[House Hearing, 118 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
SECURING SUPPLY CHAINS: ACCESS
TO CRITICAL MINERALS IN THE
AMERICAN SOUTHWEST
=======================================================================
OVERSIGHT FIELD 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
__________
Friday, July 21, 2023 in Goodyear, Arizona
__________
Serial No. 118-51
__________
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
52-990 PDF WASHINGTON : 2024
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan,
Tom McClintock, CA 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 Susie Lee, NV
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 Ruben Gallego, AZ
Mike Collins, GA Susie Lee, NV
Anna Paulina Luna, FL Raul M. Grijalva, AZ, ex officio
Bruce Westerman, AR, ex officio
---------
CONTENTS
----------
Page
Hearing held on Friday, July 21, 2023............................ 1
Statement of Members:
Collins, Hon. Mike, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Georgia........................................... 2
Gosar, Hon. Paul, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Arizona................................................. 2
Statement of Witnesses:
Cabrera, Misael, Director, School of Mining and Mineral
Resources, University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona.......... 6
Prepared statement of.................................... 7
Carlson, James R., Chairman, Boundary Line Foundation,
Chicago, Illinois.......................................... 9
Prepared statement of.................................... 11
Crim, Steve, Executive Director, Common Sense America,
McLean, Virginia........................................... 18
Prepared statement of.................................... 20
Harrell, Jeremy, Chief Strategy Officer, ClearPath,
Washington, DC............................................. 22
Prepared statement of.................................... 24
Wiita, Craig, President and CEO, Del Sol Refining, Inc.,
Prescott, Arizona.......................................... 27
Prepared statement of.................................... 29
Additional Materials Submitted for the Record:
Comments left after the hearing.............................. 53
Submissions for the Record by Representative Gosar
Ernest John Teichert III, Retired Brigadier General,
Statement for the Record............................... 54
L.J. Bardswich, Director, United States Antimony
Corporation, Statement for the Record.................. 56
Submissions for the Record by Representative Grijalva
San Carlos Apache Tribe, Letter to Congress, dated July
21, 2023............................................... 57
OVERSIGHT FIELD HEARING ON SECURING SUPPLY CHAINS: ACCESS TO CRITICAL
MINERALS IN THE AMERICAN SOUTHWEST
----------
Friday, July 21, 2023
U.S. House of Representatives
Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations
Committee on Natural Resources
Goodyear, Arizona
----------
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m., at
the Goodyear Recreation Center, City of Goodyear Recreation
Campus, 420 S. Estrella Parkway, Goodyear, Arizona, Hon. Paul
Gosar [Chairman of the Subcommittee on Oversight and
Investigations] presiding.
Present: Representatives Gosar and Collins.
Also present: Representatives Biggs, Crane, Ciscomani, and
Lesko.
Dr. Gosar. The Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations
will come to order. I am actually thrilled to be here today in
Arizona instead of the swampy place that we know as Washington,
DC.
I want to thank my colleagues for taking the time to be
here and to participate in the field hearing.
Without objection, the Chair is authorized to declare a
recess of the Subcommittee at any time.
Good morning, everyone, and I want to welcome those
witnesses and their guests in the audience today. It is going
to be a wonderful day to be here, particularly that we are not
in Washington, DC. It may be hot but it is not humid.
Under Committee Rule 4(f), any oral opening statements at
the hearing are limited to the Chairman, myself, and the
Ranking Minority Member, who is not here. Therefore, I ask
unanimous consent that all other Members' opening statements be
made part of the hearing record if they are submitted in
accordance with the Committee Rule 3(o). Without objection, so
ordered.
By the way of introductions, I am Congressman Paul Gosar,
the Chairman of the Subcommittee on Oversight and
Investigations for the House Committee on Natural Resources. I
also represent the 9th District of Arizona. I am grateful to be
joined today by several Members who represent the great state
of Arizona and other Members from our Committee who have
traveled to talk about these important issues.
Therefore, I ask unanimous consent that the gentlemen from
Arizona: Mr. Biggs, Mr. Crane, and Mr. Ciscomani, and the
gentlewoman from Arizona: Ms. Lesko, be allowed to participate
in today's hearing.
Without objection.
To begin today's hearing, I will now defer to my
distinguished colleague, Congressman Collins, who came all the
way from Georgia, who will not only serve as my Vice Chair on
the Subcommittee but does an amazing job representing the 10th
District of Georgia.
He traveled all the way here to be with us and actually had
a big layover last night in Georgia. They had a bunch of
thunderstorms. So, we are glad to have Mike here and we
appreciate you spending time here and glad you are with us,
Mike, and I would like to recognize you for your brief
statement.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. MIKE COLLINS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF GEORGIA
Mr. Collins. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I find it amazing
every time we go west they announce that I am from Georgia, and
I think you all probably understand that because you all have
an accent out there.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Collins. I appreciate you inviting us and allowing us
to be here. It is dry and hot out here. I was expecting you all
to put one of those humidifier type things that would mist me
so I would feel the humidity that we have along with the hot
weather in Georgia.
But, Chairman Gosar, since this is a congressional hearing
and like all important hearings that we have, I know we are
going to open up the session as always with the posting of the
colors and the Pledge of Allegiance.
So, it is my honor to recognize the Luke Air Force Base
Color Guard for the presentation of the colors and we also have
Mayor Joe Pizzillo of the city of Goodyear to lead us in the
Pledge Allegiance.
If you would, please rise.
[Nation Anthem is played.]
[Pledge of Allegiance is recited.]
Dr. Gosar. You can have a seat. Thank you, everybody. Now I
am going to recognize myself for an opening statement. Let's
start this all over again.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. PAUL GOSAR, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF ARIZONA
Dr. Gosar. I am thrilled to be here today. We would
typically be back in the swamp and it would be nice and humid.
But today, it is dry and hot. I will take that any day.
I want to thank each and every one of you for coming out
today and to listen to an important issue that we need to spend
some time thinking about, particularly in Arizona.
One of the great things about this hearing is that there is
no difference between this congressional oversight hearing that
we would have in Washington, DC, except for the added benefit
that this is in a venue right here in Goodyear.
Our staff, the Members, the cameras, everything here this
is 100 percent official and it is on the record of history. The
history we will make here today is to assess, discuss, and
steer congressional policy on something many people take for
granted or simply do not understand, the role of critical
minerals in our daily life. Without such minerals, we would not
be in a room like this benefiting from the LED lights, air
conditioning, Wi-Fi, and a host of other amenities.
Today, we will discuss one of the most important topics
facing our country, access to critical and hard rock minerals.
Not surprisingly, given today's hearing location, we are
focusing on mineral production here in the American Southwest.
Minerals like copper, lithium, cobalt, phosphate, and dozens of
others are integral to our modern way of life. They are used in
almost all high-tech applications, including smart phones,
satellites, and missile defense systems.
They are also essential for agriculture, national defense,
as well as the function of the renewable energies technologies,
electric vehicles, and battery storage.
Indeed, rapid growth in the renewable energy technology is
expected to drive mineral demand up by several orders of
magnitude, exacerbated by the national goals pledged by the
Biden administration and other international organizations.
For instance, if we were to achieve net-zero emissions
globally by 2050, the world would require a sixfold increase in
the mining by 2040, sixfold just by 2040. As it stands today,
the United States has an alarming reliance on foreign nations
to meet our demands for minerals.
Our recycling can provide a certain amount of minerals for
reuse. Today's recycling technologies cannot supply the massive
volume of resources we need in our near future and demand for
many of these minerals is predicted to grow exponentially.
Most alarmingly, today's mineral supply chains both the
production and the refining levels are unquestionably
controlled by China. China controls nearly two-thirds of the
world's critical mineral supply. China is the largest source of
imports for 26 of the 50 minerals classified as critical by the
U.S. Government.
The American Southwest has a rich history of mining and
will remain a top mineral producing region in America
particularly for copper, molybdenum--a key agent for steel and
iron production, uranium, potash, and saleable minerals. I am
proud to state that Arizona produces the highest value of
nonfuel minerals out of any state in America at $10.1 billion,
accounting for 10.31 percent of the total mineral production
value in America.
We also produce more copper than any other state, which is
why most kids in school grew up learning the five Cs: copper,
cattle, citrus, cotton, and climate. Today, we are known as the
Copper State.
Yet, there are so many who oppose mining and seek to shut
down existing mines and stop new mines. I find their arguments
for doing so as irrational and beyond comprehension.
Just this week, we heard about this Administration's rally
for a new monument in the northern half of our state in large
part to banning of mining of uranium. The Biden administration
is part of the irrational and destructive course to stop mining
in this country and this state.
Despite the exponential demand for minerals and America's
dangerous reliance on China for minerals, recent actions from
the Biden administration have shut down domestic mining
projects and severely limited America's capacity to meet the
demands of increased renewable energy sources and the
challenges posed by China's mineral dominance.
In March 2021, the Biden administration rescinded the
previously approved Resolution Copper Mine in Superior, Arizona
days before it was to transfer thousands of acres of Federal
property for the project, the project which will fulfill 25
percent--think about this--25 percent of just the United
States' demand will be done by this one mine.
But it has been caught in this regulatory quagmire with no
end in sight as the U.S. Forest Service has told a Federal
court that is not sure when or if it will complete the review
and approve the land swap necessary for the project.
This is in spite of Congress dictating otherwise. I
personally championed the Resolution Copper land exchange over
10 years ago. Congress made it clear and Obama signed it into
law that this land exchange was to proceed and this mine was to
start with producing copper. Rest assured if this mine were in
China, Peru, South Africa, or even Canada we would be seeing
refining copper 9 years ago.
In January 2022, the Biden administration stopped two
decades old mineral leases in the Superior National Forest in
Minnesota and simultaneously began the withdrawal process of
225,000 acres of mineral-rich land in the same area from an
imperative copper-nickel-cobalt mine in the same area.
Despite union support for the project, the Biden
administration finalized the withdrawal in January of this
year. Then just last month, the Biden administration withdrew
another copper-nickel project in Minnesota. While Biden pays a
lot of lip service to union jobs on the campaign trail, he
betrays union workers in the northeast Minnesota.
Fundamentally, the Biden administration policies betray
America. There is no good policy outcome for these actions.
In New Mexico in June of this year, the Biden
administration withdrew 336,000 acres of public land from
mineral, oil, and gas development when it arbitrarily created a
10-mile buffer around the Chaco cultural heritage site.
The withdrawal was condemned by the Navajo Nation Council
for jeopardizing the economic future of the area, including the
immediate impact of over 5,600 Navajo allottees. Just 3 years
ago, my staff and I went out to the allottees and took their
testimony with cameras.
This represents anywhere from $80,000 to $100,000 or more
for each family, and with the loss of the Navajo Generating
Station with a coal-fired plant this is one of the only means
they have for financial services.
There was no vote by Congress. There was no vote of the
people allowing any of this. I have met with the Navajo
peoples, I said, including hundreds of the allottees who were
financially devastated by this reckless action.
It is estimated that the 22-year withdrawal would affect
22,000 allottees, cost current allottees $6.2 million a year in
royalties, and reduce royalties to the Navajo members by $194
million over the next 20 years.
The economic impacts of the withdrawal are calamitous for
the Navajo people, which has a poverty rate of 40 percent,
nearly triple the poverty rate of the United States as a whole.
It is clear the irrationality of the Biden administration
has no bounds. While there is unprecedented global demand for
minerals and America is increasingly reliant on the Chinese
Communist Party for our mineral supply, Joe Biden and his
cronies are shutting down mineral projects across the nation.
The anti-mining actions by the Biden administration hurt
America's economy, threaten our national security, and push
mineral production abroad where environmental and labor
standards pale in comparison to our own.
Let me say that west of us in Yuma, Arizona, and west to
that is the Imperial Valley of California. These two areas
combine to produce over 90 percent of the vegetables we eat in
this country during the winter months from the end of October
to the end of April. The mineral phosphate is fundamentally
necessary for the production of nitrogen in fertilizer. Without
phosphate, we cannot grow our own food.
What kind of administration would seek to shut down
phosphate mining? What kind of groups would seek to stop
phosphate, uranium, copper, cobalt, and other mining operators
when the evidence is so clear that these minerals will enable
us to all live?
In addition to these important issues, today we will
discuss not only what minerals should be listed as critical
minerals like copper, and Representative Lesko will shed light
on her pending bill, but even minerals that are listed to face
steep hurdles in getting produced in this country.
Take antimony for example. We were informed that antimony
was included in the U.S. Geological Survey listing of critical
minerals in 2017 mainly because of its use in military
applications. The USGS states that the leading uses of antimony
are flame retardants; metal products, including lead and
ammunition; and nonmetal products, including ceramics and
glass.
But getting a permit to mine antimony and refine it has
proven almost impossible. So, we need not only have the
listings, but the administrative action to follow to get this
mining approved and to be processed.
Today, we will expose the irrationality of the Biden
administration that highlight the access to the minerals we
have here in America, particularly in the Southwest, if only
our Federal bureaucracy could just get out of the way.
Again, I appreciate everyone for being here, taking the
time out of your busy schedules to be here in Goodyear. Whether
you are from Arizona or from farther east, we know Arizona is
hot but we always have a smile for you. So, thank you very
much, and I yield back.
Now I am going to introduce our witnesses. First, we have
Mr. Misael Cabrera, Director of School of Mining and Mineral
Resources, University of Arizona; Mr. James Carlson, Chairman,
Boundary Line Foundation; Mr. Steve Crim, Executive Director,
Common Sense America; Mr. Jeremy Harrell, Chief Strategy
Officer, ClearPath; and Mr. Craig Wiita, President and CEO of
Del Sol Refinery.
Let me remind the witnesses that under Committee Rules, you
must limit your oral statements to 5 minutes but your entire
statement will appear in the hearing record.
We use timing lights. When you begin, the light will turn
green. When you have 1 minute remaining, that light will turn
yellow. At the end of that 5 minutes, it will turn red. If it
hits red, we ask you to please complete your statement but
summarize very quickly. I will also allow all witnesses to
testify before they are questioned.
Now, I am going to recognize Mr. Cabrera for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF MISAEL CABRERA, DIRECTOR, SCHOOL OF MINING AND
MINERAL RESOURCES, UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA, TUCSON, ARIZONA
Mr. Cabrera. Thank you, Mr. Chair and members of the
Committee. My name is Misael Cabrera, and I am the Director of
the School of Mining and Mineral Resources at the University of
Arizona. The school was formed to address the pressing need for
a sustainable supply of critical minerals. We do this through
industry-advancing research and by developing the
interdisciplinary mining and minerals workforce of tomorrow.
Prior to this appointment, I served in the position of
Director of the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality.
Today, I am not speaking on behalf of the university. In fact,
my comments are based largely on nearly 30 years of experience
as an environmental professional.
Low-carbon energy technologies like solar panels, wind, and
geothermal are significantly more mineral intensive than fossil
fuel technologies. Under the International Energy Agency's most
aggressive scenario, total demand for mineral resources will
grow by as much as 3.5 billion tons by the year 2050, and
demand for cross cutting minerals like copper, which is
prescient for decarbonization, will exceed the total demand
across all human history.
Thus, the speed of decarbonization relies heavily on a
ready supply of minerals and, consequently, the productivity of
responsible and sustainable mining operations. Even if metal
recycling efforts were to increase a hundredfold, there simply
isn't enough material in circulation to meet the growing
demand.
Thus, the unavoidable truth is that we cannot develop
cleaner, greener technologies without more minerals and we
cannot secure enough minerals without a significant focus on
mining. Supplying the planet with the necessary minerals
required requires a balanced approach, walking the line between
responsible environmental protections and the ability to move
into extractive operations in a much more streamlined fashion.
Since mining practices became codified in the United
States, the industry has swung from unforeseen environmental
consequences to inefficient bureaucratic processes that are
crippling our ability to supply minerals.
In contrast, many foreign governments do not operate under
the same strict regulatory environment that we do in the United
States, creating an unfairly advantaged dominance when it comes
to mineral production.
In 2020, China led all other countries in copper smelting.
To add environmental insult to economic injury, much of that
smelting capacity is powered by fossil fuels.
While many nations including the United States are striving
to reduce their carbon footprint China's negative environmental
impact is growing. From 2017 to 2020, we reduced cumulative
emissions by 11 percent while China's emissions increased by 7
percent. Astonishingly, China's carbon pollution now surpasses
all other developed countries combined.
It is not an overstatement to say that by allowing China to
maintain its chokehold on supplies of critical minerals, we are
condemning the Earth to be mined in ways that are less
responsible and entirely unsustainable.
A key factor in a reliable domestic mineral supply chain is
streamlining the Federal Government's permitting process. One
of the means to that end is Fast-41. On May 8, 2023, the South
32 Hermosa project was the first mining initiative to gain
Fast-41 coverage. I recommend that this process be applied to
new major mining projects that will produce minerals that are
essential not only for defense but also for green technology.
When considering our need for minerals like copper as a
free society, it is important to assess where the greatest
risks lie. I believe that the risks of global pollution as a
result of over-reliance on foreign mining is much higher and I
believe that the potential for decarbonization delays because
of supply chain constraints is too great.
When we add national defense vulnerabilities and American
jobs, the asymmetric risk of not fostering sustainable and
responsible domestic mineral supplies becomes very, very clear.
