U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

66-731 PDF 2012

H.R. 2011, ‘‘NATIONAL STRATEGIC 

AND CRITICAL MINERALS POLICY 

ACT’’ AND H.R. 1314, ‘‘RESOURCE 

ASSESSMENT OF RARE EARTHS 

ACT OF 2011’’ 

LEGISLATIVE HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND 

MINERAL RESOURCES 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

Friday, June 3, 2011 

Serial No. 112-39 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Natural Resources 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov 

or 

Committee address: http://naturalresources.house.gov 

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES 

DOC HASTINGS, WA, Chairman 

EDWARD J. MARKEY, MA, Ranking Democrat Member 

Don Young, AK 

John J. Duncan, Jr., TN 

Louie Gohmert, TX 

Rob Bishop, UT 

Doug Lamborn, CO 

Robert J. Wittman, VA 

Paul C. Broun, GA 

John Fleming, LA 

Mike Coffman, CO 

Tom McClintock, CA 

Glenn Thompson, PA 

Jeff Denham, CA 

Dan Benishek, MI 

David Rivera, FL 

Jeff Duncan, SC 

Scott R. Tipton, CO 

Paul A. Gosar, AZ 

Rau ́l R. Labrador, ID 

Kristi L. Noem, SD 

Steve Southerland II, FL 

Bill Flores, TX 

Andy Harris, MD 

Jeffrey M. Landry, LA 

Charles J. ‘‘Chuck’’ Fleischmann, TN 

Jon Runyan, NJ 

Bill Johnson, OH 

Dale E. Kildee, MI 

Peter A. DeFazio, OR 

Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, AS 

Frank Pallone, Jr., NJ 

Grace F. Napolitano, CA 

Rush D. Holt, NJ 

Rau ́l M. Grijalva, AZ 

Madeleine Z. Bordallo, GU 

Jim Costa, CA 

Dan Boren, OK 

Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan, CNMI 

Martin Heinrich, NM 

Ben Ray Luja ́n, NM 

John P. Sarbanes, MD 

Betty Sutton, OH 

Niki Tsongas, MA 

Pedro R. Pierluisi, PR 

John Garamendi, CA 

Colleen W. Hanabusa, HI 

Vacancy 

Todd Young, Chief of Staff 

Lisa Pittman, Chief Counsel 

Jeffrey Duncan, Democrat Staff Director 

David Watkins, Democrat Chief Counsel 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES 

DOUG LAMBORN, CO, Chairman 

RUSH D. HOLT, NJ, Ranking Democrat Member 

Louie Gohmert, TX 

Paul C. Broun, GA 

John Fleming, LA 

Mike Coffman, CO 

Glenn Thompson, PA 

Dan Benishek, MI 

David Rivera, FL 

Jeff Duncan, SC 

Paul A. Gosar, AZ 

Bill Flores, TX 

Jeffrey M. Landry, LA 

Charles J. ‘‘Chuck’’ Fleischmann, TN 

Bill Johnson, OH 

Doc Hastings, WA, ex officio 

Peter A. DeFazio, OR 

Madeleine Z. Bordallo, GU 

Jim Costa, CA 

Dan Boren, OK 

Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan, CNMI 

Martin Heinrich, NM 

John P. Sarbanes, MD 

Betty Sutton, OH 

Niki Tsongas, MA 

Vacancy 

Edward J. Markey, MA, ex officio 

(III) 

CONTENTS 

Page 

Hearing held on Friday, June 3, 2011 ................................................................... 1 

Statement of Members: 

Hastings, Hon. Doc, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

Washington .................................................................................................... 6 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 7 

Holt, Hon. Rush D., a Representative in Congress from the State of 

New Jersey ................................................................................................... 4 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 5 

Lamborn, Hon. Doug, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

Colorado ......................................................................................................... 1 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 3 

Markey, Hon. Edward J., a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Massachusetts ........................................................................................... 8 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 9 

Statement of Witnesses: 

Doebrich, Jeff L., Acting Mineral Resources Program Coordinator, U.S. 

Geological Survey, U.S. Department of the Interior .................................. 10 

Prepared statement on H.R. 1314 ........................................................... 12 

Prepared statement on H.R. 2011 ........................................................... 13 

Duclos, Steven, Chief Scientist and Manager-Materials Sustainability, 

General Electric, on behalf of National Association of Manufacturers .... 19 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 21 

Engdahl, James B., President and Chief Executive Officer, Great Western 

Minerals Group ............................................................................................. 23 

Prepared statement on H.R. 2011 and H.R. 1314 ................................. 25 

Sullivan, Dan, Commissioner, Alaska Department of Natural Resources .. 14 

Prepared statement on H.R. 2011 and H.R. 1314 ................................. 16 

(1) 

LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON H.R. 2011, 

‘‘NATIONAL STRATEGIC AND CRITICAL 

MINERALS POLICY ACT’’ AND H.R. 1314, 

‘‘RESOURCE ASSESSMENT OF RARE EARTHS 

ACT OF 2011’’ 

Friday, June 3, 2011 

U.S. House of Representatives 

Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources 

Committee on Natural Resources 

Washington, D.C. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:00 a.m. in Room 

1324, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Doug Lamborn, 

[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding. 

