable access to cobalt. The US Government might choose to 
            make these investments a strategic priority, especially in 
            countries like Australia and Canada.

  4.  Recycling--a circular economy for cobalt can be established, 
            although the main barrier currently is collection rates for 
            used batteries. Policy mechanisms could support the 
            collection and recycling of end-of-life batteries. This 
            will take time to create, so primary materials will be 
            needed until a critical mass of recycled content is 
            achieved. The EU has already done work on this via its 
            proposed Battery Regulation.

    There is also the opportunity for the US to support investment in 
cobalt refining and processing capacity. This can be done profitably in 
Western nations but tends to have migrated to China where the economics 
have typically made more sense for companies. There is notably also a 
trend toward the co-location of the electric vehicle supply chain--
vehicle manufacturing, battery production and cathode production--which 
means having a robust value chain for cobalt creates synergies for the 
whole green economy. Therefore, having processing and battery 
manufacturing capacity is a catalyst for competitive electric vehicle 
manufacturing.
Human rights

    The majority of all cobalt mined in the DRC comes from industrial 
mines that are mostly operated by large or global companies. Some 12% 
of DRC supply is estimated to come from artisanal and small scale 
mining (ASM),\5\ although estimates are difficult to make and can vary 
between 10-20%. Responsible mining practices is a priority for the 
cobalt industry. The mining industry provides the resources necessary 
for creating and developing modern materials and enabling technological 
progress and, as a responsible industry, has also provided substantial 
benefits including economic advantages, environmental stewardship, 
health and safety standards, social welfare, infrastructure, education 
and training, alternative livelihoods and human rights awareness.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \5\ Cobalt Institute, State of the Market report (produced by CRU), 
2021.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    We acknowledge that conditions at ASM sites generally are poor. The 
ASM cobalt sector is largely informal and connected to some very 
negative impacts including highly hazardous working conditions, gender 
discrimination, unfair trading practices and in certain instances child 
labor.
    The production of cobalt from artisanal sites in the Congo 
represents the second-largest cobalt-mining sector in the world after 
industrial production in the DRC. Cobalt extraction through ASM 
therefore is an important source of cobalt and an important development 
opportunity for the DRC, on the condition that responsible practices 
can be established.
    ASM remains a business reality in the Congolese cobalt supply chain 
and cannot simply be shut down. Cutting ASM out of the cobalt supply 
chain is neither feasible, due to the interwoven nature of the cobalt 
supply chain, nor desirable from a development perspective. Instead, 
companies committed to setting up responsible cobalt sourcing practices 
must consider how to take responsibility for addressing the severe 
practices that blemish the ASM sector.
    The Cobalt Institute advocates on the need to move forward mindful 
of the need for a green, equitable and just transition. Rather than 
excluding the ASM sector from markets, a truly just transition would 
bring artisanal workers and communities along by promoting 
formalization, capacity building, professionalization of mining 
techniques, and fair-trading practices, among other drivers to improve 
outcomes for ASM communities. Failure to do so risks amplifying the 
existing inequities that have exacerbated the climate crisis. It also 
drastically reduces the ability of downstream companies, particularly 
those subject to ever more stringent human rights due diligence 
legislation and import bans, to source artisanal cobalt at all without 
risking significant penalties.
    The Cobalt Institute advocates for standards that reflect the 
unique needs of the ASM sector and that are aligned with international 
frameworks such as the U.N. Guiding Principles on Business and Human 
Rights and the OECD Due Diligence Guidance. This must be accompanied by 
the recognition from downstream users, and indeed regulators, that 
these cannot be achieved overnight and that there must be upfront 
investment and capacity building to support sites to progressively meet 
these standards.
    Addressing deep-rooted challenges that hinder the progress of the 
ASM cobalt sector is not the sole responsibility of any individual 
company. Only by working through a multi-stakeholder approach with key 
actors in the supply chain, globally and in the DRC, including the 
government, cooperatives and concession holders, civil society, 
workers, as well as companies further up the value chain, will 
effective systems that promote responsible cobalt practices be 
developed. Coupled with standards, is the need to address the root 
causes driving some of these severe practices through multi-stakeholder 
approaches.
    There are several initiatives already set up to with the objective 
of achieving formalization of the ASM community and eradication of 
child labour, which the CI is engaged with. However, although there has 
been some effort recently for the initiatives to coordinate amongst 
each other, and particularly through the RMI's creation of an ASM 
Coordination Dialogue Group, it is hard to get access to the data to 
demonstrate the collective impact they are having on the ground. We 
therefore call for more transparency and disclosure of these efforts 
and common metrics to help us to demonstrate tangible progress to 
stakeholders and the country itself.