It has been my distinct privilege to share these comments
with you. I am available to answer any questions that you may
have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Cabrera follows:]
Prepared Statement of Mr. Misael Cabrera, PE, Director and Professor of
Practice, School of Mining & Mineral Resources, University of Arizona
Mr. Chair and Members of the Committee, my name is Misael Cabrera,
and I am the inaugural Director of the School of Mining & Mineral
Resources at the University of Arizona. The School was formed to
address the pressing need for a sustainable supply of critical minerals
for generations to come. We do this through industry-advancing
research, and by developing the interdisciplinary mining and minerals
workforce of tomorrow. We also offer students from all majors a
Sustainable Minerals Minor Degree so that the multiplicity of
professionals that the mining industry needs can share a fundamental
understanding of the issues facing this essential industry.
Prior to this appointment, I served in the position of Director of
the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality longer than any other
Director in the department's history. During my tenure at ADEQ, we
dramatically increased environmental outcomes, delivered award-winning
online systems, and were recognized 28 times by local and national
organizations. Prior to serving in Arizona State Government, I held a
variety of leadership roles in private sector, international
engineering firms.
Today, I am not speaking on behalf of the University. In fact, my
comments are based largely on nearly 30 years of experience as an
environmental professional.
It is this career-long commitment to the environment that has led
me to notice that our planet's population has doubled in my lifetime
and is forecasted to reach 10 billion in the next 25 years. Today's
global population is also more prosperous than it was 50 years ago \1\
and that expanding population wants better infrastructure, the latest
consumer electronics, more advanced medical equipment, more effective
defense systems, and cleaner energy to address the effects of climate
change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Macrotrends, World Poverty Rate 1981-2023. Accessed April 15,
2023. https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/WLD/world/poverty-rate
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
But low-carbon energy technologies like solar panels, wind, and
geothermal are significantly more mineral-intensive than fossil fuel
technologies. Under the International Energy Agency's most aggressive
scenario, total demand for mineral resources will grow by as much as
3.5 billion tons by the year 2050.\2\ And demand for cross-cutting
minerals like copper, which is prescient for decarbonization, will
exceed the total demand across all human history.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ 2020 World Bank Report. Minerals for Climate Action: The
Mineral Intensity of the Clean Energy Transition. 2020 International
Bank for Reconstruction and Development/The World Bank. https://
pubdocs.worldbank.org/en/961711588875536384/Minerals-for-Climate-
Action-The-Mineral-Intensity-of-the-Clean-Energy-Transition.pdf
\3\ Jones, Allan G. Mining for Net Zero: The Impossible Task.
Accessed July 19, 2023. https://library.seg.org/doi/10.1190/
tle42040266.1
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Different scenarios driven by choice of technology, material
substitution, and potential technological improvements over time can
shift these demand estimates, but there is no lower-carbon pathway that
does not significantly increase our need for minerals.
The 2020 World Bank Report, Minerals for Climate Action: The
Mineral Intensity of the Clean Energy Transition, states plainly that
``. . . any potential shortages in mineral supply could impact the
speed and scale at which [green] technologies may be deployed
globally.'' \4\ Thus, the speed of decarbonization relies heavily on a
ready supply of minerals and consequently, the productivity of
responsible and sustainable mining operations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ IBID
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Even if metal recycling efforts were to increase 100-fold, there
simply isn't enough material in circulation to meet the growing demand.
Thus, the unavoidable truth is that we cannot develop cleaner, greener
technologies without more minerals. And we cannot secure enough
minerals without a significant focus on mining.
Supplying the planet with the necessary minerals requires a
balanced approach, walking the line between responsible environmental
protections, and the ability to move into extractive operations in a
much more streamlined fashion. Since mining practices became codified
in the United States, the industry has swung from the ``move fast, dig
deep'' approach that had unforeseen environmental consequences, to
today, when inefficient, bureaucratic processes are crippling our
ability to supply the minerals necessary to address climate change.
To illustrate this over-correction, it takes an average of 16 years
from the time of initial mineral discovery until the first production
takes place in a new mine.\5\ Much of this lag is caused by the
regulatory environment that is a direct after-effect of legacy mining
practices that are no longer used in the United States. Modern mine
operators take their responsibility to the planet and neighboring
communities very seriously, with clear criteria for environmental
performance during and after mining operations, including responsible
closure and post-closure reclamation protocols.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ International Energy Agency. The Role of critical minerals in
clean energy transitions: world energy outlook special report. Revised
March 2022. Website: www.iea.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In contrast, many foreign governments do not operate under the same
strict regulatory environment that we do in the United States, creating
an unfairly advantaged dominance when it comes to mineral production.
China is a perfect example of this, producing eight times more rare
earth element (REE) tonnage than the U.S., and accounting for 85
percent of global supply of REE in 2016.\6\ And China's mineral
dominance is not limited to REEs. In 2020, China led all other
countries in copper smelting, producing over 7.2 million metric tons of
the commodity.\7\ The closest competitors, Japan and Chile only
produced 1.7 and 1.2 million metric tons, respectively.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Harvard International Review. 2021. Not So ``Green''
Technology: The Complicated Legacy of Rare Earth Mining. Edited by Jaya
Nayar. 12 August. Accessed June 30, 2022. https://hir.harvard.edu/not-
so-green-technologythe-complicated-legacy-of-rare-earth-mining/.
\7\ Statista. 2022. Global copper smelter production in 2020, by
key producing country. Accessed July 1, 2022. https://www.statista.com/
statistics/1241253/world-annual-copper-smelter-production-by-country/.
\8\ IBID
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To add environmental insult to economic injury, much of that
smelting capacity is powered by fossil fuels. While many nations,
including the U.S., are striving to reduce their carbon footprint,
China's negative environmental impact is growing. Case in point: from
2017-2020, we reduced cumulative emissions by 11 percent while China's
emissions increased by 7 percent.\9\ Astonishingly, China's carbon
pollution now surpasses all other developed countries, combined.\10\ It
is not an overstatement to say that by allowing China to maintain its
chokehold on supplies of critical minerals, we are not only abdicating
our economic and technological independence, we are condemning the
Earth to be mined in ways that are far less responsible and entirely
unsustainable for future generations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ World Population Review. 2022. ``World Population Review.
Carbon Footprint by Country 2022.'' worldpopulationreview.com. Accessed
July 10, 2023. https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/
carbonfootprint-by-country
\10\ De Chant, Tim. 2021. ``China's carbon pollution now surpasses
all developed countries combined.'' arstechinca.com. 6 May. Accessed
July 10, 2023. https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2021/05/chinas-
carbonpollution-now-surpasses-all-developed-countries-combined/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
President Biden acknowledges the inherent risks of dependence on
foreign sources of critical minerals, even to our homeland security. In
his March 31, 2022, Memorandum to the Secretary of Defense, he wrote
about these risks, calling for ``. . . sustainable and responsible
domestic mining [and] processing.''
A key factor in developing a reliable domestic minerals supply
chain is streamlining the Federal Government permitting process. With
layers of regulatory oversight from local, state and federal levels, it
is imperative to identify what improvements can be made to mine
permitting without reducing opportunities for public input or limiting
the comprehensiveness of environmental reviews.
One of the means to that end is the U.S. Federal Permitting
Improvement Steering Council's (FPISC) FAST-41 process. FAST-41 for
Infrastructure Permitting is a ``coordinated framework for improving
the federal environmental review and authorization process,'' and on
May 8, 2023, the South32 Hermosa project was the first mining
initiative to gain FAST-41 coverage.\11\ I recommend that this process
be applied to new major mining projects that will produce minerals that
are essential for not only defense, but also for green technology.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ Permitting Dashboard, Federal Infrastructure Projects,
Accessed July 10, 2023. https://www.permits.performance.gov/fpisc-
content/permitting-council-announces-first-ever-critical-minerals-
mining-project-gain-fast-41.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
And given that we are in the copper state, I would like to point
out that an electric vehicle contains about four times the amount of
copper as a traditional internal combustion engine automobile. Copper
is also the second most used metal in defense platforms by weight,\12\
and is the gateway to over a dozen important minerals and rare earth
elements that are only produced as co-products. Until the 1980s the
U.S. was a global leader in refined copper production. Today we have
lost our position and China is the globally dominant producer of
refined copper.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ McGroarty, Daniel. Got copper? New pentagon report spotlights
key role of critical metals. 04/13/15. Accessed July 19, 2023. https://
thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/homeland-security/238483-got-copper-
new-pentagon-report-spotlights-key-role-of/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
When considering our need for minerals like copper as a free
society, it is important to assess where the greatest risks lie. I
believe that modern U.S. mines present relatively low environmental
risk; I believe that the risk of global pollution as a result of over-
reliance on foreign mining is much higher; and I believe that the
potential for decarbonation delays because of supply chain constraints
is too great. When we add national defense vulnerabilities and American
jobs, the asymmetric risk of not fostering sustainable and responsible
domestic mineral supplies becomes very clear.
It has been my distinct privilege to share these comments with you.
I am available to answer any questions that you may have.
______
Dr. Gosar. Thank you, Mr. Cabrera.
Now, I am going to recognize Mr. Carlson for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF JAMES R. CARLSON, CHAIRMAN, BOUNDARY LINE
FOUNDATION, CHICAGO, ILLINOIS
Mr. Carlson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the
House Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, for the
opportunity to summarize for the Congressional Record the
policy and issues and some considerations that could lead to
stable and ongoing access to domestic sources of strategic
critical minerals.
I am appearing before the Subcommittee as the Chairman of
the nonprofit corporation Boundary Line Foundation (BLF). BLF
is a growing nonprofit whose charitable purpose is to educate
and equip county commissioners for active, county-to-agency
engagement with executive agencies during Federal
administrative actions.
A typical BLF initiative includes statutory research,
preparation of policy audits, education of county
commissioners, and support for county governments as they
actively apply Federal statutes and procedures to the agencies
themselves.
The objectives of my remarks are this. First, summarize for
the HNR Subcommittee how critical minerals policies of the
Biden administration are illegitimately transitioning
responsibility for the domestic mineral supply chain away from
free markets toward a nationalized system.
No. 2, demonstrate how the decision of the Secretary of the
Interior to withdraw the Duluth copper-nickel-sulfide mineral
complex in Minnesota is not consistent with the public lands
laws of the United States and requires Federal action.
In its June 2021 100-day report on building resilient
critical mineral supply chains, the White House Interagency
Working Group ignores any mention of the Mining Act and
Minerals Policy Act of 1970 and the Federal Land Policy
Management Act whose statutory construction and intent is for
the private sector to lead in the exploration, development,
mining, and reclamation of critical minerals.
The all-of-government approach recommended by the IWG to
address mineral supply chain issues is derived from Executive
Order 14017 and is a pattern throughout the Biden
administration that proposes to expand the role of Federal
agencies in public land management.
If implemented as proposed, the IWG recommendations will
vastly expand the role of Departments of Defense, Commerce,
Health and Human Services in critical minerals permitting,
mining, reclamation, and data hub monitoring while pre-empting
and subordinating the statutory role of the Secretary of the
Interior.
On December 14, 2016, and again in September 2021, the U.S.
Forest Service submitted an application, now I am on Minnesota,
to the Department of the Interior requesting withdrawal of the
same 235,000-acre parcel from the working public lands of the
Superior National Forest.
After 2 years of county-to-agency policy engagement with
the U.S. Forest Service, the Department of the Interior, and
the White House, the U.S. Forest Service canceled the
withdrawal application, stating that the agency had enough
information and existing laws were sufficient to protect the
environment with the standard mineral leasing activities in the
Superior National Forest and that could be done and achieved
without a 20-year land withdrawal.
It is important to note that the 1978 designation of the
Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness by the Congress
recognized and segregated the copper-nickel-sulfide deposits in
the working lands of the Superior National Forest by
establishing a geopolitical mining protection area.
BLF has gone on record as documenting that only Congress--
only Congress can affect, remove, or change that statutory
enacted MPA boundary.
In October 2021, the Secretary of the Interior again
published notice of a second application for the same parcel in
the Superior National Forest and in January 2021 the Boundary
Line Foundation placed in the public record our survey and
application of delegated authorities, a policy document to
challenge this withdrawal.
The survey demonstrates that in the public record that
Secretarial Public Land Order 7917 by the Secretary of the
Interior exceeds the 5,000-acre litmus threshold for mineral
withdrawals in requiring congressional action.
This Secretarial Order, Public Land Order 7917,
illegitimately extinguishes FLPMA principal use of minerals
exploration and extraction to exclusively protect ecosystems
and the environment.
I am out of time, Mr. Chairman, but there are three more
things that could be done. I will yield the floor back to you,
sir.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Carlson follows:]
Prepared Statement of James R. Carlson, Chairman,
The Boundary Line Foundation
Introduction; About BLF--
Thank you Mr. Chairman and Members of the House Subcommittee on
Oversight and Investigations for the opportunity to summarize for the
congressional record the policy issues and some considerations that
could lead to stable and ongoing access to domestic sources of
strategic and critical minerals.
I am appearing before the subcommittee as the Chairman of the
nonprofit corporation Boundary Line Foundation (BLF). BLF is a growing
non-profit whose charitable purpose is to educate and equip county
commissioners for active, county-to-agency engagement with executive
agencies during Federal administrative actions.
A typical BLF initiative includes statutory research, preparation
of policy audits, education of county commissioners, and support for
county governments as they actively apply statutes and procedures to
the agencies during administrative processes.
Testimony Objective----
The objective of my remarks is to:
1. Summarize for the HNR subcommittee how the critical minerals
policies of the Biden administration are illegitimately
transitioning responsibility for the domestic mineral
supply chain away from free markets and toward a
nationalized system.
2. Demonstrate how the decision by the Secretary of the Interior to
withdraw the Duluth Copper/Nickel sulfide mineral complex
is not consistent with the public land laws of the United
States and requires congressional action.
Executive Order 14017 and the 100-Day White House Report--
In its June, 2021 100-Day Report on building resilient
critical mineral supply chains,\1\ the White House
Interagency Working Group (IWG) ignores any mention of the
controlling Mining Act and Minerals Policy of 1970 and the
Federal Land Policy Management Act, whose statutory
construction and intent is for the private sector to lead
in the exploration, development, mining, and reclamation of
critical minerals.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Building Resilient Supply Chains, Revitalizing American
Manufacturing, and Fostering Broad-Based Growth. 100 Day Reviews under
Executive Order 14017. Brian Deese and Jake Sullivan June 2021.
The all-of-government approach recommended by the IWG to
address mineral supply chain issues is derived from
Executive Order 14017 and is a pattern throughout the Biden
administration that proposes to expand the role of Federal
agencies in public land management.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Executive Order 14017. ``Americas Supply Chains'' February 24,
2021. Sections 3 and 4.
If implemented as proposed, the IWG \3\ recommendations
will vastly expand the role of the Departments of Defense,
Commerce, and Health and Human Services in critical
minerals permitting, mining, reclamation, and data hub
monitoring, while preempting and subordinating the
statutory role of the Secretary of the Interior.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Ibid. 100-year Report Page 17.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Summary of Land and Mineral Withdrawals in Minnesota--
On December 14, 2016 and again on September 20, 2021, the
United States Forest Service (USFS) submitted an
application to the Department of the Interior, requesting
withdrawal of the same 235,000 acre parcel from the working
public lands of the Superior National Forest (SNF).
After two years of county-to-agency policy engagement with
USFS, the Department of Interior, and the White House, USFS
canceled its withdrawal application, stating that the
agency had enough information, that existing laws were
sufficient to protect the environment, and that standard
mineral leasing activities in the SNF could be effective
without a 20-year land withdrawal:
``. . . the USDA Forest Service has enough information
to determine a withdrawal is not needed,''
and,
``laws that govern mineral development within the Rainy
River Watershed provide considerable discretion as to whether
to allow new mineral leases,''
and,
``Future lease offerings can adequately be evaluated and
regulated on a case-by-case basis without invocation of a 20-
year withdrawal.'' \4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Correspondence: Kathleen Atkinson, U.S. Forest Service Regional
Forester, Eastern Region to Mitchell Leverette, BLM State Director,
Eastern States Office. September 6, 2018.
It is important to note that during the 1978 designation
of the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness (BWCAW) that
the Congress recognized and segregated the copper nickel
sulfide deposits in the working lands of the SNF by
establishing the geopolitical Mining Protection Area (MPA)
boundary. BLF has gone on record as documenting that only
Congress can effect, remove or change the statutory-enacted
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
MPA boundary.
Current Land and Mineral Withdrawal; Public Land Order 7917--
On October 21, 2021, the Secretary of the Interior published notice
of a second application by USFS to withdraw a 225,504 acre parcel from
the SNF,\5\ and on January 31, 2023 the Secretary issued Public Land
Order 7917 effecting that withdrawal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ FR Vol. 86, No. 2011, Thursday October 21, 2021. Application
for Withdrawal and segregation of Federal Lands; Cook, Lake, and Saint
Louis Counties, MN.