Present: Representatives Lamborn, Thompson, Flores, Johnson of 

Ohio, Hastings (ex officio), Holt, and Markey (ex officio). 

Also present: Representative Johnson of Georgia. 

STATEMENT OF HON. DOUG LAMBORN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF COLORADO 

Mr. LAMBORN. The Committee will come to order. The Chairman 

notes the presence of a quorum, which under Committee Rule 3[e] 

is two Members. The Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral 

Resources is meeting today for an oversight hearing to hear testimony on H.R. 2011, National Strategic and Critical Minerals Policy Act and H.R. 1314, Resource Assessment of Rare Earths Act of 

2011. 

Under Committee Rule 4[f], opening statements are limited to 

the Chairman and Ranking Member of the Subcommittee. However, I intend to recognize full Committee Chairman Hastings and 

Ranking Member Markey for opening statements, if they wish to 

make one. In addition, I ask unanimous consent to include any 

other Member’s opening statement in the hearing record if submitted to the clerk by close of business today. Hearing no objection, 

so ordered. 

I also ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from Georgia, 

Mr. Johnson, who is not a member of the Natural Resources Committee, but is involved in the legislation we will be hearing today, 

be allowed to join us on the dais and ask questions during this 

hearing. Without objection, so ordered. 

Now I recognize myself for five minutes. 

2 

We are here today to focus on our nation’s strategic and critical 

minerals policy. For too long our national minerals policy has been 

neglected. Today, as new energy development is increasingly dependent on minerals that are less available, and in some cases the 

object of a pure monopoly, we can no longer afford to leave our domestic mineral needs on the back burner. 

This is not the last hearing that this Committee will hold to consider minerals issues or legislation. There are currently more than 

a half dozen bills that impact mining and minerals issues pending 

before the Subcommittee, and I expect that before this Congress is 

over we will see more bills introduced, considered, and likely 

passed by this Committee. 

America is desperate for jobs. This is even clearer today as we 

learn that job creation has plummeted in the face of rising energy 

prices. May job creation was only 54,000 jobs, pushing our unemployment rate back up. Americans everywhere are desperate to get 

our economy running again and building a stronger foundation of 

domestic mineral supply can be an important aspect of rebuilding 

our economy. 

Mining jobs pay better and have better benefits than nearly any 

other rural community job. The Congressional Research Service 

has repeatedly reported to the Committee that mining jobs are the 

top paying, non-supervisory positions in the country. Aren’t these 

the sort of jobs that we want Americans to have? Yet more domestic mining isn’t just about the jobs in the mines. There are thousands of geologists, biologists, and environmental engineers. It is 

about the tens of thousands of jobs in the industries that support 

our miners from the Caterpillar factories in Illinois to Red Wing 

Boots in Minnesota, from St. Pierre Chains in Worcester, Massachusetts to Airflow Catalyst Systems in Rochester, New York. 

Americans everywhere benefit from more domestic mining. The 

two bills we are going to examine today call for reports from the 

Department of the Interior to give us a better understanding of resources. However, these two bills could not be more different in 

their approaches. In many ways, they represent the fundamental 

difference that appears too often between those of us on this Committee. 

H.R. 2011, the National Strategic and Critical Minerals Policy 

Act will provide essential facts to help us strengthen and improve 

our national mineral policy. Specifically, the bill reiterates existing 

national mineral policy goals; directs the Secretary of the Interior 

to coordinate a governmentwide assessment of the nation’s mineral 

resources, and availability to meet current and future strategic and 

critical mineral needs; requires the Secretary of the Interior to 

evaluate factors impacting domestic mineral development, including workforce, access, permitting, and duplicative regulatory 

requirements; and identifies areas for improvement. 

It directs the Interior Department to assemble the report within 

six months, requires an annual progress report, beginning one year 

after the date of enactment of the Act for the following two years, 

outlining the progress made in reaching the policy goals described 

in the bill and accomplishes this goal with an authorization of $1 

billion over a two-year period. 

3 

H.R. 1314, the Resource Assessment of Rare Earths Act of 2011 

directs the USGS, in cooperation with other foreign geological 

surveys, to conduct a three-year comprehensive international assessment of only rare earth elements, and it does call for a threeyear report at a cost of $10 million. So there are elements in contrast between the two bills. 