    Key initiatives and partners include, among others:

     The Fair Cobalt Alliance (FCA)

     Responsible Minerals Initiative (RMI), which is developing 
            its ASM Cobalt Criteria (formerly spearheaded by the Global 
            Battery Alliance's Cobalt Action Partnership). It also 
            convenes an ASM Coordination Dialogue group.

     The Entreprise Generale du Cobalt (EGC)

     Cobalt For Development (C4D)

     Global Battery Alliance

     Pact

     OECD

     U.N. Global Compact

     Responsible Batteries Initiative

     Copper Mark

     Better Mining

     Drive Sustainability

     Afrewatch

     SARW

     US Department of Labor

     EU DG for International Partnerships (DG-INTPA)

     ILO

     Project COTECCO

    The political and legal context has been challenging and impeded 
progress to making positive changes on the ground. The Cobalt Institute 
advocates for the DRC Government to be clear and coherent on its 
commitment to progress the formalization of the ASM cobalt sector. This 
in our view is key to instilling greater confidence amongst downstream 
players and financial institutions to invest in formalization efforts 
as well as in other ambitious plans the Congolese Government has to 
retain more value in-country through the development of a local battery 
value chain.
    The Cobalt Institute believes that the solution to ASM governance 
must be on Congolese terms, in accordance with Congolese law, and in 
line with existing formal and informal governance frameworks, at 
national, provincial, and on-the-ground levels. Congolese agency must 
be a key part of the discussion.

    The Cobalt Institute is keen that all international actors handling 
matters relating to ASM acknowledge Congolese frameworks and 
institutions already involved in this issue, including--but not 
exclusive to--the following:

     Clauses in the Mining Code covering ASM, such as 
            stipulations on Zones d'Exploitation Artisanale (ZEAs) or 
            requirements around cooperatives.

     The Service d'Assistance et d'Encadrement de 
            l'Exploitation Miniere Artisanal a Petite Echelle 
            (SAEMAPE), the oversight body charged with improving 
            conditions on ASM sites.

     The Entreprise Generale du Cobalt (EGC), with the mandate 
            to manage formalized ASM sites, and which has staff, 
            equipment, and an established purchaser, albeit without 
            ZEAs on which to operate, and with its legal monopoly in 
            question.

     The Autorite de Regulation et de Controle des Marches de 
            Substances Minerales Strategiques (ARECOMS), with the 
            mandate to set regulation and standards in the artisanal 
            sector, albeit as yet not operational.

     The Centre d'Expertise, d'Evaluation et de Certification 
            (CEEC), charged with certifying the origin of mined 
            material.

     The Musompo trading centre of the Lualaba provincial 
            government, the management of which is subcontracted to Sud 
            South, aimed at ensuring traceability and improved 
            standards in the trade of ASM cobalt.

    The Cobalt Institute recognises--and communicates clearly to our 
partners--that the Congolese government is willing and able to work 
with large scale miners (LSM) and ASM operators and wants to welcome 
further operators and Western investment.

    The Cobalt Institute acknowledges the existing regulatory 
frameworks on community development alongside LSM, which provide 
substantial volumes of finance from LSM operators toward local 
development outcomes. These include, but are not limited to:

     The requirement that mining firms implement a commitment 
            register (cahier de charges)

     Community endowment (dotation)

     Local government share of royalties (redevance miniere)

     The Fonds Minier pour les generations futures (Fomin). 
            This receives funds from the royalties.

    The Cobalt institute acknowledges the existing informal norms for 
governing ASM operations developed by ASM actors themselves, which rely 
on informal contracts and structured informal organizations.
Concluding remarks

    The Cobalt Institute advocates a coordinated approach to critical 
minerals sourcing, based on using US foreign policy and labor standards 
to raise standards, whilst also supporting security of supply. 
Political engagement with sourcing countries will create ``win-wins'' 
for the US, that include access to critical minerals and ensuring US-
standards of worker safety and protection are ensured. This will also 
bolster the competitiveness of US companies and industries in fast-
growing sectors.
    On artisanal mining, industry is keen to work with the U.S. 
Government and Congress to address concerns and ensure the highest 
standards of human rights are maintained, including for example through 
supply chain transparency initiatives.
    We look forward to the opportunity to be a resource to you and your 
staff and thank you for your kind consideration of this communication.

            Sincerely,

                                         Caroline Braibant,
                                           Interim Director General

                                 [all]