On January 14, 2021 the Boundary Line Foundation placed in
the public record its statutory ``Survey and Application of
Delegated Congressional Authority for Land and Mineral
Withdrawal By the Secretary of the Interior'' \6\ that
documents 15 years and 3 administrative actions in the SNF.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Survey and Application of Delegated Congressional Authority for
Land and Mineral Withdrawal by the Secretary of the Interior. Boundary
Line Foundation. January 14, 2021.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The BLF Survey demonstrates in the public record that:
1. Secretarial Public Land Order 7917 exceeds the 5,000-acre
FLPMA threshold for mineral withdrawals requiring congressional
action;
2. Secretarial Public Land Order 7917 illegitimately
extinguishes the FLPMA Principal Use of Minerals Exploration
and Extraction to exclusively protect ecosystems and the
environment;
3. Secretarial Public Land Order 7917 administratively
redraws the Boundary Water Canoe Area Wilderness Mining
Protection Area Boundary, a prerogative exclusively belonging
to the Congress.
4. In enacting FLPMA, the Congress reserved for itself the
exclusive prerogative to decide Federal land and mineral
withdrawals:
a. of greater than 5,000 acres;
b. for which one or more Principal Uses could
effectively be eliminated; or,
c. for those land and mineral withdrawals that would
affect a preexisting Act of Congress.
5. The Secretary of the Interior has failed to furnish both
chambers of Congress, with a detailed, site-specific inventory
and analysis of the effect the withdrawal will have on 190,321
acres of Minnesota School Trust Lands, Minnesota Swamp Trust
interests, Tax Forfeited lands, and private inholdings as
identified by the Land Commissioners of Cook, Lake, and Saint
Louis counties. (Table 1, Attachment A).
6. The organic statutory mission of USFS is to manage the
national forests of the United States for a continuous supply
of merchantable timber and to ensure the forests are managed to
ensure favorable conditions of water flow, not water quality.
7. In carrying out its mission under the Multiple Use and
Sustained Yield Act of 1960, USFS is not to ``affect the use of
administration of mineral resources of national forest lands or
to affect the use or administration of Federal lands not within
national forests.''
The organic and statutory mission of the USFS does not include
expanded protections of ecosystems that extinguish a FLPMA principal
use and the application should have been rejected by the Secretary of
the Interior.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide remarks on this important
subject. I will stand to questions.
*****
ATTACHMENTS
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Dr. Gosar. Thank you, Mr. Carlson.
I now recognize Mr. Crim for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF STEVE CRIM, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, COMMON SENSE
AMERICA, McLEAN, VIRGINIA
Mr. Carlson. First and foremost, I want to thank each and
every one of you for standing up for America's agriculture,
technology, and defense sectors by protecting the production of
critical minerals.
Common Sense America is an advocacy group dedicated to
advancing common sense policy solutions for the challenges
facing our country. Today, I am here to urge Congress to take
action to maximize the domestic production and development of
critical minerals to reduce our dependence on China.
According to the Pew Research Center, 67 percent of
Americans, an overwhelming majority, understand China's threat
to our very way of life. That is because China produces around
two-thirds of the world's lithium and cobalt.
It is the source of nearly 60 percent of aluminum and 80
percent of polysilicon. These minerals are key to producing the
cars, phones, lights, and other products we depend on every
single day.
Just 2 weeks ago, China restricted the export of gallium
and germanium, which are used in the production of
semiconductors, solar panels, and missile systems. The Wall
Street Journal called this move more than just a trade salvo
but a warning to the United States. The realization that a
foreign adversary can exert such control over the items we use
daily is alarming. Yet, this situation can escalate even
further, potentially even impacting our food supply.
According to the United States Geological Survey, China is
the world's largest producer of phosphate and Russia is fourth.
Together they produce almost five times the phosphate America
produces.
In the second half of last year, China reduced the export
of phosphate from 5\1/2\ million tons to 3 million tons, a 45
percent decrease in exports over the same time the previous
year and that is why your work here today is so important.
There is no doubt that China fears your ability to
safeguard our critical minerals. It is why they have attempted
to circumvent you by focusing their efforts on local
communities across America, communities just like Goodyear.
Their strategy is obvious, influence local governments to
advance their own agenda. This fact became painfully clear in
March when the Office of Director of National Intelligence
released its annual threat assessment.
It found that China was redoubling its efforts to build
influence at the state and local level to shift U.S. policy in
China's favor because of Beijing's belief that local officials
are more pliable than their Federal counterparts.
It has become evident that China will utilize any method
available to them to infiltrate our local governments and
communities. Case in point, a Hollywood production company
controlled by a Chinese national, Cinema Libre Studios,
produced a propaganda film about phosphate, a film that
demonizes the critical mineral and was used as part of a larger
influence campaign to encourage local governments to support
policies that banned phosphate mining.
These documentaries are an example of how real and imminent
the threat of Chinese infiltration and manipulation of our
local leaders can be. But their influence goes beyond just
Hollywood. When it comes to critical minerals, the keep it in
the ground mentality of environmental groups hinders mining and
production of America's own critical minerals and gives China
even more control over us.
One such organization is the Center for Biological
Diversity, which files lawsuit after lawsuit to prevent the
exploration and development of critical minerals. They have
spearheaded hundreds of lawsuits and just last week sought a
court order to stop a copper mining exploration project right
here in Arizona.
Their lawsuits have created endless barriers for our
nation's companies and even our Federal, state, and local
permitting agencies to conduct the important business that
leads to American self-reliance.
Leveraging the Endangered Species Act, this organization
can recover attorney fees often paid for by taxpayers. This
practice places an undue financial burden on taxpayers, diverts
resources away from essential government programs, and harms
America's independence.
Worst of all, it aligns with the Office of the Director of
National Intelligence warnings that shifts U.S. policy in
China's favor. Advancing common sense policy solutions such as
designating phosphate as a critical mineral, implementing
measures to curtail foreign influence, and ending the recovery
of attorneys' fees of frivolous lawsuits we can safeguard our
nation's food supply and promote the common sense policies our
citizens deserve. Let's work together to ensure a self-reliant
and resilient America.
I extend my heartfelt appreciation for you all for
conducting this public hearing on protecting our nation's
critical minerals and for your unwavering dedication to the
well being of our great nation. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Crim follows:]
Prepared Statement of Steve Crim, President, Common Sense America
First and foremost, I would like to express my gratitude to each
and every one of you for standing up for America's agriculture and
defense sectors by protecting the production and use of critical
minerals such as lithium, cobalt, and phosphate. My name is Steve Crim,
and I am the Executive Director of Common Sense America (CSA), an
advocacy group dedicated to advancing a common sense approach to our
government.
An overwhelming majority of Americans understand the threat China
plays to our very way of life. According to Pew Research Center, 67% of
Americans view China as a threat. Yet too often, partisan politics gets
in the way of real action to protect our country from this existential
threat.
When it comes to critical minerals, the ``keep it in the ground''
mentality of environmental groups plays into China's strategy by
hindering mining and production of America's critical minerals.
Two weeks ago China restricted the export of gallium and germanium
which are used in the production of semiconductors, solar panels, and
missile systems. The Wall Street Journal called this move more than
just a ``trade salvo'' but a warning to the US. That's because China
processes around two thirds of the world's lithium and cobalt and is
the source of nearly 60% of aluminum and 80% of polysilicon. These
minerals are key to producing the cars, phones, lights, and other
products we use everyday. The realization that a foreign adversary
holds such control over the items we use daily is troubling.
Yet, the situation can escalate further, potentially impacting our
food supply. According to the USGS, China is the world's largest
producer of phosphate and Russia is fourth. Together they produce
almost five times the phosphate America produces. In fact, in the
second half of last year, China reduced the export of phosphate from
5.5 million tonnes to 3 million tonnes--a 45% decrease in exports over
the same time the previous year.
And that's why your work here today is so important.
There's no doubt that China fears your ability to safeguard our
critical minerals, but that's why they have been attempting to
circumvent your efforts by focusing their efforts on local communities
across America--communities just like Goodyear.
Their strategy is clear--influence local governments and
communities to keep America's critical minerals in the ground. This
fact became painfully clear in March when the Office of National
Security released its threat assessment. It found that China was
``redoubling its efforts to build influence at the state and local
level to shift U.S. policy in China's favor because of Beijing's belief
that local officials are more pliable than their federal
counterparts.''
We have witnessed reports of China's spy balloons surveilling our
military operations and farmland; their acquisition of vast tracts of
American lands; data collection through platforms like TikTok, the use
of ``spy cranes'' to disrupt supply chains and gather shipment data,
and even operating illegal secret police stations.
It has become evident that China will utilize any and every tool
available to them to infiltrate our local governments and communities--
even Hollywood.
Case in point, a Hollywood production company, owned and controlled
by a Chinese national, produced a propaganda film about phosphate. This
company, Cinema Libre Studios, produced and distributed a film called
PhosFate--a film that demonizes phosphate and was used as part of a
larger influence campaign to encourage local governments to support
policies that ban phosphate mining.
These ``documentaries'' are an example of how real and imminent the
threat of Chinese infiltration and manipulation is, especially at the
local level. Unlike members of Congress, many local elected officials
do not have professional staff, agency review or systems to vet
material brought before them. This vulnerability makes it easier for
China to impact local policy in support of their strategic goals.
But, their influence goes beyond Hollywood and seeps into
environmental organizations that often oppose American industries.
Requiring these organizations to disclose foreign donors is crucial for
ensuring transparency and protecting American interests.
One such organization is the Center for Biological Diversity, which
frequently files lawsuits to prevent the exploration and development of
critical minerals--potentially threatening American national security.
Their lawsuits have created a hostile environment for our nation's
companies--and even our governmental permitting agencies--to operate.
They have led over 2,000 lawsuits and just as recently as last week
here in Arizona, they sought a court order to stop a copper mining
exploration project. Under the Endangered Species Act, this
organization can recover attorney fees, often paid for by taxpayers,
regardless of the merits of their cases. This practice places an undue
financial burden on taxpayers, diverts resources away from essential
government programs, and stifles the growth of our industries.
Worst of all, it aligns with the Office of National Intelligence
warnings and shifts US policy in China's favor.
In conclusion, the issue of America's food independence demands our
immediate attention and concerted efforts. By designating phosphate as
a critical mineral, implementing measures to curtail foreign influence,
and ending the recovery of attorney's fees in frivolous lawsuits, we
can safeguard our nation's food supply, protect American industries,
and promote common-sense policies that our citizens deserve.
Let us work together to ensure a self-reliant and resilient America
in the face of these pressing challenges. I extend my heartfelt
appreciation to you all for conducting this public hearing on this
critical issue and for your unwavering dedication to the well-being of
our great nation.
References & Supporting Materials
Office of the Director of National Intelligence. (2023, March 8).
``2023 Annual Threat Assessment of the U.S. Intelligence Community.''
www.dni.gov. www.dni.gov/index.php/newsroom/reports-publications/
reports-publications-2023/item/2363-2023-annual-threat-assessment-of-
the-u-s-intelligence-community.
Bogardus, Kevin. (2020, October 26). ``Wheeler Asks DOJ to Probe
``Foreign Influence'' over Enviros.'' E&E News by POLITICO.
www.eenews.net/articles/wheeler-asks-doj-to-probe-foreign-influence-
over-enviros/. Accessed 19 July 2023.
Chow, E, & Patton, D. (2022, July 15). ``China Issues Phosphate Quotas
to Rein in Fertiliser Exports--Analysts.'' Reuters. www.reuters.com/
article/china-fertilizers-quotas/china-issues-phosphate-quotas-to-rein-
in-fertiliser-exports-analysts-idUSKBN 2OQ0KY.
Reuters. (2021, July 30). ``China's Major Fertiliser Makers to Suspend
Exports amid Tight Supplies.'' Reuters. www.reuters.com/article/us-
china-exports-fertilisers/chinas-major-fertiliser-makers-to-suspend-
exports-amid-tight-supplies-idUSKBN2F 007W.
House Committee on Natural Resources. (2012, June 27). ``DOJ Documents
Confirm Center for Biological Diversity Received Millions in Taxpayer
Funds from ESA-Related Lawsuits.'' House Committee on Natural
Resources. naturalresources.house.gov/news/
documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=301242. Accessed 19 July 2023.
Rahn, R.W. (2018, June 11). ``How U.S. Environmental Groups Collude
with the Russians and Chinese.'' The Washington Times.
www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/jun/11/how-us-environmental-groups-
collude-with-the-russi/. Accessed 19 July 2023.
Reuters. (2023, July 4). ``China to Restrict Exports of Chipmaking
Materials as US Mulls New Curbs.'' Reuters. www.reuters.com/markets/
commodities/china-restrict-exports-chipmaking-materials-us-mulls-new-
curbs-2023-07-04/.
Center for Biological Diversity. (2023, July 14). ``Court Order Sought
to Block Mining Exploration in Arizona's Patagonia Mountains'' [Press
Release]. Center for Biological Diversity. biologicaldiversity.org/w/
news/press-releases/court-order-sought-to-block-mining-exploration-in-
arizonas-patagonia-mountains-2023-07-14/. Accessed 19 July 2023.
Commission, Charlotte County. (2023, January 24). A Resolution of the
Board of County Commissioners of Charlotte County, Florida Supporting
Desoto County's Denial of Mosaic's Rezoning Request and Request for
Joinder and Re-Evaluation of Mining Permit Requirements.
charlottecountyfl.legistar.com/View.ashx?M=
F&ID=11585855&GUID=CC4E92CF-2C5D-422E-8795-4B3301B42C15.
Greenwood, Shannon. ``How Global Public Opinion of China Has Shifted in
the Xi Era.'' Pew Research Center's Global Attitudes Project, 28 Sept.
2022, www.pewresearch.org/global/2022/09/28/how-global-public-opinion-
of-china-has-shifted-in-the-xi-era/
#::text=In%20the%20U.S.%2C%20where%20the. Accessed 19 July 2023.
______
Dr. Gosar. Thank you, Mr. Crim.
Now, I would like to introduce one of my former staffers.
He has done himself very well and that is Jeremy Harrell.
STATEMENT OF JEREMY HARRELL, CHIEF STRATEGY OFFICER, CLEARPATH,
WASHINGTON, DC
Mr. Harrell. Thank you, Chairman Gosar, Vice Chairman
Collins, and other members of the Arizona Delegation. It is
great to be back here in Arizona and I appreciate the
opportunity to testify today on American mineral independence.
Our nation's energy demands are rapidly increasing and our
current dependence poses a significant risk to our national
security and our economic growth. According to some estimates,
the United States needs to double our power system in the
coming decades to meet expected energy demand.
Concurrently, the International Energy Agency predicts that
global demand for energy-related minerals like lithium, cobalt,
graphite, and nickel could grow 20 to 40 times by 2040. As
demand for critical minerals increases, the choice for American
policymakers is clear. We will either responsibly develop these
resources here at home or continue to rely on foreign sources,
which poses national security, human rights, and environmental
complications.
It is difficult to overstate our dependence on foreign
supply chains. The United States is 100 percent reliant for 12
of 50 critical minerals and we are more than 50 percent reliant
for an additional 31.
As the Chairman underscored, China is the leading producer
of 30 of those resources, and equally as concerning China
exerts control over the refining process for each of these
minerals regardless of where they are mined.
Here in the Copper State, we should not forget that copper
plays a fundamental role in the construction of energy
technologies like battery storage, solar, transmission, and
vehicles.
Failure to scale up domestic production of minerals
undercuts our ability to compete globally. Regulatory approvals
for mines here at home have fallen to the lowest level in
decades, coinciding with substantial demand growth for products
that require them for raw materials like grid and
transportation technologies.
To fix this urgent problem, policymakers should work toward
three key objectives: (1) restoring predictability to the
permitting process; (2) streamlining judicial review; and (3)
fostering trade and collaboration with allies.
First, restoring regulatory predictability is essential.
Never has the phrase time is money been more appropriate.
Regulatory delays greatly increase the cost of projects and,
furthermore, the projects most likely to be held up in the
permitting purgatory are those that offer the greatest benefits
to our nation. Reform should change the paradigm to one that
expedites the approval process for projects that bring net
benefits and comply with laws meant to ensure clean water and
clean air.
We must eliminate unnecessary bureaucracy in areas where
the economic environmental benefits outweigh opportunity costs.
A place-based approach which preassesses areas based on
national needs, environmental factors, and community support
would alleviate permitting bottlenecks while also ensuring
compliance once a project is operational.
Federal action can also no longer vacillate according to
political winds. Developers must be able to rely on decisions
from one administration to the next and we have seen this in
mining like the Resolution Copper Mine here in Arizona or the
Twin Metals project in Minnesota. The Administration's
inconsistent approach increases U.S. reliance on minerals
sourced from overseas.
Instead, our system must create jobs here, promote American
innovation, and foster better global environmental outcomes
everywhere.
Second, the judicial reform process must be reformed. The
current system is broken as the structures in place are
overwhelmingly tilted toward those who seek to delay or block
projects as opposed to those who seek to build. Once a project
is approved, further legal challenges should be addressed
expeditiously.
H.R. 1, the House permitting bill, requires legal disputes
to be resolved in less than 1 year. Other major House and
Senate permitting proposals include injunctive relief,
clarifications on standing, and deadlines on the statute of
limitations.
Judicial review is the biggest wildcard in the current
permitting system. Congress should limit legal challenges to
plain and obvious errors related to natural resources laws
while also narrowing the scope and adhering to strict review
timelines.
And, lastly, realistically, we are not going to end our
reliance on foreign resources overnight. There is an
opportunity to expand bilateral and multilateral trade
agreements with allies that secure critical mineral supply
chains.