America is totally dependent on rare earth minerals today. We 

are losing manufacturing, domestic jobs, and weakening our economy every day because we don’t have the supplies of critical minerals necessary to develop our new technologies here at home. Congress can and must act. Before the Committee today, we have two 

approaches representing the responses of Congress to these challenges. As the author of one of these bills, I hope this hearing will 

help the American people clearly judge the options before us in 

Congress and the plans and policies that are put forward to solve 

the challenges facing America. 

I also want to recognize another Member from Colorado, my 

friend and colleague, Representative Mike Coffman, who has been 

working on the more narrow, but vital issue of rare earth metals. 

He has some legislation already filed which has some meritorious 

provisions in it that I can certainly support. 

Developing our nation’s mineral resources is not only an integral 

part of an all-of-the-above energy plan, but it will create long-term 

family wage jobs, stimulate our economy, and reduce our foreign 

dependence on mineral resources. 

Actually, before I recognize the Ranking Member, I want to 

thank the witnesses for being here. You will be introduced shortly. 

I appreciate your time and your availability for questions from the 

members of the Subcommittee. 

I now recognize Ranking Member Holt of New Jersey for five 

minutes for his opening statement. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Lamborn follows:] 

Statement of The Honorable Doug Lamborn, Chairman, 

Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources 

We are here today to focus on our Nation’s Strategic and Critical Minerals Policy. 

For too long, our national mineral policy has been neglected. Today, as new energy 

development is increasingly dependent on minerals that are less available, and in 

some cases the object of a pure monopoly, we can no longer afford to leave our domestic mineral needs on the back burner. 

This is not the last hearing that this Committee will hold to consider minerals 

issues or legislation. There are currently more than a half dozen bills that impact 

mining and minerals issues pending before the Subcommittee, including a broader 

rare earth bill by my colleague from Colorado, Mr. Coffman, and I expect that before 

this Congress is over we will see more bills introduced, considered, and likely passed 

by this Committee. 

America is desperate for jobs. This is even clearer today as we learn that job creation has plummeted in the face or rising energy prices. May job creation was only 

54,000 jobs, pushing our unemployment rate back up. American’s everywhere are 

desperate to get our economy running again and building a stronger foundation of 

domestic mineral supply can be an important aspect of rebuilding our economy. 

Mining jobs pay better and have better benefits then nearly any other rural community job. The Congressional Research Service has repeatedly reported to the Committee that mining jobs are the top paying nonsupervisory positions in the country. 

Aren’t these the sort of jobs that we want American’s to have 

Yet more domestic mining isn’t just about the jobs in the mines, its thousands 

of geologists, biologists, and environmental engineers, it is about the tens of thousands of jobs in the industries that support our miners. From the Caterpillar factories in Illinois to Red Wing Boots in Minnesota, from St. Pierre Chains in WoosVerDate Nov 24 2008 14:29 Feb 06, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 L:\DOCS\66731.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
4 

ter, MA to Airflow Catalyst Systems in Rochester, NY. American’s everywhere benefit from more domestic mining. 

The two bills we are going to examine today call for reports from the Department 

of the Interior to give us a better understanding of resources. 

However, these two bills could not be more different in their approaches. In many 

ways, they represent the fundamental difference that appears so often between 

those of us on this Committee. 

H.R. 2011 the ‘‘National Strategic and Critical Minerals Policy Act’’ will provide 

essential facts to help us strengthen and improve our national mineral policy: 

Specifically, the bill: 

• Reiterates existing National Mineral Policy goals; 

• Directs the Secretary of the Interior to coordinate a government wide assessment of the Nation’s mineral resources and availability to meet current and 

future strategic and critical mineral needs. 

• Requires the Secretary of the Interior to evaluate factors impacting domestic 

mineral development, including workforce, access, permitting and duplicative 

regulatory requirements as well as identify areas for improvement. 

• Directs the Interior Department to assemble the report within six months. 

• Requires an annual progress report, beginning one year after the date of enactment of the Act for the following two years, outlining the progress made 

in reaching the policy goals described in the bill. 

• And accomplishes this goal with an authorization of $1 million over a two 

year period. 

H.R. 1314 the ‘‘Resource Assessment of Rare Earths Act of 2011’’ directs the 

United States Geological Survey (USGS), in cooperation with other foreign geological surveys, to conduct a three-year, comprehensive international assessment of 

only rare earth elements. But it does all this while calling for a report to Congress 

in 3 years at a cost of $10 million. 

America is totally dependent on rare earth minerals today. We are losing manufacturing, domestic jobs, and weakening our economy every day because we don’t 

have the supplies of critical minerals necessary to develop our new technologies here 

at home. 