Take the nuclear fuel supply chain, for example. At the
April G-7 meeting, Canada, the U.K., France, Japan, and the
United States agreed to reduce reliance on Russian nuclear
products and jointly leverage their nuclear sectors to ensure a
stable supply of fuel for both existing and future nuclear
power plants.
However, these agreements must be in addition to, not a
substitute for, maximizing domestic production.
In conclusion, reliance on foreign mineral supply chains
threatens both our national security and economic future. It is
imperative that Congress implement a national strategy to
maximize private sector investments in our critical mineral
supply chains.
ClearPath looks forward to working with this Committee to
further American mineral independence and I look forward to
today's discussion.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Harrell follows:]
Prepared Statement of Jeremy Harrell, Chief Strategy Officer,
ClearPath, Inc.
Good afternoon, Chairman Gosar and members of the Committee. My
name is Jeremy Harrell, and I am the Chief Strategy Officer of
ClearPath, a 501(c)(3) organization that develops and advances policies
that accelerate innovations to reduce and remove global energy
emissions. To further that mission, we educate and provide analysis to
policymakers as well as collaborate with relevant industry partners to
inform independent research and policy development.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify today and for holding this
minerals-related hearing in the West. America's energy demands are
rapidly increasing. Some estimates say the U.S. will need to double the
capacity of our bulk power system over the coming decades to meet
expected energy demand. As a result, the International Energy Agency
(IEA) predicts that demand for energy-related minerals like lithium,
cobalt, graphite, and nickel could grow 20 to 40 times by 2040.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ https://www.iea.org/reports/the-role-of-critical-minerals-in-
clean-energy-transitions/executive-summary
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As global demand for critical minerals increases, the choice for
policymakers is clear: the U.S. will either responsibly develop these
resources here at home or continue to rely on foreign sources--
resources prevalent in nations that, in many cases, pose human rights
challenges, present national security risks, and/or enforce worse
environmental standards.
It is difficult to overstate America's dependence on foreign supply
chains. According to the 2023 U.S. Geological Survey's Mineral
Commodities Summary, the U.S. was 100 percent net import reliant for 12
of the 50 individually listed critical minerals and was more than 50
percent net import reliant for an additional 31 critical mineral
commodities.\2\ Meanwhile, China was the leading producing nation for
30 of those same 50 critical minerals.\3\ A recent Aspen Institute
report further underscored that rising demand for minerals will place
major stress on global supply chains and undermine the ability of the
U.S. to deploy more clean energy.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ https://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/mcs2023
\3\ ibid
\4\ https://www.aspeninstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/
Critical-Minerals-Report.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Equally concerning, regardless of where the minerals are mined,
China exerts dominant control over the refining process for a large
majority of rare earth elements and has demonstrated a willingness to
leverage its influence to pursue political objectives.\5\ This includes
an announcement earlier this month to restrict the export of two key
minerals related to the energy supply chain.\6\ The concentration of
mineral supply chains creates risks of disruption from political or
environmental events, provides poor transparency and traceability, and
sacrifices the expertise necessary for value-adding innovation and
jobs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ https://chinapower.csis.org/china-rare-earths/
\6\ https://www.wsj.com/articles/china-controls-minerals-that-run-
the-worldand-just-fired-a-warning-shot-at-u-s-5961d77b
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Despite these dynamics, the U.S. struggles to permit projects to
unlock these critical minerals. Recent data from Goldman Sachs shows
that regulatory approvals for mines have fallen to the lowest level in
a decade, coinciding with substantial demand growth for products that
require them as inputs, like grid and transportation technologies.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ https://www.goldmansachs.com/insights/pages/gs-research/copper-
is-the-new-oil/report.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This Committee has rightly brought attention to the benefits of
using domestic minerals over the first six months of this Congress. It
put permitting reform front and center, passing the Lower Energy Costs
Act as H.R. 1 and successfully secured a handful of those provisions in
the debt ceiling deal enacted through the Fiscal Responsibility Act.
This Committee has not taken its foot off the gas, recognizing that
the inability to scale up the domestic production of American resources
undercuts America's ability to deploy domestically abundant resources
and compete on the world stage.
As policymakers continue to work towards bolstering American supply
chains, reducing critical mineral dependence, and furthering
sustainable economic growth, there are a handful of solutions Congress
should consider. These initiatives would restore predictability,
streamline litigation, and bolster private sector investments across
the critical minerals supply chain.
Restore Predictability to the System
Never has the phrase ``time is money'' been more appropriate.
Regulatory delays that can last nearly a decade are making projects
more expensive. The projects most likely to be held up in permitting
purgatory are those that offer the greatest benefits to the United
States, including reduced energy costs, enhanced energy independence,
increased economic opportunity, and lower global emissions. The current
system is broken as the structures in place are overwhelmingly tilted
toward those who seek to delay or block projects as opposed to those
who seek to build.
Federal permitting reform must change the paradigm to one that
expedites the approval process for projects that bring net benefits and
comply with the legal requirements meant to ensure clean water and
clean air.
First, we need to identify geographic areas for development where
economic and environmental benefits of these projects should not be
delayed by unnecessary bureaucracy. For example, replacing a retiring
power plant with a zero-emissions advanced nuclear generator at an
existing site or building a battery manufacturing facility on a
brownfield site should not require a years long permitting process.
A list of prequalified geographic areas could include previously
disturbed locations, such as brownfield sites that are well
categorized, and can utilize existing infrastructure. The environmental
impacts to these locations related to energy deployment are minimal,
and in many cases, these locations are in or near communities that need
the redevelopment most urgently.
For mine projects specifically, a ``place-based approach,'' which
pre-assesses areas, based on national needs, environmental factors, and
community support, could alleviate permitting bottlenecks while also
ensuring environmental compliance once operational.
In addition, Congress could consider ways to pair regulatory
incentives with existing financial incentives, such as the
``Opportunity Zones'' and ``Energy Communities,'' which were
established by Congress. Matching financial incentives with regulatory
certainty will create a strong signal to project developers during the
site selection process that choosing these areas is advantageous and
will not be delayed by unnecessary bureaucracy. These types of reforms
could go a long way towards on shoring American manufacturing and
creating jobs in areas that need them the most.
Second, federal action can no longer vacillate according to
political whims, particularly when Congress has acted. Project
developers need to be able to rely on regulatory certainty from one
Administration to the next to bring a project from financing to
construction. This need is most acute for projects that seek to unlock
critical minerals.
Resolution Copper is one of the most prominent examples of
America's inability to permit mines. After a decade of objections by
extreme environmental organizations and some Arizona Tribes to the
proposed legislation authorizing a land exchange by the U.S. Forest
Service, Congress explicitly authorized the project when the Southeast
Arizona Land Exchange and Conservation Act was enacted into law with
the Carl Levin and Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015 (P.L. 113-291). Once approved,
the proposed mine is expected to become the largest copper mine in
North America, capable of producing up to 25 percent of U.S. copper
demand each year.\8\ The proposal received a final Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS) in January 2021, only to have it unpublished by the
Biden Administration two months later.\9\ The Administration is
explicitly subverting Congressional intent with this project. These
unnecessary delays precede a decade of construction before operations
can begin, delaying the project timeline to at least two full decades
from its inception.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ https://resolutioncopper.com/project-overview/
\9\ https://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/r3/home/?cid=FSEPRD858166
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition to these administrative roadblocks, the recent 9th
circuit decision in the Center for Biological Diversity v. U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service, more commonly referred to as the Rosemont
decision, has placed new impediments on domestic mining operations.\10\
These new barriers will further stymie domestic production and
jeopardize federal infrastructure investing to reshore domestic supply
chains. House Republicans rightly prioritized this issue with their
signature energy package H.R. 1, the Lower Energy Costs Act. These
necessary reforms have earned strong bipartisan support in the Senate
as well.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2022/05/12/19-
17585.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Even more recently, the Mountain Valley Pipeline saga further
underscores the need for reform and the unpredictability of the U.S.
system. Congress acted explicitly to clear the way construction of the
pipeline by explicitly approving its permits in the Fiscal
Responsibility Act. Unfortunately, just a few short weeks later, the
4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals issued two orders to temporarily
freeze construction on the project. Even after Congressional action,
the project may require Supreme Court intervention to finally resolve
contentions.
This back and forth regulatory flux is far too common and must be
addressed so that entrepreneurs know that they can move forward in a
responsible manner.
Provide More Streamlined Litigation
Once a project is approved, any further legal challenges should be
addressed as expeditiously as possible. Judicial review is the biggest
wildcard in the current permitting system, and nearly every major
permit reform proposal introduced by Republican and Democratic
policymakers in the House and Senate includes at least modest provision
to tackle this issue.
H.R. 1 appropriately recognized judicial review as an area ripe for
modernization and established new requirements for when permits are
challenged. While this is a good start, we need to do more and should
be looking at ways to ensure that we can resolve any legal disputes in
less than one year.
Other proposals have injunctive relief, clarifications on standing,
deadlines on the statute of limitations, and shifts of judicial
jurisdiction. One proposal immediately elevates legal challenges under
NEPA to the federal appellate court where the project is to be
constructed or alternatively the DC Circuit. This would match the
process already used under the Federal Power Act and Natural Gas Act to
challenge agency decisions and would streamline the process in a
meaningful way.
Any changes to judicial review must balance a plaintiff's right to
have his or her day in court with the goal of reaching finality on a
more predictable timeline. Like other forms of major infrastructure,
critical minerals projects face additional challenges even after
permits have been issued because of prolonged litigation. These delays
increase uncertainty and raise project costs.
To remedy this, the paradigm should shift to a set strict timelines
on the adjudication process for critical mineral permits. More
specifically, Congress should limit legal challenges to plain and
obvious errors applying the relevant natural resource and permitting
laws. A specific scope and timeline for the review process will prevent
the possibility of long delays and improve efficiency.
Further Allied Partnerships
Absent a clear, predictable, and streamlined American regulatory
environment, the U.S. will continue to rely on critical minerals
sourced from overseas. This includes countries that pose national
security risks or those that lack basic environmental and human rights
protections. The choice should be clear: producing American resources
here at home creates jobs, promotes innovation, increases energy
security, and leads to better global environmental outcomes.
At the same time, we will not end our reliance on imports
overnight. The U.S. must work with partner and allied countries to
further diversify and secure critical mineral supply chains. While the
current Administration has convened partnerships and multilateral
mineral security dialogues with friendly nations such as Australia,
Canada, Japan, South Korea and others to address these challenges, both
the public and private sector need to move beyond dialogue to action.
The U.S. should consider how to increase the quality of
international markets for critical minerals commodities. Right now, the
true price for many minerals is not publicly available, and some recent
supposed shipments of critical minerals turned out to just be rocks.
Modernizing and maturing the market integrity for critical minerals
will lead to more reliable prices and more assurance for American
firms.
Specific to nuclear power, a secure and robust nuclear fuel supply
chain is critical to ensuring American families receive clean,
affordable, and reliable energy from our nation's nuclear power plants.
Approximately 95% of the uranium used in the U.S. today is imported, of
which nearly 50% comes from Russia and Kazakhstan.\11\ Because nuclear
energy accounts for 1/5th of U.S. electricity production, this leaves
10% of total U.S. electricity vulnerable to these two countries.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/nuclear/where-our-uranium-
comes-from.php
\12\ https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/electricity/electricity-
in-the-us.php
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is a national security imperative that the U.S. establish a
secure and reliable supply of nuclear enrichment capabilities for
itself and its allies. Reducing America's reliance on Russian fuel
provides the market certainty required to incentivize domestic
industry, build new capacity, and support our allies. On the sidelines
of the April G7 minister meeting in Japan, Canada, France, Japan, the
UK and U.S. entered into an agreement to leverage their civil nuclear
power sectors to ensure a stable supply of nuclear fuel for existing
and future reactors.\13\ The U.S. Congress should also act to further
invest in more effective partnerships with U.S. allies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ https://www.energy.gov/articles/statement-civil-nuclear-fuel-
cooperation-between-united-states-canada-france-japan-and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There is an opportunity to expand bilateral and multilateral
frameworks to establish diversified critical mineral supply chains and
support the negotiation and passage of trade agreements among countries
that meet American standards. It is important to note, however, that
agreements must be in addition to, not a substitute for, maximizing
domestic production.
Conclusion
The current permitting system unnecessarily stymies and broadly
delays the highest impact projects from delivering benefits, projects
needed for our economic, environmental, and global competitive future.
It is imperative that Congress address both aspects of the permitting
process to maximize public and private sector investments and put steel
in the ground.
ClearPath looks forward to working with this Committee to further
American critical mineral independence. I look forward to today's
discussion.
______
Dr. Gosar. Thank you, Mr. Harrell.
Now, I recognize a friend of Arizona, Mr. Wiita, for 5
minutes.
STATEMENT OF CRAIG WIITA, PRESIDENT AND CEO, DEL SOL REFINING,
INC., PRESCOTT, ARIZONA
Mr. Wiita. Thank you very much. Hello. My name is Craig
Wiita. I am the President and CEO of Del Sol Refining in
Amargosa Valley, Nevada.
First, I would like to thank Congressman Gosar for hosting
this very important event. At Del Sol Refining, we are a
strategic and critical mineral refinery. We do research and
development for the mining industry through a three-step
process: lab scale, bench scale, and pilot scale. Think of it
as grams, pounds, and tons for sizing.
If recovery stays consistent through all three scales and
remains economically viable, the mine is ready to open except
for permits. Currently, Del Sol Refining is conducting a pilot
scale recovery circuit for Century Lithium.
Upon receiving the required permits, Century Lithium will
be capable of producing close to 14,000 kilos of lithium per
day. Fourteen thousand kilos of lithium per day would end the
U.S. dependence on lithium from other countries. This is a
great start toward U.S. lithium independence.
But what about the other strategic and critical minerals?
Our goal needs to be ending the United States' dependency on
strategic and critical minerals completely. The United States
is dependent on imports for vital strategic metals that are
necessary for components for military weapons systems, cell
phones, solar panels, lithium ion batteries, and all high-
technology products.
The reason for this dependency is not due to geologic
impediments, but due to politics. Large portions of public
lands in the western United States have not been sufficiently
explored and the permitting process in the United States takes
7 to 10 years compared to 2 to 3 years in Canada and Australia.
Of great importance to the United States are rare earth
elements. The estimated value of rare earth compounds and
metals imported in 2021 was $160 million. That is a significant
increase from the $109 million in 2020.
These are consumption estimates only, with no allowance to
accumulate a much needed U.S. stockpile. The only current
option the United States has to purchase these rare earth
elements is mostly from China as we have not yet developed our
own existing sources.
What the U.S. Government needs to do is invest in U.S.
production and refining of these metals and elements.
Here is a quick example. Fiscal Year 2021 and 2022 has
these two rare earth elements on a potential acquisitions list
for stockpile: 600 metric tons of neodymium, 70 metric tons of
praseodymium, for a combined cost of $355 million. Both
aforementioned rare earth elements are needed for rare earth
magnets, which are used in everything from wind-generated power
to cell phones.
It would take 25 percent of the purchase price of these
elements, or just under $90 million, to open a mine and a
processing facility here in the United States. This would
create supply chain independence, jobs, strengthen our national
security and, oh yes, keep $355 million from going to China.
The loan to fund the mine and recovery facility would
quickly be repaid in production and now create a U.S. source. A
couple other strategic and critical minerals I would like to
address today are tellurium and antimony.
Tellurium is needed for the newest generation of solar
panels--cadmium telluride thin film solar panels. Tellurium
makes up only .0001 percent of the Earth's crust but tellurium
occurs in economic viable quantities in the porphyry copper
deposits of the western United States and Alaska.
Tellurium is primarily produced from anode slimes
associated with these copper occurrences. Rio Tinto at their
Kennecott Mine in Utah has installed an addition to their
processing circuit that can now produce 20 tons of tellurium
per year. China produced 580 tons last year.
The other one I would like to speak about is antimony.
Antimony is used as a hardener in lead for storage batteries,
other alloys, and in all flame retardant formulations. The
United States has plenty of antimony present in the stibnite
formations of Idaho. The problem is there is nowhere to refine
it. An old mill sits dormant in Butte, Montana, that could do
it. But without feed from mines that are waiting on permits,
why would anyone bring it back to life?
America is way behind the curve on stockpiling strategic
and critical minerals. China, with their Belt and Road
Initiative, is making deals all over the continent of Africa to
the extent of assimilating many African nations.
A break in the mineral supply chain would cripple day-to-
day life as we know it and will affect our military's ability
to do their job. There is nothing to worry about if America is
America's supply chain.
Again, I would like to thank Congressman Gosar and others
in attendance for giving me the opportunity to speak here
today.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Wiita follows:]
Prepared Statement of Craig Wiita, President and CEO, Del Sol Refining
Hello, my name is Craig Wiita. I am the president and CEO of Del
Sol Refining in Amargosa Valley, NV.
First, I would like to thank Congressman Gosar for hosting this
very important event.
At Del Sol Refining we are a strategic and critical mineral
refinery. We do research and development for the mining industry
through a three-step process; lab scale, bench scale, and pilot scale--
think of small, medium, and large for sizing. If recovery stays
consistent through all three scales and remains economically viable,
then the mine is ready to open.
Currently Del Sol Refining is conducting a pilot scale recovery
circuit for century Lithium.
Upon receiving the required permits, century Lithium would be
capable of producing close to 14,000 kilos of lithium carbonate
(battery grade) per day upon the completion of their Clayton Valley,
NV. lithium mine and recovery circuit. 14,000 kilos per day would end
the U.S. dependence on lithium from other countries.
This is a great start towards US lithium independence, but what
about the other strategic and critical minerals?
Our goal needs to be ending the United States' dependency on
strategic and critical minerals completely.
The United States is dependent on imports for vital strategic
metals that are necessary for components for military weapon systems,
cellphones, solar panels, lithium-ion batteries, and many high-
technology products.
The reason for this dependency is not due to geologic impediments,
but due to politics. Large portions of public lands in the western
United States have not been sufficiently explored, and the permitting
process in the United States takes 7-10 years compared to 2-3 years in
Australia and Canada.
Of great strategic importance to the U.S. are Rare Earth Elements
(REE). Lanthanides are the actual group known as REEs.
The estimated value of rare earth compounds and metals imported in
2021 was $160 million, a significant increase from $109 million in
2020. These are consumption estimates only, with no allowance to
accumulate a much-needed U.S. stockpile.
The only current option the U.S. has is to purchase these rare
earth elements, mostly from China, as we have not yet developed our own
existing sources.
What the U.S. government needs to do is invest in U.S. production
and refining of these metals and elements.
Here is a quick example: FY 2021 and 2022 has these two REEs on a
potential acquisitions list for stockpile.
Neodymium 600 metric ton (m/t)
+ Cost $345 million
Praseodymium 70 m/t
+ Cost $9.9 million
Combined cost--$355 million
Both fore-mentioned REEs are needed for rare earth magnets which
are used in everything from wind-generated power to cell phones.
It would take 25% of the purchase price of these elements, or just
under $90 million, which as previously stated, would have to be
purchased from China. Or, we could allow for permitting to mine and
open a processing facility here in the U.S.
This would create supply chain independence, jobs, strengthens our
national security, and keeps $355 million from going to China.
The loan to fund the mine and recovery facility would be quickly
repaid in production and create a U.S. source.
A couple of other strategic and critical minerals I would like to
address are tellurium and antimony.
Tellurium is needed for the newest generation of solar panels,
cadmium-telluride thin film solar panels. Tellurium makes up only
.0001% of the earth's crust.
Tellurium occurs in porphyry copper deposits in the western U.S.
and Alaska. Tellurium is primarily produced from anode slims associated
with these copper occurrences. Rio Tinto at their Kennecott Mine in
Utah has installed an addition to their processing circuit that can now
produce 20 tons of tellurium per year.
Antimony is used as a hardener in lead for storage batteries, other
alloys, and in flame retardant formulations.
The U.S. has plenty of antimony present in stibnite formations in
Idaho. The problem is there is nowhere to refine it. An old mill sits
dormant in Butte, Mt. that could do it, but without feed from mines
that are waiting on permits why would anyone bring it back to life?
America is way behind the curve on stockpiling strategic and
critical minerals. China, with their ``Belt and Road Initiative'' is
making deals all over the continent of Africa, to the extent of
assimilating many African nations.
A break in the mineral supply chain would cripple day to day life
as we know it, it will affect our military's ability to do their job,
but there is nothing to worry about if America is America's supply
chain.
Again, I would like to thank Congressman Gosar and others in
attendance for giving me the opportunity to speak here today. Thank
you.
______
Dr. Gosar. Thank you, Mr. Wiita. Now, you can understand
why we have such talent in this state.
I am now going to recognize Members for 5 minutes for their
questions. We are going to start with Mr. Biggs. He has a time
crunch. So, Mr. Biggs, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Biggs. Thank you, Chairman Gosar, for holding this
hearing. Thank you to your wonderful staff and the Committee
staff for putting this on. They have done a great job
organizing and setting this up. And to my colleagues, I am
grateful that you are here and I am grateful to the community
here and the city of Goodyear for their willingness to host
this.
I have introduced a piece of legislation called the Federal
Land Freedom Act, which would allow states to voluntarily take
on permitting for projects on Federal lands within their state
boundaries, and I think that Congress needs to do more to
ensure that the legislative branch takes back its oversight
authority and its regulatory authority to rein in the out-of-
control bureaucracy, the executive branch, and the judiciary
itself with its out-of-control orders that are being
manipulated by groups who don't want to see mineral development
and extraction.
It is necessary if we are going to remain a strong economy
and if we are going to go down in history as a self-immolating
country or whether we are going to hold it together and become
once again a free and prosperous nation.
Minerals are critical to virtually everything. Let me give
you an example. I will start with you, Mr. Cabrera. An electric
vehicle, how much more copper is necessary to go into an
electric vehicle than just a traditional internal combustion
automobile?
Mr. Cabrera. Chair Gosar, Representative Biggs, on average,
an electric vehicle contains four times the amount of copper as
a traditional internal combustion engine.
Mr. Biggs. And when was the last time the United States was
the world's copper manufacturing leader?
Mr. Cabrera. Chairman Gosar, Representative----
Mr. Biggs. You do not have to go through the Chair in
Congress. You used to be a state legislator.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Cabrera. Thank you. I know that in the 1980s we were a
global leader in copper production.
Mr. Biggs. Now who is No. 1?
Mr. Cabrera. We are not even in the top 10. Today, it is
China by far.
Mr. Biggs. Yes, and that is a constant theme that we are
going to see as we go through here today is that the United
States, an incredibly blessed nation minerally, has ceded it to
China.
So, let's go to you now, Mr. Harrell. I want to emphasize
some of the things that you talked about. How reliant are we?
USGS says we are reliant on critical minerals. I want to know,
give us those numbers again that you gave us.
Mr. Harrell. Yes, absolutely. I can repeat those. For over
31 of the 50 critical minerals that USGS has identified as
``critical,'' we are over 50 percent reliant and another 12
were 100 percent reliant.
Mr. Biggs. So, out of 50 critical minerals listed we are
reliant either wholly or more than 50 percent on 43 of those,
right? The other thing about that is I want to know who is
supplying the vast majority of critical minerals to the world?
Mr. Harrell. China. China, particularly on 30 of 50 of
those.
Mr. Biggs. Yes. So, when we get to China and we start
looking at it, we have a massive critical problem because they
control the supply chain on so much of everything.
Let's go here next to Mr. Wiita. I want to talk to you
about rare earth elements. The last mine I was tracking was
several years ago trying to open up rare earth element
production. They got swamped by bureaucracy. Couldn't do it.
Tell me what dangers we have because our bureaucracy is
stifling rare earth element development.
Mr. Wiita. First of all, America has the safest and
cleanest mining and refining in the world.
Mr. Biggs. Absolutely.
Mr. Wiita. That has to be first and foremost. I have a
property that I have had since about 2005 in Arizona that has
all 16 rare earth elements on it, as well as yttrium and
scandium. I would walk into the BLM office and they would say,
we can talk about anything today, Craig, but rare earth
elements, because they don't want to see me get this into
production.
It is actually more hazardous to leave it on the ground
because with every rain you get percolation of these elements
going to the aquifers. It is almost a cleanup and it is
something that we could benefit with all 16 rare earth
elements, as well as scandium.
Mr. Biggs. And as you pointed out, we have to have rare
earth elements to do just about everything, cell phones, et
cetera.
I want to thank the Chairman again for allowing me time. I
apologize to everyone that I have to go. But this is really an
important and critical hearing. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for
holding it and I yield back.
Dr. Gosar. I thank the gentleman. The gentlewoman from
Phoenix, Ms. Lesko, is recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. Lesko. Thank you very much, and I first want to say
thank you to you, Mr. Gosar, for leading this and to all the
people that showed up and know how important this issue is.
I am Congresswoman Debbie Lesko. I represent Peoria, large
parts of Glendale, the Sun Cities, and large parts of Phoenix
here, and I serve on the Energy and Commerce Committee. Paul
serves on the Natural Resources Committee dealing with mining
and critical minerals, but the energy portion of what I serve
on relies on those critical minerals. So, I cannot
overemphasize to you how important this hearing is and this
issue is.
I just got back from a trip from Japan and South Korea. It
was an energy trip, but part of the trip we went to an Air
Force base and a Navy base, and we got briefings about the
importance of the region and the threat from China.
And we, as Congress Members, hear a lot about the threat
from China. They are United States' major threat, and one of
the things that we are giving to China right now is we are
handing over to them through the Biden administration's
policies, we are becoming more reliant on them.
The Biden administration is putting forth mandates on
electric vehicles, mandates for more solar, for more wind. They
are funneling hundreds of billions of dollars of our taxpayer
dollars into subsidies for those programs, and they claim that
they are for domestic mining.
Yet, on the other hand, they are shutting down mines here
in Arizona, as Jeremy Harrell brought up, and also in Minnesota
and elsewhere. So, you can't have it both ways, although they
do because people aren't paying attention.
I truly believe that the policies that the Biden
administration and Democrats are putting forward benefit China,
not the United States. And we better wake up and we better get
our act together because otherwise we are going to be speaking
Mandarin, and I don't want that. And we are going to be totally
reliant on them. Look what happened in COVID-19. We found out
just how reliant we are on China.
Folks, we here, these Congress Members here, are fighting
for you. But it is a daily battle, a daily battle each and
every day. So, I really appreciate you coming out and listening
about this and supporting us, and with the 2:21 I have left, I
do have some questions. The first one is going to be for Mr.
Harrell.
Mr. Harrell is with ClearPath and they do a lot of work on
energy issues in Washington, DC. Mr. Harrell, states can speed
up the permitting process by implementing Federal requirements
directly, like we have seen with states obtaining primacy for
Class VI wells, which is like carbon capture storage wells.
Arizona is currently in the preapplication phase seeking
Class VI primacy from the EPA. The timeline will reflect a full
5 years from the inception of this process to ultimately
receiving approval between state and Federal rulemaking.
Mr. Harrell, what further reforms can be done to ensure
future states going through this process and others similar to
it have faster review timelines and greater process certainty?
Mr. Harrell. Thank you for the question, Congresswoman, and
for your leadership. I mean, to underscore what she pointed
out, this state is fortunate to have leaders like you across
the energy committees, so excited for it.
Bringing these decisions down to the state levels is
essential. We know it is more efficient and it can have the
same standards that you would have that environmental laws
require. In the Class VI process that you mentioned, states
take control of it and ultimately have to do the same rigorous
work, but the people of the states know the geology better and
I think that could be translated over to the mineral space as
well.
We have to hold the agencies like the EPA accountable. They
like to blame resources as a restriction. But Congress actually
has tried to bolster that so we can increase the permitting
process. We need to cut out litigation. We need to shorten the
scope of things that challenge these types of things and
bringing more of these decisions to the state level.
Ms. Lesko. Thank you. The Republicans passed H.R. 1, which
you talked about, Mr. Harrell, and it basically will help
reform permitting laws. Can you tell us the status of where
that is at?
Republicans passed it out of the House. Did we have a few
Democrats sign on? And I think Joe Manchin is supportive of
some of the permitting reforms.
But what do you think the prospects are of that being
passed out of the Senate?
Mr. Harrell. Yes, it is a great question. One, House
Republicans should be commended for making it issue No. 1. It
is literally H.R. 1 and saying that permitting is one of the
most essential issues that we should be taking on. It got
bipartisan support.
House Republicans were able to secure components of that in
the large debt deal that happened, which is a good start to the
fight, and now I think we need to continue to lean in and do
some more of these bigger reforms particularly focused on
judicial review and how we streamline more consideration. So, I
think House Republicans should keep fighting, and I think in
every package we have moving forward going through Congress we
should be getting another bite at the apple to help solve this
problem.
Ms. Lesko. Thank you, and I yield back.
Dr. Gosar. I thank the gentlelady. Now we are going to get
into the first of our freshmen. I yield 5 minutes to Mr. Crane
for his testimony.
Mr. Crane. Thank you, Congressman Gosar, for hosting this
today and bringing some experts together and also a bunch of
folks so we can get more educated and active on this very
important topic.
It is an honor to be here today. I definitely do not
consider myself an expert on critical minerals. That being
said, I do recognize it is important and, to me, I am going to
be honest with you guys, this seems like one more example of
self-sabotage in this country. It really does. And sometimes I
don't know if it is intentional or we are just so foolish that
we can't figure it out, and it is hard sometimes.
In my district, which is Arizona's 2nd Congressional
District, we have several very important mines. We have
Resolution Copper, Freeport McNamara, Ivanhoe, Santa Cruz,
which I just toured a couple of weeks ago down in Casa Grande.
They are exploring their field right now and, hopefully, we
will be mining soon, Asarco Pinto Valley, Baghdad Mine, and
those are some of the mines in my district.
But when I look at this issue and I try to boil it down
into three key areas, I would say that the ones that I am most
focused on are economic impact, national security threat, and
then, obviously, the environmental harm that many of these
folks have already talked about.
The economic impact, obviously, we have sent a lot of our
jobs overseas. Many of these mining towns have become ghost
towns because of, in my opinion, our foolishness and then you
have, obviously, the national security piece.
When you outsource these critical minerals that we use in
our everyday technology and consumer products, when you
outsource those to a foreign country that in many cases like we
are talking about our focus on China today happens to be an
enemy.
How many of you guys out here in the audience think that
China has your best interest in mind? Anybody? I hope not. OK.
And then, obviously, the environmental harm as well. I
think that everybody up here would love to see us be able to
harvest our own critical minerals, and I would even go so far
to say gas and oil. I am big on using the natural resources we
have.
But I think all of us want to see us do it in a clean and
safe way that protects our environment. But, once again, we
have an administration that has basically declared war on a
very, very important industry, and it is going to hurt and
affect us all if we don't figure it out.
So, that is how I look at these issues, and I want to start
with Mr. Harrell.
Besides the buckets that I mentioned, sir, of economic
impact, national security, and environmental harm, are there
any other buckets that we need to be focused on as we educate
ourselves more on this issue?
Mr. Harrell. Yes. I think the reforms to the judicial
system that is required is really essential as we move forward.
The judicial system gets weaponized to block U.S. development.
One critical ruling that recently occurred, the Rosemont
ruling, is a nonsensical interpretation of the law of saying
that you can't put mining facilities on public land that
doesn't have minerals under it. Why would you locate operations
on lands that can't be mined, for example, and it is just an
example of where the judiciary is going outside the bounds of
the law and, ultimately, there are just inconsistencies there.
And House Republicans have looked to resolve that in H.R. 1.
Mr. Crane. Thank you, sir.
Is there anybody on the panel, just for the education of
myself and everybody else in here, outside of those three
buckets: economic impact, national security, environmental harm
to the globe, are there any other buckets we should be focusing
on?
Anybody at all? Does that kind of sum up the three big
buckets? Does anybody not see this as a national security
threat in here? Does anybody want to expound on the economic
impact this has to our country, our communities, and the
families that live here?
Sir, on the end?
Mr. Wiita. When you are waiting 7 to 10 years for permits
in the United States, you basically deplete 25 percent of your
reserves just in getting permits. A lot of companies can't make
that meet up. So, the length of the permits is what is killing
most projects.
Mr. Crane. Does anybody want to take a shot at the why
here, why you guys think this Administration is promoting the
policies that are so harmful to critical minerals? Anybody?
Go ahead, Mr. Carlson.
Mr. Carlson. I would like to address the economic. The
economic issues is that the Biden administration and previous
administrations aren't concerned about the economic impacts.
There are laws on the books already--Regulatory Flexibility
Act, National Environmental Policy Act that requires economic
analysis.
They simply ignore them. So, I would suggest to the
Congress that we have to go about this a different way to hold
the agencies accountable.
Mr. Crane. Thank you. The last thing I will say before I
yield back my time is this, guys. Clearly, this is a Republican
dominated panel today, but I hope we can all educate ourselves
and agree that this issue because of its severity should not be
a partisan issue.
We should have Independents, Democrats, and Republicans
supporting the responsible usage of our own natural resources
for the three buckets that we are talking about. It is
massively important and, Chairman Gosar, thanks again for
inviting me and hosting this very important panel.
Dr. Gosar. I thank the gentleman.
Now, the second of our talented freshman class, Juan
Ciscomani, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Ciscomani. Thank you, Chairman, and thank you to the
panel for spending time with us this morning and sharing your
expertise with us. Thank you to the staff and, obviously, also
thank you to everyone here that showed up to listen to this
important conversation, and to my colleagues as well.
I am Juan Ciscomani. I represent Arizona's 6th
Congressional District down in the southeastern part of the
state, Tucson and also Cochise County and I will talk about the
mines in a second, but Graham, Greenlee Counties and Pinal as
well. So, about five counties, a lot of rural area, and
obviously natural resources are very, very important to us.
The committee that I serve on is the Appropriations
Committee--that is one of them--that I have the distinct honor
of being the appropriator from Arizona and that puts me in a
position where I look at the funding, obviously, and what we
are doing with it, and the last couple of months we have been
going through the whole appropriations process.
And one of the areas that we have been focusing on is
halting the burdensome EPA and the BLM rules. As we have heard
today, government interference in this is really causing a lot
of the issues that are unnecessary.
We keep hearing over and over again how this is in our own
making and then how we are putting ourselves at a disadvantage
against foreign countries that are not friendly to us and that
they want anything but to see America succeed. Obviously, China
leading the way on that.