Congress can and must act, and before the Committee today we have two approaches representing the responses of Congress to these challenges. As the author 

of one of these bills, I hope this hearing will help the American people clearly judge 

the options before us in Congress and the plans and policies that are put forward 

to solve the challenges facing America. 

Developing our Nation’s mineral resources is not only an integral part of an allof-the-above energy plan but it will create long-term family wage jobs, stimulate our 

economy and reduce our foreign dependence on mineral resources. 

I look forward to hearing from our witnesses today. 

STATEMENT OF HON. RUSH D. HOLT, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY 

Mr. HOLT. Thank you, Chairman Lamborn and thank you for 

continuing this important series of hearings. 

Last week the Committee began exploring challenges that we 

face with regard to critical and strategic materials, and I am 

pleased that we are moving forward to look at some specific legislation, including yours, to address them. 

This is about the building blocks of our high-tech economy from 

hybrid vehicles to smart phones to missile guidance systems. A nation that wishes to compete in the modern world and to provide the 

highest quality of life for its citizens must have a reliable stream 

of critical materials and minerals. 

I have joined with Representative Johnson, who I am pleased is 

with us today, and Ranking Member Markey in cosponsoring one 

of the bills under discussion today, the Resource Assessment of 

Rare Earths Act, or what goes by the acronym the RARE Act. Our 

understanding of rare earths and other critical mineral deposits is 

still young and not highly developed, as I understand it, especially 

5 

compared to what we know about oil and gas and other things that 

seem to preoccupy us. 

Developing alternatives to Chinese rare earth supplies begins 

with increasing our understanding of what resources are available, 

where they are located, how they can be recovered economically, 

which specific minerals we will need to meet future industrial demand, what tradeoffs there are, and what substitutions are available. I believe that the RARE Act does take the right approach to 

finding these answers. I also concur with some of the objectives in 

Mr. Lamborn’s bill, the National Strategic and Critical Minerals 

Policy Act. 

Identifying overlapping or redundant requirements in the permitting process certainly could be helpful in developing critical 

minerals more expeditiously. I also appreciate the attention the bill 

gives to Federal human resources. Recruiting and retaining skilled 

scientists in the Federal workforce is very important and it is a difficult challenge, especially with many government branches expecting increasing numbers of retirements in the coming years. 

A couple of concerns, however, with this legislation. Outside of 

the title, I don’t see any focus on strategic and critical minerals. 

There are 133 non-fuel minerals on which the U.S. Geological Survey keeps statistics. This long list includes clay, crushed stone, 

granite, sand and gravel, scrap iron, et cetera. This bill would ask 

the Bureau of Land Management to perform an assessment of all 

of those non-fuel minerals on U.S. public lands and that is a vast 

undertaking. I imagine that assessment alone would require more 

money and time than the bill authorizes altogether. Yet, that is one 

of only seven issues that the bill tasks to the Department of the 

Interior for addressing. 

Whether it is appropriate or not, these are lean budget times and 

I do think we need to focus government resources on the areas of 

greatest need. In my view, the greatest needs are with rare earth 

minerals, or at least with some rare earth minerals, and a select 

few other critical minerals like those identified by the National Research Council, which we heard about in a hearing a week ago. 

So I hope to see the scope of this bill better directed. We clearly 

have an opportunity with some of the ideas in both of these bills 

to improve our understanding of critical and strategic mineral 

resources as well as to give our domestic industry a leg up in building a stronger supply chain. 

I look forward to hearing from our witnesses. I am pleased to see 

that the Chairman believes in recycling and has recycled one of our 

witnesses from a day ago and I look forward to the testimony. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Holt follows:] 

Statement of The Honorable Rush D. Holt, Ranking Member, 

Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources 

Thank you Chairman Lamborn for calling this important legislative hearing 

today. 

Last week, the committee began exploring the challenges we face with regard to 

critical and strategic minerals. I am pleased that we are moving forward to consider 

specific legislative proposals to address them. 

This issue is all about the building blocks of the high-tech economy. From hybrid 

vehicles to iPhones to missile guidance systems, a nation that wishes to compete in 

high-tech, value-added manufacturing in the 21st Century must have a reliable 

6 

source of critical minerals. I have joined Ranking Member Markey and Representative Johnson in co-sponsoring one of the bills under discussion today, the Resource 

Assessment of Rare Earths Act or RARE Act. 

Our understanding of rare earth and other critical mineral deposits is still young, 

especially compared to what we know about oil and gas resources and other minerals like copper and gold. Developing alternatives to Chinese rare earth supplies 

begins with increasing our understanding of what resources are available, where 

they are located in economically minable concentrations, and which specific minerals 

we will need to meet future industrial demand. I believe the RARE Act takes the 

right approach in trying to find those answers. 