In the Interior and the Energy Water Subcommittee, we are
actively working to halt some of the burdensome regulations
that the Biden administration is attempting to put in place and
we want to make it easier for Americans to mine critical
minerals here in the United States and that is where we are
coming from.
And speaking of critical minerals, I have a bill that deals
with some of this. So, I want to turn it over to the panel and
whoever wants to jump at this. I know Director Cabrera well,
and I call him Director Cabrera because that is how I met him
and worked with him for 8 years under the Ducey administration.
But I am wondering if you could talk about the importance
of a mineral being designated as a critical mineral and why it
is necessary that a mineral received the designation and status
of being a critical mineral.
I have a bill before Congress that designates copper as a
critical mineral. We have just been hearing how important that
is, how much it includes and, obviously, being one of the five
Cs in Arizona and we lead the way in its production. We want to
make sure that we keep it going and vibrant.
So, Director, can you jump in on that?
Mr. Cabrera. One of the most practical benefits of being
designated as a critical mineral is that then you become
eligible for the Fast-41 permitting process. It is the one
process that I have seen at the Federal level that actually
stands a chance of streamlining the Federal bureaucracy.
It is actually quite effective. We saw that during the
previous administration. Becoming a critical mineral also makes
you eligible for the Fast-41 project. It also makes you
eligible for a whole host of Federal grants, a whole host of
Federal streamlining events. So, I agree with you that having
that designation is actually quite important for an element
that is so important for our future.
Mr. Ciscomani. Thank you, Director.
Anybody else want to jump in on that?
Great. Well, you know, for context, as I said, I am very
interested in copper being designated as a critical mineral.
Southern Arizona leads the country in the development of copper
and it is home to just incredibly productive mines like Safford
and Morenci, and as you all mentioned, copper plays a key role
in the energy technology, defense, consumer electronics, and
many other important applications, and I want to ensure that we
are not relying on foreign enemies for this mineral.
That is key and essential for us for our national security
and for our strength around the world and also for our supply
that we need here. So, it is concerning to me that the USGS
does not list it as a critical mineral and we need to change
that.
With that, I yield back, Mr. Chair.
Dr. Gosar. I thank the gentleman.
Now, we are going to the third of our popular freshmen.
This is my Vice Chair, Mike Collins, from Georgia.
Mr. Collins. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
You know, I am a freshman. I have only been there, I guess,
a little over 200 days. But when I ran, I ran on several
different things--the debt, China, border security, and
something I called oversight, and that is what I kind of want
to focus on because we only control the House of
Representatives and we are passing a lot of good bills but they
are falling into a black hole over there in the Senate because
they won't take it up. But oversight is one area that we can
really get our message out and put a face on what is going on
out there.
I am a small businessman. In other words, I look at things
as what is the problem and what is the solution. So, as we go
through this I hope you will join me try to figure out what the
problem is and just what is the solution.
I am also in the trucking industry, second generation. Been
at it over 30 years. My wife and I started our own business.
Now, on the trail, I would say I am in the most regulated
business area in the world. But as I have been out there doing
these hearings, I swear I think we are all in the most
regulated industry in the world.
There is not one that I haven't seen that hasn't been
affected. And you know what, I want to recognize something, Mr.
Chairman. We had over a week's notice for this hearing, a
week's notice. I don't know if you all noticed it or not, there
is not a single Democrat sitting up here, not a single one of
them that will come out here and see you face to face to
understand one on one what you are feeling and what you are
going through. And in the hearings that I have been to they
haven't been there either, and I think that is very telling.
But I have been up to Minnesota, started out with
permitting problems out there. The world's largest deposit of
critical metals, been trying to get permitting for 20 years.
The East Coast, dealing with rulemakings that are going to kill
the entire recreation fishing up and down the entire Eastern
seaboard. Been out on the Western coast where they want to do
away with hydroelectric dams out there to promote this green
new deal that they have. As a matter of fact, the $1.7 trillion
infrastructure bill where they only put $600 billion to fix
your roads and bridges and it really isn't doing that.
The rest of it went to this crap so that they could push
EVs on you and they are out there putting up chargers that
aren't even going to work by the time they get them put up
because the chargers are going to change.
I am going to use up all my time on a rant, Mr. Chairman. I
am sorry.
Dr. Gosar. OK.
Mr. Collins. But here we are out here in your state, which
not only is dealing with border issues but dealing with mining
issues as well. And just like Mr. Crane, I don't know a lot
about mining.
But I guarantee you one thing. It is worth it to be out
here with you to see your concern. I am second generation
trucking, and I guarantee you there are second, third
generation folks sitting out here that are worried about their
family, worried about their next generation and taking over
their business.
So, Mr. Harrell, I want to jump into modernizing the
permitting system right quick. Does America have any chance to
become energy and resource independent from China and Russia?
Mr. Harrell. Not without permitting reform. We have to
narrow the amount of time it takes to permit these things from
7 to 10 years to more like 2 years like our allies Canada and
Australia do.
Mr. Collins. Yes, sir. Well, can you give us some specific
reforms on what Congress can do?
Mr. Harrell. Yes, absolutely. I think there are three key
components that need to be moving forward.
One, we need some strict deadlines to move through the
process and really narrowing the scope of the issues that are
considered. We need to streamline litigation so our judicial
system stops being used as a tool to obstruct American economic
development.
And, ultimately, we need better coordination between
Federal and state entities so that those things sync together
and we can ultimately drive projects forward and bring some of
those decisions down to the local level where folks know things
best.
Mr. Collins. Thank you. And that leads into another totally
different subject. But judicial reform and a lot of it, I
think, is in the way of tort reform.
You have all these environmentalists out there that will
drop a suit on you as soon as one kind of gets settled or
dropped just to keep the permitting processing going.
And I know I harp on that every day about how we have to
have better tort reform in this country. And the other thing is
just the fact that, you know, when I was in Minnesota there was
a mine next door to that mine that they were trying to permit
for 20 years. They have been mining that for years because it
was on state land. Had no problem with state permitting. Next
door, Federal couldn't get it done.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I better yield back.
Dr. Gosar. I thank the gentleman.
I will challenge myself with the questions. How many in the
audience has a car? Who is all worried about their catalytic
converter going missing? Why would I ask that, Craig?
Rhodium is pretty expensive, isn't it?
Mr. Wiita. Rhodium, yes.
Dr. Gosar. Like all the rest of these critical minerals,
they have a cost and the way China does this is when you have a
company that gets started in the United States they start
building up. They are starting to get that money and then all
of a sudden what happens is China starts lowering the price.
They get you sucked in and then they bottom you out so you go
out of business. That is how this is done.
So, Jim, I am going to ask you another question. What is
unusual about the Superior National Forest? Is there a
withdrawal area? Is there a buffer area?
Mr. Carlson. Yes, Mr. Chairman, there is. In 1978, when the
Congress permitted or actually set aside the boundary waters
mining or Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness, Congress had
the wisdom to draw a boundary around it, and they called that
the mining protection area.
It is 3 miles wide, and in that legislation that is
wilderness area and in that legislation they protected mining.
Now, to the south where the withdrawal just occurred by the
Secretary of the Interior, those lands are managed working
Federal lands under the Federal Land Policy Management Act. So,
they are separate.
One is managed as wilderness by the U.S. Forest Service.
The second is managed as Federal Land Policy Management Act
working lands under FLPMA. There are six principal uses, and I
hope I am addressing your question, there are six principal
uses in this statute and what the Secretary of the Interior is
taking advantage of is, No. 1, bureaucracy, and what they are
doing is they are withdrawing the lands of the Superior
National Forest of the Duluth Mineral Complex. They are
withdrawing that and eliminating the principal use of mining
and extraction.
There is where Congress has an opportunity to affect the
process because this is on the statute. This is FLPMA. It is a
very complex law. But under FLPMA, in order to eliminate one or
more principal uses, the Secretary of the Interior has to come
to Congress. They didn't.
Dr. Gosar. Mr. Cabrera, we have heard a lot about the Congo
and one thing I haven't heard, though, is child labor
practices. Can you address that for us?
Mr. Cabrera. Yes. The Democratic Republic of Congo is known
for utilizing child labor in their mines that produce cobalt.
Cobalt is a very important mineral. It is used in lots of
technology and it is also quite rare. And the fact of the
matter is that other countries do not protect the environment,
or the worker, or the economy of their local residents and the
communities around the mines as well as we do.
Dr. Gosar. And the quality of life for those individuals
has to be horrendous, doesn't it?
Mr. Cabrera. When you see photographs of these mining
operations in foreign countries it is grieving. There is a
group called Better in My Backyard, and I agree with that
phraseology. We know how to mine well, we know how to mine
sustainably, and we know how to do this within our communities
such that it is a win-win scenario. And there are actually very
few countries that do it as well as we do.
Dr. Gosar. So, my question to you is, in allowing this
child labor use, we are actually part of the problem, are not
we?
Mr. Cabrera. I would agree.
Dr. Gosar. Really interesting. I kind of want to go now to
Craig. I have been told by a number of experts that we have a
great recycling program in the United States. Is that true?
Mr. Wiita. We have a good recycling program. We can't
recycle everything we need. Not even close. The only recycling
we are getting for nickel is coming out of stainless steel.
Very small percentage. It is not enough to make up the
deficiency that we can fill with mining and refining.
Dr. Gosar. So, if we were looking at recycling, what would
be some of the things that you could see us doing in recycling?
Could we be looking at turbines? Could we be looking at
batteries? Could we be looking at solar cells? What should we
be looking at?
Mr. Cabrera. What we need to start recycling is solar
panels and EV batteries. We can regain a little bit of the
product but we are also keeping a huge mess from hitting the
landfills.
We have 12 heavy metals--four of them are carcinogens--in
every photovoltaic solar panel--heavy ones, cesium, cadmium. If
they get down to the aquifers, the solar panels could ruin
every aquifer on Earth.
Reaching a little bit, but we don't want that stuff getting
down into our water supplies and we need to have recycling
centers for everything that is the modern solar panels, EV
batteries. And I think Kingman, Arizona would be a good place
for it.
Dr. Gosar. Well, you also said that you like clean air,
clean water, and clean land, didn't you?
Mr. Cabrera. I love it.
Dr. Gosar. So do I. I love it big time.
My time has expired. I am going to go to a second round of
questions. We will start with Ms. Lesko.
Ms. Lesko. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I have introduced a bill
that would add uranium to the critical mineral list and I also
co-sponsored Juan Ciscomani's bill that would add copper to the
critical mineral list.
The reason I think uranium is so important is because I am
on the Energy Committee and we have a real concern about
providing enough electricity to people because of all of the
excess demand that is being put on with the electric vehicles
and all the electronics that use electricity.
One of the solutions is nuclear, and we are actually
getting some bipartisan support on nuclear, and not so much the
large nuclear plants like we have Palo Verde Nuclear Plant
here, which by the way, if you don't know it provides the most
amount of nuclear energy of any other nuclear plant in our
nation.
But it is called a modular nuclear. So, they are smaller
and they need uranium. Right now, U.S. nuclear plants are about
40 to 50 percent reliant on Russian uranium.
Mr. Cabrera, can you tell me if you think it is important
that we add uranium to the critical minerals list?
Mr. Cabrera. I believe that would be prudent. That mineral
can fuel the only zero-emissions power source that we have
available to us.
Ms. Lesko. Yes, and that is why some of my Democratic
colleagues are actually coming around on nuclear and are
becoming supportive.
Mr. Cabrera, you had some really good points in your
testimony, so I want to reiterate them a little bit. One of
them, even if metal recycling efforts were to increase a
hundredfold, there simply isn't enough material in circulation,
I assume in the United States, to meet the growing demand.
Thus, the unavoidable truth is that we cannot develop cleaner,
greener technologies without more minerals and we cannot secure
enough minerals without a significant focus on mining.
And when the Secretary of Energy was in front of our
committee I asked her, are you supportive of domestic mining?
She says, oh, yes, the Biden administration is very supportive.
I said, so why did you basically close down the Resolution
Copper Mine, which is over in Superior? Because under the Trump
administration they gave the green light, and 2 months after
Biden gets in office he basically closes it down. This is total
insanity and, again, we are just handing over things to the
Chinese.
You said, sir, that you can process some lithium. Yet,
electric vehicles need lithium batteries. Backup storage needs
lithium and, yet, China processes most of the lithium. So, when
you increase the demand for electric vehicles, solar panels,
that are all made over in China, you are just helping China.
So, you have to open up our markets and that is why us
Republicans are trying to do permitting reform, because
compared to other countries it takes us way too long to start
these mines, to start energy projects, to start pipelines, to
start anything, quite frankly, and we have to mine in the
United States.
Mr. Cabrera, can you tell Congress Members that you have in
front of us right here if you have any other ideas besides the
permitting reform that we put in H.R. 1 and sponsoring
legislation to add things to the critical minerals list? What
can we as Congress Members do more?
Mr. Cabrera. Hold the Federal agencies accountable. One of
the things that I learned in my 18 years in the private sector
and then I learned when I became a state employee about 11
years ago, first in Arizona state government and now at a
university system, is that in the private sector there are
natural accountability processes. If you don't produce, if you
don't serve your customers, you die.
Government entities don't have that same accountability.
So, that kind of accountability and oversight is an appropriate
role for Congress.
Ms. Lesko. Thank you. In a last second, Mr. Wiita, you had
said earlier to me personally that you are not getting all of
these taxpayer funds that are supposed to help with expanding
U.S. production of critical minerals.
Can you touch on that? What is happening to you and your
company?
Mr. Wiita. I know that there was $140 million out there for
expanding exploration out here in the Western United States. I
have a pretty big exploration company. We haven't even heard of
a dime of it. The lithium that we are doing right now there was
over $7 billion in there for securing lithium for EV batteries.
We haven't seen a dime of it. I could go on. There are so many
out there that were in the Inflation Act.
Ms. Lesko. Thank you for not saying reduction.
Mr. Wiita. I couldn't say reduction. I am sorry.
Ms. Lesko. It is not reduction. Me either. The Inflation
Act, yes.
Mr. Wiita. But where is it going? Is it going to Chinese
companies? Right now, the largest copper discovery since
Resolution has been tabled here in Arizona. It is called the
Antler project right in the Kingman area. It is an Australian
company that has paid the whole way. It is not even a U.S.
company. They have a beautiful riff of about 4 to 5 percent
copper.
I don't know if they will ever see permits. The last time I
got a mine approved for a mine plan of operation here in
Arizona, let's see, Fish & Game had to come out and tell me how
high to put my entrance signs so that wild burros don't bump
their heads.
If you have ever been through Quartzite on Interstate 10
you have seen the dry washes. Well, mine was declared a
commercially navigable wash by the Army Corps of Engineers, and
I explained to Billy that even if you were in a canoe in the
biggest monsoon of the year it wouldn't move unless you were
hooked to the back of my Jeep.
And it wasn't a navigable wash. It was a commercially
navigable wash. So, what that really meant was another $75,000
permit to Army Corps. Arizona Game & Fish needed an extra
$50,000 so that the burros won't bump their heads. We were in
over $3 million to get a set of permits for a small operation
here in Arizona.
And thank you, Paul, for helping me get that one through.
Ms. Lesko. Good. Thank you. That is something I would like
to look into is why he and other companies are not getting this
money that was doled out.
Dr. Gosar. The gentlelady brings up some great ideas. I
mean, you bring up this modular nuclear. Folks, modular
nuclear, they have been doing it for 70 years. It is called
submarines and aircraft carriers. That is what they are called,
and I will leave you with kind of a cartoon. The wife tells her
husband go turn on the power. He goes OK, mama. Then he goes
back down and he flips the switch, and there is a nuclear sub
in the back.
So, I mean, there is a lot of room here. We will look at
that, Ms. Lesko.
I will now look at one of the freshmen again.
Eli Crane.
Mr. Crane. Thank you. I will try to be quick.
I do want to go back to something Mr. Cabrera and
Congressman Gosar were talking about with the cobalt mining in
the Congo. Do you guys remember them talking about that and the
slave labor that is going on there.
If you guys want to go look at some of the pictures that
Mr. Cabrera wisely brought up, I highly suggest you do and I
suggest you share it with your friends, OK?
If you guys go Google Joe Rogan cobalt mining, how many of
you guys have watched that video? Anybody? All right. That is
an assignment for you guys.
It will only take you 10 or 12 minutes. But Joe Rogan
brought on an expert who was looking at this, who had some
photos from the cobalt mines and was talking about the
humanitarian crisis in making and producing some of these
critical minerals and what it actually costs to create some of
these electric vehicles that we are working on.
And I am not going to sit here and say electric vehicles
are bad. Please don't hear that. What I am saying is it goes
back to the three buckets we were talking about. You have your
economic bucket, you have your national security bucket, and
then you have your environmental bucket, and some of the
panelists have talked about this today.
As Americans, we are a consumer driven culture. We love to
be able to go into Wal-Mart or any store and just buy these
products cheaply. But I think it is often not until we actually
see what the cost is, see how people are affected, that we
start to maybe wise up and make some wiser consumer choices.
So, please go watch that video if you haven't.
The next thing I want to do real quick is I want to ask you
guys, because the why of this is really important to me. I said
I am not an expert in critical minerals, but I have served my
country in the military for many years.