I also concur with some of the objectives of the other bill under consideration 

today, the National Strategic and Critical Minerals Policy Act. Identifying overlapping or redundant requirements in the permitting process could be helpful in developing critical minerals more expeditiously. I also appreciate the attention the bill 

gives to federal human resources. Recruiting and retaining skilled scientists in the 

federal workforce is very important, especially with many government branches expecting increasing numbers of retirements in the coming years. 

I do have concerns about this bill, however. Outside of the title, I do not see any 

focus on strategic and critical minerals. There are 133 non-fuel minerals on which 

the U.S. Geological Survey keeps statistics, including clay, crushed stone, granite, 

sand and gravel, and scrap iron. This bill would ask the Bureau of Land Management to perform an assessment of all of those non-fuel minerals on U.S. public 

lands. That is a vast undertaking. I imagine that assessment alone would require 

more money and time than the bill authorizes. Yet that is only one of the 7 issues 

that the bill tasks the Interior Department with addressing. Whether it is appropriate or not, these are lean budget times, and I do think we need to focus government resources on the areas of greatest need. And in my view, the greatest needs 

are with rare earth minerals and a select few other critical minerals like those identified by the National Research Council, which we heard about in the hearing last 

week. So I would hope to see the scope of this bill narrowed. 

We clearly have an opportunity with some of the ideas in these bills to broaden 

our understanding of critical and strategic mineral resources as well as give our domestic industry a leg up in building stronger supply chains that are less vulnerable 

to supply disruptions. 

I look forward to hearing from the witnesses on the best path forward in doing 

that. Thank you. 

Mr. LAMBORN. By the gentleman from Alaska only making one 

trip here, there is a smaller carbon footprint. 

Now I am honored to recognize the Chairman of the full Natural 

Resources Committee, Doc Hastings of Washington, for five minutes for his opening statement. 

STATEMENT OF HON. DOC HASTINGS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF WASHINGTON 

Mr. HASTINGS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Thank you 

for holding this hearing and thank you once again for the courtesy 

of allowing me to participate. 

Too often the importance of our mineral resources gets overlooked. We all understand the need for fuel and electricity, but 

many Americans don’t recognize or appreciate the need for minerals. Minerals are not only the building blocks of the earth, but 

are indispensable to our health, economy, technology, renewable 

energy, national defense, and quality of life. 

From cars to shampoos, computers to telephones, there is likely 

not a moment in the day that we don’t use a product that is made 

from minerals. Even renewable and alternative energy is dependent on minerals. Wind turbines, for example, are made from zinc. 

Solar panels require silicone and titanium, and nuclear energy is 

made from uranium. This is why minerals are so vital to achieving 

an all-of-the-above energy plan in creating new jobs. 

7 

We have vast mineral resources here in the United States, including critical rare earth elements. The USGS recently released a 

report that revealed that 13 million metric tons of rare earth elements are known within deposits within 14 states. However, it 

makes no difference what our domestic supplies are if we are unable to harness and mine those minerals. 

As is the case with many of our resources, unfortunately, we are 

failing to adequately produce minerals here at home, in part, due 

to permitting delays and bureaucratic obstacles. As a result, we are 

increasingly dependent on foreign nations for our critical and essential mineral needs. 

As the Chairman just noted, China holds 97 percent of critical 

rare earth elements and their threat of tightening the supplies puts 

our economic and national security in jeopardy. The United States 

cannot remain economically competitive if we continue to be left to 

the mercy of foreign countries for our critical minerals. The United 

States cannot remain economically competitive if we continue to 

send American jobs overseas. 

H.R. 2011, authored by Chairman Lamborn, the National Strategic and Critical Minerals Policy Act of 2011, lays the groundwork 

for a fundamental change in the United States’ mineral policy. The 

bill would require a governmentwide survey of our national mineral resources and assess our nation’s ability to meet our own strategic and critical mineral needs. The bill also requires the Secretary of the Interior to identify factors that are hindering domestic 

mineral development, such as the lack of access and redundant regulatory requirements, and outlines areas for the improvement in 

those areas. 

So I believe this bill is an important first step toward increasing 

our domestic mineral production, creating by inference good paying 

American jobs, and reducing our dependence on foreign minerals, 

and as a result strengthen our national security. 

So with that, Mr. Chairman, thank you for your courtesy and I 

yield back my time. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Hastings follows:] 

Statement of The Honorable Doc Hastings, Chairman, 

House Committee on Natural Resources, on H.R. 2011 and H.R. 1314 

Thank you, Subcommittee Chairman Lamborn for holding this legislative hearing 

today. 

Too often, the importance of our mineral resources gets overlooked. We all understand our need for fuel and electricity, but many Americans don’t fully recognize or 

appreciate the need for minerals. 