I did five combat deployments. I love this country. I love
the people here, and the only reason I ran for Congress is
because I got so tired of seeing the foolishness and the self-
destruction that I was talking about earlier.
How many of you guys by show of hands think that this
Administration, when you look at many of the things going on,
what we are talking about today, the mining, the natural
resources, us not using it but being perfectly fine outsourcing
it and buying it from other countries that are often enemies of
ours, by show of hands how many of you guys think that the
causation of that is foolishness?
By a show of hands, how many of you think it is an
environmentally conscious decision? That is why this
Administration is making these types of choices. OK, we got a
couple. That is fair.
All right. What about corruption? Anybody? Whoa. All right.
How about self-sabotage? OK.
I am glad because I think it is important that we
understand and we look at the cause and what you guys are
actually seeing, because I think it is a mixed bucket.
I think that there are many of those things that I listed
off that are the causation of what I consider to be very
foolish self-destructive policies. But the bottom line is,
until we the people get loud and make sure our Representatives
on every side of the aisle know that this is a problem, they
will just keep coming up there to Washington, DC, to the State
capitol house, and they will continue to vote the same way and
this will never change.
And, guys, I am going to tell you that is the byproduct of
having a government that is of, by, and for the people. When
the people of the country are checked out, when they are
complacent and when we are not educated, this is the very type
of thing that you see and nobody is held accountable and it is
up to us as citizens to hold our Representatives and our
elected officials accountable for this.
So, thank you for showing up. Thank you for getting
educated and please go watch that video with Joe Rogan. I yield
back my time.
Dr. Gosar. So, I am not the only one who gives assignments.
We are going to go to the next freshman that is very talented,
Juan Ciscomani.
Mr. Ciscomani. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I will not be giving
an assignment. Maybe that deserves a round of applause, too.
But no homework from me.
I do just want to touch on something that Debbie mentioned,
though, and I think it is very important regarding the
permitting reform. That, in my mind, is a big piece of the
issue and a big part of the problem because it is, once again,
we are all here accountable to the people that elected us and,
obviously, we have an executive branch that is also accountable
or should be accountable to the people that elected that person
as well, and the judges have their own checks and balances
method.
But it seems that the agencies are almost immune to
accountability many times, and from Congress that is our job.
We have power of oversight and we also have the power of the
purse. These are two areas that we can really tweak, and then 7
months in now as a freshman I am learning that more and more as
an appropriator especially where you can add pressure for
things to happen and get done and gain attention.
There is a lot of lip service going on in Washington. I
think you know that, and it has been going on for a long time.
You don't get people's attention until you start pointing the
finger and squeezing resources out of whatever they want to be
spending on that, and permitting reform is a big part of this.
At the same time, we want to make sure that we are empowered to
be able to do the things that we need to do as a community. The
permitting reform is a big one.
We just met with CEMEX just before this and they were
talking about some easy permitting and hearing the stories even
here in Arizona, imagine what it is like in California. I mean,
no state is perfect but I do think that Arizona has done a much
better job than other states in this under the leadership of
Misael Cabrera and others like him.
But it is the Federal intervention that really makes it way
more difficult for states to be able to be innovative in this
because so much of it is controlled at the Federal level.
So, in terms of the permitting reform, they were saying
that it could take 7 to 10 years for some small permits to just
do something very simple. This is time that they are not being
productive. This is time that we are wasting that other
countries are not wasting, and they are actually producing and
beating us to the punch once again.
That is extremely frustrating, and I was going to pose a
question on that but I think we have discussed that enough. But
a segue into what I saw in the plant today, I have seen that in
Cal Portland in the plant over in my own district and whenever
I visit a mine I am increasingly impressed by the technology
they use, by how innovative they are, how resourceful they are,
especially with our precious water.
I mean, when you build the fifth largest city in the
country in the middle of the desert you do something well with
water, right, and Arizona has been leading the way in that.
Would any of you jump in to talk a little bit about the
mining industry and how that has changed over the years? And I
know that some people cite past environmental aggressions to
criticize the industry.
So, I would like to hear more about where the industry is
now and where it is headed in terms of its efficiency and in my
mind, is one of the best examples we have in our country of how
you can protect the environment while not choking the free
enterprise and business out of its existence as well.
Mr. Wiita. If I may.
Mr. Ciscomani. Sure.
Mr. Wiita. With the permitting process, it is the little
things that keep ending up as speed bumps in front of you. It
is a very simple process. Here in the United States, we are
clean, safe.
Here is a good example. With lithium over in China, even
down in Argentina, they are using huge ponds of sulfuric acid
to do the dissolve. We also use acid, but we regenerate 95
percent of our acid through distillation.
That is not just use it once and done. That is constantly
being able to use 95 percent of it over, and over, and over.
That is something that other countries don't even try. That is
something that a lot of U.S. companies haven't even tried. But
we have perfected it.
We can get 95, some days even 97 percent, of our acid back
in the same PH ready to use again instead of just discarding
and starting with new.
Those are the things that we do to keep it cleaner here and
safer, and it costs us a little bit more. Trust me, these
distillers, they aren't free. But when you can do something and
save 95 percent of your reagent to reuse, you are doing
something correct. That is how we make mining cleaner, safer.
Mr. Harrell. If I could just add one other thing. I have
been to copper, silver, gold, uranium, and coal mines across
this country. These are not 5-year, 10-year partnerships. These
resources that are available are in many cases a 50-year
partnership. They are members of the committee. They want to
invest in our schools because that is their workforce.
They want to reclaim these lands because there are
opportunities for economic development once you have pushed
through projects moving forward. They want to be contributors
to the local economy, things along those lines.
So, I think far too often the bureaucracy thinks about the
opportunity cost of moving forward on these projects in
simplistic terms, like, oh, we are just going to mine this
land. These are opportunities to build out our community, the
sustainable jobs, and have decades-long partnerships while
increasing our national security.
Mr. Ciscomani. Absolutely. Well, thank you so much. Once
again, thank you all for your time this morning. And thank you
all for being here as well.
Mr. Chair, I yield back.
Dr. Gosar. I thank the gentleman.
Now, our Vice Chair, Mr. Collins.
Mr. Collins. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
In my district, it is mostly rural Georgia and it is mostly
made up of, I would say, just blue collar folks, farms, row
crops and dairy farms and cattle, and I kind of want to talk
about fertilizer for a minute, and I don't mean the fertilizer
that comes out of the south end of a northbound cow.
But, Mr. Crim, where does the United States get most of its
phosphate from?
Mr. Crim. Mostly from China.
Mr. Collins. So, it is imported?
Mr. Crim. Yes.
Mr. Collins. What can the United States do to ensure that
we are not dependent on China for this phosphate?
Mr. Crim. The United States needs to be more deliberate in
its efforts to move phosphate to the critical minerals list.
Mr. Collins. Good, and just for information, phosphate is a
very necessary component in fertilizer and I know I am not a
farmer, but the farmers that we do talk to on a daily basis
with the amount of inflation that is going on out there
especially from fuel prices and everything, their fertilizer
has gone sky high.
So, obviously, if you can't grow food or you don't have
food, then the population is not going to be there as well.
So, Mr. Chairman, I want to quit my question because I
think we have found out what the problem is, folks. The problem
is that you have a Federal Government out there that is over-
reaching into your life and in your business, a Biden
administration that is bent on this left-wing socialistic
agenda to change us and to change our country.
We also have the Federal agencies out there that are out of
control. As a matter of fact, I would say they don't even think
they have to answer to you. They can submit a rule for comment.
Yes, you can send your comments in. Heck, they aren't going to
read them. They don't care. They don't care what you have to
say. They are going to make the rule anyway.
As a matter of fact, between them and the Biden
administration they think you live too good anyway. They think
you need to be cut back a notch or two.
So, the more they can reach into your lives and make things
difficult, I don't even think they want you really going EV.
You know what I think they want? I think they want you riding
mass transit.
I think they want you living in a rental house and not
owning your own housing, be dependent on Federal health care,
so that everything you do, every decision you make, you are
going to look to the Federal Government first to get that
answer.
I don't know about you but that is not the America I know.
It is not the America that I want to live in. So, what are the
solutions? I think Representative Crane hit the nail on the
head. I have been around this a long time.
I am second generation in Congress, and I was told as long
as I was a kid there isn't a dad blame thing that happens in
that town up there until the American people demand it.
When you stand up and you say we have had enough, finally,
that crowd up there will get a hint and they will start
changing things and that is what we need today.
We passed H.R. 1 bringing back lower energy costs back here
to the United States to make it easier. But it is sitting over
there in the Senate. I guess them people are still out playing
pickle ball. I don't know what they are doing. They need to
take up legislation and either pass it or don't pass it.
We have NEPA reforms, Mr. Chairman, that we got through on
that debt ceiling. That is good. That is a good thing. But we
need other things. We need tort reform to bring in that
judicial part.
So, I would say, if there is one ask that I could ask of
you for an assignment, contact your Senator. Contact all of
them and tell them you have had enough. You aren't the only
one.
You have generations after you that want to make a living
out here doing what you know best, and if they are interfering
with it, then they need to get off of your back. We need this
Federal Government off our back and out of our back pocket.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back and I appreciate the time.
Dr. Gosar. I thank the colorful gentleman for his
testimony.
I am going to try to put this all together.
Mr. Harrell, you made the comment, and Mr. Wiita followed
up on it, that there is really no American mining company, is
there?
Mr. Harrell. Most of the major mining companies are
multinational global mining.
Dr. Gosar. Why is that?
Mr. Harrell. How you make these projects pencil out and
then, frankly, like doing business in the United States isn't
as appealing as it is in other places.
Dr. Gosar. Yes. You have to run the table on all the rest
of your assets before you get the one that comes through in the
United States.
Mr. Harrell. Maybe the harder stuff.
Dr. Gosar. Yes. So, once again, I should have had an empty
chair up here for the Democrat who is not here. But, Mr.
Cabrera, thank you for bringing up the Mining Law of 1872. What
is it about that Mining Law of 1872 that they are after?
Mr. Cabrera. First of all, that law and how it is described
is mischaracterized. That law has actually been amended dozens
of times. Just because something is old, does not mean that it
is outdated. That is the first issue.
The second issue is that they are constantly trying to
completely change the rules of engagement for such an important
industry in our country, so that law is being attacked for its
age and mischaracterized as not being modern enough simply
because they don't like the outcomes of that law and the
outcomes are that mining companies are able to leverage Federal
lands in order to get mineral supplies.
If we couple that law as it is today with the NEPA reforms
that you all just passed--thank you--plus permitting reform
from H.R. 1, we could actually make a go of it.
Dr. Gosar. I just want to get kind of a feel for the amount
of money that is with these companies. So, what is the average
salary for one of these mining companies?
Mr. Cabrera. An average worker in a mining company are
graduates from the University of Arizona, folks with mining
engineering or economic geology backgrounds, also mechanical
engineers and others. Mining industries employ lots of
professionals. The average salary that we calculate is about
$80,000 a year.
Dr. Gosar. Eighty thousand dollars. I sure could use
$80,000. How about you guys?
You also brought up the aspect of how do we get this reform
back and it has been brought up by a number of people, and
Arizona is perfectly suited for this. We just need a chief
executive who has some cojones.
So, what is that? It is divesting the Federal Government of
its assets back to the states, and I am glad I got Tim sitting
over here because he is one of our finest here in Arizona.
But the equal footing clause plays a big part in Arizona,
so let's go through this. The first time Arizona puts up for
their statehood they were rejected by Taft. Taft is not your
ordinary president. Taft is the only President to go on to
serve in the Supreme Court, the only.
So, what does he do? He comes back to Arizona and he says,
OK, what you are going to do is we are going to force you to
take the Federal doctrine, Federal lands, and what we are going
to do there is we are going to use the multiple use doctrine so
you never have to worry about that.
He forms a contract. He forms a contract with the state of
Arizona. Now, why is that important? Because it would sure be
nice to have an executive, a governor, that challenges that
doctrine and say whoa, whoa, whoa. The Federal Government isn't
last in line. It is the state of Arizona.
The more we can devolve back to the states the better. Mike
hit the nail on the head. What is going on there is a sewer, a
sewer of despair. We want to give as little as we can to the
Federal Government. Remember what our Framers said. We give
limited powers to the Federal Government. The rest is reserved
for the people in the state.
We have this backwards. We really have this backwards. I
hope you are as ticked off as I am, especially after my Vice
Chair's comments. I think that is very, very apropos about
that.
I am going to end with one more thing, uranium. So, now you
have a group of people that are trying to withdraw this area up
in northern Arizona in uranium.
Let me ask you a question, Mr. Cabrera. Would it be better
to take out the uranium because of the depression? It gets
water, water seeps there. The air hits there. Wouldn't it be
better to take those out and put your sedimentary rock in there
so that you get permeation of water from the surface to the
subsurface to refill some of those aquifers? Doesn't that seem
a little bit more apropos?
Mr. Cabrera. It is accurate that removing uranium from the
subsurface will leave less mass that can interact with
groundwater and create naturally occurring uranium
concentrations in groundwater.
We have naturally occurring uranium concentrations in
groundwater in various places across our state and it is
accurate that removing that source of uranium will allow less
interaction between the groundwater and the uranium.
Dr. Gosar. Yes. I guess the next part I want to say is if
we are going to compact or these modular nuclear processes,
pretty safe, aren't they?
Mr. Cabrera. I am not an expert in nuclear power but what I
do know is in the United States we have had no major incidents
at nuclear facilities in multiple decades, and when you look at
the trade-offs of other traditional power sources nuclear power
is economic, it is clean, and in the United States we know how
to do it safely.
Dr. Gosar. And last point. Earlier this year, we were about
a minute away from having a rolling blackout in the United
States. Is that true?
Mr. Cabrera. Sir, I am not aware of that but I would not be
surprised.
Dr. Gosar. Yes. Well, part of this problem is this
temporary or intermittent type effects as to fuel and then
baseload power. What is the difference? When the wind doesn't
blow and the sun doesn't shine, you don't watch your
television. Remember Donald Trump saying that? Well, baseload
power, when you flip the switch, it is always on 24/7/365.
So, if you are utilizing all these renewables, and I will
tell you right now I am for all of the above because we don't
need less energy, we need more energy, right. So, I am just
taken aback by that. I am going to end with a question for
every single one of you.
What was the question that you most wanted to answer and
what is its answer? We will start with you, Mr. Cabrera.
Mr. Cabrera. The question that I most wanted to answer is
what are some simple things that we can do to accelerate
permitting at the Federal level, and the answer to that
question is realize that 95 percent of the total elapsed time
for any administrative process is simply waiting.
In other words, there is no connection between quality or
protection and time. Time is simply a waste. The private sector
has realized that. If we just apply private sector streamlining
techniques to Federal permitting processes, we can accelerate
Federal permits by 90 percent as we did in the state of
Arizona.
Dr. Gosar. Thank you. Mr. Carlson, same question?
Mr. Carlson. The question that I hoped would be asked is,
Jim, how do we hold Federal agencies accountable, and my
response would be that when you have an opponent that is out to
work against you, what do you do, and there you learn the rules
that they are playing by, and the rules that the Federal
agencies have to abide by are the missions of the individual
agencies--Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Forest Service, U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, et cetera.
So, we learn what the rules are that those agencies have to
go by the statutes and then we apply those statutes to the
bureaucrats. Now, there are two levels of bureaucrats. There
are appointees that come in with the Administration and then
there are career bureaucrats that come in later.
And during the administrative processes, I believe it was
Congressman Crane alluded to the comment period, no, it
actually was your Vice Chair, alluded to the comment period and
during the comment period that is under the Administrative
Procedures Act. That is where you address the agencies and you
do it technically, strategically.
And then the last thing of my response is this, bureaucrats
exist on anonymity. That is how they get away with what they
are doing, so when we hold agencies accountable to their
mission in life that was delegated by the Congress and we hold
bureaucrats accountable to what they are supposed to be doing
and put pressure on them legitimately with dignity and respect
it works great.
Dr. Gosar. Mr. Crim, same question.
Mr. Crim. I believe that the question that I would have
liked to have been asked is how do we shift America's
dependence from foreign adversaries to the United States, and I
think what the answer would be is that our Federal Government,
U.S. Congress, taking the lead in its oversight role is to be
very deliberate.
China didn't just get here by accident. China was very
deliberate its actions. They have repeated over and over again
their goals. They want to be in control of our global supply
chains so that they can exert power over us, and not over us
but all of their adversaries, whether it is in the Pacific with
regard to Taiwan and a host of other issues.
They want to be able to control our supply chain so that we
have to bow down at some point to their demands, and they are
utilizing every mechanism at their disposal. They have a whole
government approach to the way they do things and they have a
whole government approach to the way they are trying to
infiltrate our democracy, not just at the Federal level but
also at the state and local level.
Dr. Gosar. Mr. Harrell?
Mr. Harrell. Mr. Chairman, we tiptoed around it a little
bit today but we can't spend our way out of this problem. In
the end, we need a fundamental change in the paradigm on how we
permit things in this country.
If you believe--and I do--that we are going to have to
double our grid in the next 30 years and, like you, I think
that means more wind, more solar, more advanced nuclear, more
geothermal, more CCUS, more gas production--we are going to
have to build a lot of things in this country, both generation
and storage and grid infrastructure and manufacturing tied to
it.