Minerals are not only the building blocks of the wealth, but are the indispensible 

to our health, economy, technology, renewable energy, national defense and quality 

of life. 

From shampoos to cars, computers and telephones, there is likely not a moment 

in the day when we don’t use a product that is made from minerals. 

Even renewable and alternative energy is dependent on minerals. Wind turbines 

are made with zinc, solar panels require silicon and titanium, and nuclear energy 

is made from uranium. This is why minerals are vital to achieving an all-of-theabove energy plan and creating new American jobs. 

We have vast mineral resources here in the United States, including critical rare 

earth elements. The USGS released a report last year revealing 13 million metric 

tons of rare earth elements within known deposits in 14 states. However, it makes 

no difference what our domestic supplies are if we’re unable to harness and mine 

those minerals. 

8 

As is the case with many of our resources, we are failing to adequately produce 

minerals here at home, in part, due to permitting delays and bureaucratic obstacles. 

As a result, we are increasingly dependent on foreign nations for our critical and 

essential mineral needs. 

China holds 97% of critical rare earth elements, and their threat of tightening 

supplies puts our economic and natural security in jeopardy. 

The United States cannot remain economically competitive if we continue to be 

left to the mercy of foreign countries for their critical minerals. 

And the United States cannot remain economical competitive if we continue to 

send American jobs overseas. 

H.R. 2011, the National Strategic and Critical Minerals Policy Act of 2011, lays 

the groundwork for a fundamental change in the United States’ mineral policy. 

The bill would require a government-wide survey of our national minerals 

resources and assess our Nation’s ability to meet our own strategic and critical 

mineral needs. 

The bill also requires the Secretary of the Interior to identify factors that are 

hindering domestic mineral development, such as lack of access and redundant regulatory requirements and outline areas for improvement. 

I believe this bill is an important first step towards increasing our domestic 

mineral production, create good-paying American jobs, reducing our dependence on 

foreign minerals and strengthening our national security. 

Mr. LAMBORN. Thank you. I now want to recognize the full 

Natural Resources Committee Ranking Member, Ed Markey of 

Massachusetts for five minutes for his opening statement. 

STATEMENT OF HON. EDWARD MARKEY, A REPRESENTATIVE 

IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MASSACHUSETTS 

Mr. MARKEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman very much. 

Rare earths are a group of 17 elements with unique properties 

that are becoming extremely important for high-tech manufacturing. Yet, I imagine that besides our resident scientist, Mr. Holt, 

most of us couldn’t name a single rare earth element. But rather 

than trying to remember names like terbium or erbium or dysprosium or neodymium let us just call them all ‘‘importium’’ because 

that’s what we are doing. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. MARKEY. We are importing them because we haven’t done 

the research. We are importing them because we haven’t invested 

in domestic supply chains. All these materials that are vital to the 

defense sector and vital to high-growth industries like clean 

energy, we have to import all of them from China. This is not a 

wise strategy, and I sense that we are coming around to a bipartisan agreement on that. 

The Natural Resources Committee, with our jurisdiction over the 

United States Geological Survey, has a very important role to play 

in developing solutions to the critical minerals challenge. That is 

why Mr. Holt and I have worked very closely with Mr. Johnson of 

Georgia in crafting H.R. 1314, the Resource Assessment of Rare 

Earths Act of 2011, or the RARE Act. I am pleased the Subcommittee is holding this hearing today to take a closer look at it. 

The RARE Act tasks the USGS with conducting a focused, global 

assessment of rare earth mineral resources and potential supply 

sources in coordination with other national geological surveys. 

Since the prevalence of different rare earth elements can vary 

greatly, depending on the deposit, the USGS assessment would 

identify and quantify supplies of each rare earth element individually. It would also identify other potential issues relating to the 

9 

full supply chain of rare earth mining and processing to produce 

end use products. 

Importantly, the legislation requires the USGS to evaluate other 

critical minerals beyond rare earths as well as the likelihood and 

impacts of any potential supply restrictions. The long-term success 

of American manufacturing depends on maintaining an edge and 

producing high-tech, innovation-oriented goods. Without a reliable 

supply of the key ingredient like rare earth minerals, these industries and workers will be vulnerable to the predatory trade practices of China. 

I believe that the research called for under the RARE Act will 

dramatically enhance our understanding of critical mineral reserves and help establish reliable supplies of critical minerals for 

U.S. industry. That is why the bill has been endorsed by the U.S. 

Magnetic Materials Association. 

The bill is quite simple. It just requires a reporting requirement 

for the U.S. Geological Survey to give us some of the information 

we need to better understand the rare earth mineral resources that 

we have here in the United States. I do think that there is a difference between some of the rare earth minerals that are so critical 

to America’s high-tech leadership and more prosaic minerals like 

cooper that are pretty widely available and don’t have the same 

significance. 

So I think by dividing the question we focus in on what has become a central issue, especially in our relationship with China. I 

yield back the balance of my time. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Markey follows:] 

Statement of The Honorable Edward J. Markey, Ranking Member, 

Committee on Natural Resources 

Rare earths are a group of 17 elements with unique properties that are becoming 

extremely important for high-tech manufacturing. Yet, I imagine that besides our 

resident scientist—Mr. Holt—most of us couldn’t name a single rare earth element! 

But rather than trying to remember names like terbium, europium, dysprosium, 

or neodymium, we should just call all of them ‘‘importium.’’ Because that’s what 

we’re doing! We’re importing ‘em because we haven’t done the research. We’re importing ‘em because we haven’t invested in domestic supply chains. All these materials that are vital to the defense sector and vital to high-growth industries like 

clean energy, we have to import all of them from China! 

This is not a wise strategy, and I sense that we’re coming around to bi-partisan 

agreement on that. 

The Natural Resources Committee, with our jurisdiction over the United States 

Geological Survey, has a very important role to play in developing solutions to the 

critical mineral challenge. 

That is why I have worked very closely with Mr. Johnson of Georgia in crafting 

H.R. 1314, the ‘‘Resource Assessment of Rare Earths Act of 2011’’ or RARE Act. I 

am pleased the Subcommittee is holding this hearing today to take a closer look at 

it. 

The RARE Act tasks the USGS with conducting a focused global assessment of 

rare earth mineral resources and potential supply sources in coordination with other 

national geological surveys. Since the prevalence of different rare earth elements 

can vary greatly depending on the deposit, the USGS assessment would identify and 

quantify supplies of each rare earth element individually. 

It would also identify other potential issues relating to the full supply chain of 

rare earth mining and processing to produce end-use products. Importantly, the legislation requires the USGS to evaluate other critical minerals beyond rare earths, 

as well as the likelihood and impacts of any potential supply restrictions. 

The long-term success of American manufacturing depends on maintaining an 

edge in producing high-tech, innovation-oriented goods. Without a reliable supply of 

10 

the key ingredients, like rare earth minerals, these industries and workers will be 

vulnerable to the predatory trade practices of China. 

I believe that the research called for under the RARE Act will dramatically enhance our understanding of critical mineral reserves, and help establish reliable 

supplies of critical minerals for U.S. industry. That is why the bill has been endorsed by the U.S. Magnetic Materials Association. That is why the bill was included in the Democratic ‘‘Make It in America’’ legislative package. And that is why 

I am proud to join Mr. Johnson in sponsoring it. 

I thank the Chairman for calling this hearing and I look forward to hearing the 

views of our witnesses here today. 

Mr. LAMBORN. Thank you. 

Now I would like to introduce the witnesses who are already 

seated. We have four today. Jeff L. Doebrich, Mineral Resources 

Program Coordinator [Acting] for the U.S. Geological Survey, Department of the Interior accompanied today by Marcilynn Burke, 

Deputy Director of the Bureau of Land Management. The Honorable Dan Sullivan, Commissioner of the Alaska Department of Natural Resources, Steve Duclos, Chief Scientist and Manager of Minerals Sustainability for General Electric on behalf of the National 

Association of Manufacturers, and James B. Engdahl, President 

and CEO of Great Western Mineral Group.. 

Thank you all for being here. Like all of our witnesses, your full 

testimony will appear in the hearing record, so I ask you to keep 

your oral statements to five minutes as outlined in the invitation 

letter to you. 

Our microphones are not automatic, so you have to push the button when you start your testimony. The lights are structured so 

that after four minutes, the yellow light will come on, and after five 

minutes the red light comes on. 

Mr. Doebrich, you may begin. 

STATEMENT OF JEFF L. DOEBRICH, MINERAL RESOURCES 

PROGRAM COORDINATOR, ACTING, U.S. GEOLOGICAL 

SURVEY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Mr. DOEBRICH. Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of 

the Subcommittee. Thank you for the opportunity to appear before 

you today. 

In my opening statement, I will briefly discuss both of these important bills. I would like to introduce Marcilynn Burke, Deputy 

Director, Bureau of Land Management who is here to respond to 

any questions on the BLM-related provisions of H.R. 2011. 

H.R. 2011 requires the Secretary of the Interior, through the 

BLM and the USGS, to assess the capability of the United States 

to meet the demands for minerals essential to manufacturing competitiveness and economic and national security. It requires the 

Secretary to assess the non-fossil fuel potential of lands under the 

jurisdiction of the BLM and the U.S. Forest Service and to identify 

anticipated mineral requirements, current sources of these minerals, implications of shortages, timelines for mineral development 

projects on public lands, and the cost of litigation as well as an assessment of the Federal workforce and its ability to meet the challenges of the critical minerals issue. 