If you just back that out a little bit, and I will give you
some stats to underscore this, like, some modeling will say
that means over that time period 1,400 new projects a year
would need to be permitted. That is three projects a day.
There is no money that we can throw at the bureaucracy that
is going to get them approving three projects a day. We have to
do something fundamentally different to take our own economic
competitiveness in our own hands.
Dr. Gosar. So, you are actually telling me government is
not the answer?
Mr. Harrell. The government is not the answer. No.
[Laughter.]
Dr. Gosar. Craig?
Mr. Wiita. As you know, Congressman Gosar, rare earth
elements have been a passion of mine for the last 20 years. It
is a very easy solution, but it is mixed up in a Federal
matrix. The other two elements I spoke about today, tellurium,
this is a byproduct of porphyry copper deposits.
Rio Tinto is the only one recovering it right now. They
only spent $2.9 million on the addition to their loop. That is
peanuts. Antimony, there are such wonderful deposits up through
Idaho. This is another real low-hanging fruit and right now
most of antimony is either being refined in China or in Oman.
SPMP in Oman is one of the other companies that is doing it.
Even if it is through off take agreements from existing
mines because we just can't get refineries open quick enough. I
could expand. My property is over 40 acres and right now we are
utilizing 10 acres for lithium. I can easily put in tellurium--
we made this off of copper slimes. I could easily put in
antimony and rare earth all on the property that I have right
now under the permit that I have now through the EPA.
It isn't, like, if you build it they will come. I built it.
The Administration changed. I lost 75 percent of my customers.
That is reality. That is where the rubber hits the road.
Seventy-five percent of my clients on public land were
completely wiped out when this Administration took charge.
I have never laid off an employee. We have our full staff.
As to your question earlier, my employees start out at $88,000
a year. I try to make it to where a single wage earner can
support their family, their kids are not being raised by
daycare. They are being raised by the mother or the father--a
parent. And we are just in this tailspin. If you can't get
permits, you really shouldn't open a refinery because you don't
have product.
Dr. Gosar. Well, and that goes, Craig, for you--if you have
a semiconductor plant, you better have the product to actually
make semiconductors.
Mr. Wiita. Exactly.
Dr. Gosar. I don't care how big it is. It is not going to
make any more if you don't have any product.
Mr. Wiita. And as I mentioned earlier, we have plenty of
germanium here. I know of a property out in Darwin, California
that could do our whole germanium supply.
We have the Gordonville mine in Middle Tennessee that could
take over all the gallium needs, and actually when you get back
to the question earlier on recycling the glass on solar
panels--you can make the unicorn, the five or six nine purity
silica, to be put back into the supply chain.
There are so many things to do it is hard to say where we
begin because we have been behind the eight ball for so many
years. We are already so many layers down in that onion.
Dr. Gosar. And it also makes you speculate. You know, when
somebody is telling you yes you can, how do we help you, and
then you go, no, you can't, you aren't going to have anybody.
Mr. Wiita. It is almost like they are trying to pick up the
dog turd from the clean end.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Wiita. There is no clean end. Pick it up.
Dr. Gosar. Yes, you are right. Exactly right.
I hear you loud and clear. There is one person sitting in
the audience I want to just actually say--Dave, would you stand
up? Let me ask you a question. How much money has Resolution
Copper put into mitigation in regards to that mine site?
Voice. [Off mic.]
Dr. Gosar. Folks, I would tell you this is the mine that is
ready to take off. We have to go visit. We need to go ask. We
need to go demand. We need to go get this thing off the ground.
You can see all the things they have done. It is amazing what
they have done. Strictly unbelievable. The water is cleaner
than they get it. This is amazing technology.
So, if I had one ask of you, let's get out to Resolution
Copper. Let's get that over the hurdle, and then we will get to
the next project, then we will get to the next project, then we
will get the next project. You have my word. I will be happy
here answering questions and I will be that dog on a bone. I
will be that dog on the bone.
I want to thank the witnesses for their valuable testimony
and the Members for their questions. The members of the
Committee may also have some additional questions for the
witnesses and we will ask you to respond to those in writing.
Under Committee Rule 3, the members of the Committee must
submit questions to the Subcommittee Clerk by 5 p.m. on
Wednesday, July 26. The hearing record will be held open for 10
business days for these responses.
I would also like to thank the Luke Air Force Base Color
Guard. Let's give them a round of applause.
[Applause.]
Dr. Gosar. And I would also like to single out everybody on
that panel. So, let's give them a round of applause.
[Applause.]
Dr. Gosar. If there is no further business, without
objection the Subcommittee stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
[ADDITIONAL MATERIALS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD]
Comment Sheet Filled out at the Hearing
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Submissions for the Record by Rep. Gosar
Statement for the Record
Retired Brigadier General Ernest John Teichert III
Honorable members of the committee. I'm retired Brigadier General
Ernest John Teichert III and I had the honor of serving our country for
over 28 years in the United States Air Force. I have served as the
commander of the 11th Wing and Joint Base Andrews in Maryland, the
commander of the 412th Test Wing and Edwards Air Force Base in
California, the Senior Defense and Defense Attache to Iraq, and most
recently as the Assistant Deputy Undersecretary of the Air Force,
International Affairs. During the last decade, I have focused
extensively on strategic competition with China and Russia, and I can
tell you that our national security depends on vigilance and
resilience, a strong and well-equipped military, a thriving economy,
and a robust industrial base.
We are in a global environment of strategic competition. At the end
of World War II, the United States created a world order that was free,
open, prosperous, and secure for all of humanity. The U.S. and her
partners and allies have painstakingly maintained that world order for
the last 80 years. Yet, malign activities by countries like China and
Russia have demonstrated their determination to erode that world order
and remake it in a way that only benefits them. We see it today in
Eastern Europe, the Western Pacific, and all around the globe.
In 1999, two Chinese Communist Party Colonels published a strategy
of Unrestricted Warfare that has been playing out as planned during the
last two decades. Their theory of victory is to use all means, in all
domains, in all places, and in all spectrums at the same time to
achieve their interests. We have seen it in hundreds of billions of
dollars a year of stolen American intellectual property, a wholesale
theft of governmental personnel records, free speech sapping Chinese
communist clubs on campuses, secret police facilities in our cities
that restrict freedom of expression, and intentionally designed and
financed disinformation operations and propaganda campaigns. We see it
in action in the infiltration of our companies, our media, our
entertainment, and our public dialogue. In February, the Office of the
Director of National Intelligence released the ``Annual Threat
Assessment of the U.S. Intelligence Community.'' One key point of
extreme concern is the deliberate Chinese activities designed to
manipulate policy by: ``redoubling its efforts to build influence at
the state and local level to shift U.S. policy in China's favor because
of Beijing's belief that local officials are more pliable than their
federal counterparts.'' These insidious actions hinder our ability to
act in our own best interests while diminishing our capabilities and
reducing our national will. And, when the CCP believes that the time is
right, they will take greater steps of aggression.
In an environment of strategic competition and to counter the
temptation of Chinese aggression, the stated U.S. strategy is
integrated deterrence. It is designed to alter the perceptions of
benefits, costs, and risks of the Chinese action that we hope to
prevent, and fundamentally uses proven capability and demonstrated will
as its foundation. Anything that hinders our will ultimately diminishes
our deterrence and makes it more likely that a communist-controlled
China will be tempted to take aggressive action.
During the last 17-months, we have seen the heart-breaking war of
aggression against the freedom-loving people of Ukraine by Vladimir
Putin and the Russian Federation. Putin is a serial war criminal and a
ruthless thug. Ukraine has held their ground brilliantly. Yet, the war
was in part prompted by Putin's perception that the west did not have
the will to provide the support necessary for Ukraine to repel their
invasion. He has been surprised by their resilience and our consistent
support. The war, however, continues to wreak havoc in part because
Putin's oversized influence on food and energy supplies prevents the
world from taking further action to stop his aggression. He flexed his
muscle in this way even earlier this week. Humanity's reliance on these
resources has hindered our will, and China is watching.
Even in the last month, China has enacted new export controls on
critical metals that are essential to the production of semi-
conductors, missile, systems, lasers, and radars. Such action should be
considered a warning shot of their resolve and a test of our will. The
United States and our allies and partners have settled into a plan for
de-risking in key areas with China to minimize our vulnerabilities and
diminish Chinese influence. We must take great care to prioritize our
de-risking in areas that are particularly important, where we are
notably vulnerable, and where our supply chains are heavily reliant on
or insidiously persuaded by harmful external influences.
Specifically today, I want to emphasize the critical importance of
phosphate and its derivatives to the ongoing strategic competition and
our national security, particularly in the context of capability and
will that make up a successful strategy of integrated deterrence. It is
important to note the developing stranglehold enjoyed by malign actors
in this area with China sitting as the undisputed top producer of
phosphate with over 30 percent of world-wide extractions. Russia ranks
a hefty fourth.
Phosphate and its derivatives serve as indispensable components in
the production of military weapons, explosives, and propellants, while
also providing the treatments that maintain the longevity of a variety
of weapon systems. Phosphate enables the proper explosions of our
weapons, the accuracy of our aim, the survivability of our aircraft,
and the propulsion of our ships. It is a key element of warfighting
that must be maintained through a safe, sustainable and reliable supply
chain that cannot be held hostage to Chinese malign interests and
underhanded influence activities. This makes up the capability
component of integrated deterrence, and the loss or reduction of these
warfighting systems would be devastating to our military success. Yet,
the will component of our deterrent strategy is even more critical.
Phosphate and its derivatives serve as key components of fertilizer
and animal feed. Thus, worldwide food supplies are reliant on this
single mineral and can be held hostage by those who control it. As a
result, it is also a particularly vulnerable target for Chinese-backed
disinformation operations. Far more fundamental than even the wheat
resources that have played a major role in the lack of western will to
fully push back against Russia in its war of aggression in Ukraine,
phosphate is a necessary component for the survival of humanity. Any
Chinese threats of disruption for a substantial portion of worldwide
phosphate supply would weigh heavily on our decision-making calculus
and may tip the scales that makes the Chinese Communist Party believe
that our will is simply too fragile to resist their acts of aggression
when international and domestic food security is at risk. At that
point, they WILL act to secure their interests and it WILL be counter
to our interests.
This is a true national security threat. America must develop
policies that make our phosphate supply chain safe, sustainable, and
resilient in the face of China's multi-pronged assault of Unrestricted
Warfare. To combat that assault, I believe that phosphate must be
designated a critical mineral and that we must be extremely wary of
Chinese disinformation and propaganda influence at all levels that
would dissuade us from aggressively de-risking in this area. I see
these as key steps forward in protecting our national security and
maintaining a strong posture of integrated deterrence against Chinese
aggression.
______
Statement for the Record
L.J. Bardswich, P.E.
Director
United States Antimony Corporation
Antimony was included on the United States Geological Survey (USGS)
listing of critical minerals in 2017 ``mainly because of its use in
military applications.'' Antimony is also on the European Union
Critical Minerals list. The USGS states that the leading uses of
antimony were as follows: flame retardants, 40%; metal products,
including antimonial lead and ammunition, 36%; and nonmetal products,
including ceramics and glass and rubber products, 24%.
It is understood that 90% of the world's supply of antimony comes
from China either as a product of their mines or from mines in other
countries but is smelted and refined in China. There are presently no
primary antimony mines in the US. The proposed re-opening of the
antimony mine in Stibnite, Idaho (which was the primary source of
antimony for all the allies during World War II), has a two-year
construction time frame to production after permitting is finalized.
United States Antimony Corporation (USAC) with head office and a small
smelter and refinery in Thompson Falls, Montana has particular
expertise in the production and refining of antimony products. Canada's
largest mining company trucks a waste product from their lead/zinc
smelter to the Thompson Falls facilities where antimony is recovered.
Small mines in Mexico supply antimony ores to a larger USAC smelter in
Madero, Mexico. USAC products include antimony metal ingots, antimony
trioxide and antimony trisulphide.
Metal and/or trioxide can be used in flame retardants, antimonial
lead and in many non-metal products. Antimony trisulphide is required
for primers for ammunition and tracer bullets (recycling of this
antimony is obviously not an option). Presently, USAC, from mines in
Mexico, is the only approved North American mine source of antimony for
the production and supply of antimony trisulfide to the Department of
Defense/Defense Logistics Agency (DOD) for primers in munitions. All
the major munition manufacturers in the USA have evaluated and approved
the use of antimony trisulfide produced at the Thompson Falls, MT plant
(using proprietary methods developed over the last 12 years) sourced
from Mexican mines. However, these mines are in remote areas of Mexico,
generally controlled by the cartels, and with poor roads and other
infrastructure. The safety of miners, technical personnel and
management is of great concern, and the lack of infrastructure,
especially roads, inhibits the optimal operation of these mines. United
States government assistance in encouraging the Mexican government to
provide protection to their citizens and to improve their roads to
these small mining communities would be extremely helpful.
USAC continues with the search for additional antimony trisulphide
sources in Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Alaska, and Canada. Most antimony
showings are either too small, have erratic mineralization, or have
deleterious impurities which make them uneconomic and difficult (or
unsuitable) to meet DOD specifications. An exception is the Beaverbrook
antimony mine in Newfoundland, Canada, however it has been purchased by
a China-based corporation. (Prospectors in Alaska also report the
presence of China-based parties seeking sources of antimony, but this
has not been confirmed). If the search for an economic deposit becomes
successful, the track record of mining companies obtaining permits on
federal lands in the United States, on a timely basis, is extremely
poor. The situation in Canada has recently improved but remains very
time consuming. Small, high-grade deposits are easier to permit and are
being mined in Mexico (utilizing lower labor costs than in the US).
There may be some deposits on private land or State land in the US
which may be feasible, however, to date none have been identified.
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Submissions for the Record by Rep. Grijalva
SAN CARLOS APACHE TRIBE
San Carlos, Arizona
July 21, 2023
Hon. Rep. Paul Gosar Hon. Rep. Andy Biggs
U.S. House of
Representatives U.S. House of Representatives
2057 Rayburn House Office
Bldg 252 Cannon House Office Bldg
Washington, DC 20515 Washington, DC 20515
Hon. Rep. Eli Crane Hon. Rep. Debbie Lesko
U.S. House of
Representatives U.S. House of Representatives
1229 Longworth House Office
Bldg 1214 Longworth House Office Bldg
Washington, DC 20515 Washington, DC 20515
Hon. Rep. Mike Collins
U.S. House of
Representatives
1223 Longworth House Office
Bldg
Washington, DC 20515
Dear Representatives Gosar, Biggs, Crane, Lesko and Collins:
On behalf of the over 17,000 members of the San Carlos Apache
Tribe, I invite you to meet with Tribal leaders during your upcoming
visit to Arizona to discuss substantive issues related to the proposed
Resolution Copper Mine. We suggest meeting on sacred Apache ground at
Oak Flat following your field hearing in Goodyear on Friday afternoon.
The issues we propose to discuss include:
A. Resolution Copper Company's ties to Communist China
Facts
The United States currently exports 25% of the copper concentrate
produced by the nation's 25 copper mines, according to the US
Geological Survey. The U.S. has two operating copper smelters, neither
of which has the capacity to process the projected 500,000 tons of
copper concentrate that Resolution Copper Company projects will be
produced annually. Resolution has stated it does not intend to build a
smelter. Resolution Copper is a joint venture owned by foreign-based
miners Rio Tinto (55%) and BHP (45%). Last year, more than half of the
sales from each company were to China. Rio Tinto's single largest
shareholder is Chinalco, a Chinese state-owned aluminum producer, which
controls nearly 15% of Rio Tinto's stock. China is by far the world's
leading importer of copper concentrate. Resolution Copper has never
definitively stated where it intends to process raw copper extracted
from the Resolution Mine.
Discussion
Why are you supporting a project that will result in copper being
mined from beneath land currently controlled by the U.S. Forest Service
and exported overseas for processing, most likely to Communist China,
where it will be used to grow the Chinese renewable energy economy
rather than America's?
B. Resolution Copper will deplete groundwater aquifers in the East Salt
River Valley
Facts
The Resolution Copper Mine will consume at least 775,000-acre feet
of finite groundwater supplies (250 billion gallons) in the East Salt
River Valley. The amount is likely to be far higher based on Resolution
Copper's technical reports. Arizona groundwater laws allow mining
companies to pump unlimited amounts of groundwater without paying the
state a dime. The Biden Administration is currently paying farmers,
cities and Tribes $1.2 billion not to purchase Colorado River water
over the next three years, equal to $521 an AF. Resolution Copper's
depletion of groundwater will only increase demand for surface water in
the future. Based on the $521 AF value for water in the Southwest, the
state of Arizona will provide at least $404 million worth of
groundwater to Resolution Copper for free. At the same time Arizona is
giving away groundwater for free, the Arizona Department of Water
Resources projects that East Salt River Valley will be the most
severely impacted by depleted aquifers.
Discussion
Why are you supporting a mining project that relies on a massive
state groundwater subsidy that will ultimately destroy groundwater
aquifers permanently damaging future, and far more sustainable,
economic development in East Salt River Valley?
As we say in our Apache language, Ahi'yi'e (thank you) in advance
for your review and consideration of our request for a meeting.
Sincerely,
Terry Rambler,
Chairman
[all]