H.R. 2011 requires far-reaching analysis of data spanning the jurisdictions of the Departments of the Interior, Agriculture, Defense, 

Commerce, and Justice as well as the Office of Personnel ManageVerDate Nov 24 2008 14:29 Feb 06, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 L:\DOCS\66731.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
11 

ment. The administrative time and cost of this work would likely 

exceed the 180 days and $1 million authorized by the legislation. 

H.R. 2011 identifies some important goals and we appreciate the 

opportunity to work with the Committee and the other affected 

agencies to take into account these resource considerations. We 

also would like to work with the Committee on language clarifying 

the minerals under consideration. 

H.R. 1314, the Resource Assessment of Rare Earths Act, outlines 

a reasonable approach to properly assess the global endowment of 

rare earth resources to identify potential future supplies and to 

better understand future potential sources needed for U.S. industry. The Department of the Interior supports the goals of 

H.R. 1314, although we note that the activities called for are within the scope of existing Department of the Interior authorities. 

The USGS is responsible for conducting research and collecting 

data on a wide variety of non-fuel mineral resources, including rare 

earths. We conduct research to understand the geologic processes 

that concentrated known mineral resources at specific localities in 

the Earth’s crust, and to estimate quantities, qualities, and areas 

of undiscovered mineral resources. 

We collect, analyze, and disseminate data information on current 

production and consumption for about 100 mineral commodities, 

both domestically and internationally. This full spectrum of mineral resource science allows for a comprehensive understanding of 

the complete life cycle of mineral resources and materials—resource formation, discovery, production, consumption, use, recycling 

and reuse. It allows for an understanding of environmental issues 

of concern throughout the life cycle. 

Global demand for rare earths is estimated to be increasing at 

a rate of about 8 percent per year due to increasing applications 

and consumer products—computers, automobiles, aircraft, and 

other advanced technology products. Production of rare earths is 

currently highly concentrated in China, which is restricting its exports of rare earth element raw materials. 

The ability of the rest of the world to replace supply from China 

depends on the quality of known global rare earth element resources and the degree to which those resources have been explored and evaluated. The USGS has recently completed an inventory of known domestic rare earth reserves and resources. This 

study reviews current U.S. consumption and imports of rare earths, 

current knowledge of domestic resources, and possibilities for future domestic production. The report also includes an overview of 

known global rare earth resources and discusses the reliability of 

alternative foreign sources. 

The USGS stands ready to fulfill its role as the sole Federal provider of unbiased mineral resource research on known rare earth 

resources, assessment of undiscovered rare earth resources, and information on domestic and global production and consumption for 

use in analyzing the global supply chain. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to present the 

views of the Department. I will be happy to answer any questions 

you or the other Members may have. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Doebrich follows:] 

12 

Statement of Jeff L. Doebrich, Acting Mineral Resources Program 

Coordinator, U.S. Geological Survey, U.S. Department of the Interior, on 

H.R. 1314 

Good morning, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee. Thank you for 

the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss H.R. 1314, directing the Secretary of the Interior, acting through the Director of the U.S. Geological Survey 

(USGS), to conduct a global assessment of rare earth element resources. The Department of the Interior supports the goals of this bill, although we note that the 

activities called for in H.R. 1314 are within the scope of existing Department of the 

Interior authorities. 

The USGS is responsible for conducting research and collecting data on a wide 

variety of nonfuel mineral resources, including rare earths (RE). Research is conducted to understand the geologic processes that concentrated known mineral resources at specific localities in the Earth’s crust and to estimate (or assess) quantities, qualities, and areas of undiscovered mineral resources, or potential future 

supply. USGS scientists also conduct research on the interactions of mineral resources with the environment, both natural and as a result of resource extraction, 

to better predict the degree of impact that resource development may have on 

human and ecosystem health. USGS mineral commodity specialists collect, analyze, 

and disseminate data and information that document current production and consumption for about 100 mineral commodities, both domestically and internationally 

for 180 countries. This full spectrum of mineral resource science allows for a comprehensive understanding of the complete life cycle of mineral resources and materials—resource formation, discovery, production, consumption, use, recycling, and 

reuse—and allows for an understanding of environmental issues of concern throughout the life cycle. 

Global demand for RE is estimated to be increasing at a rate of about 8 percent 

per year due to increasing applications in consumer products, computers, automobiles, aircraft, and other advanced technology products. Much of this demand 

growth is driven by new technologies that increase energy efficiency and decrease 

reliance on fossil fuels. Production of RE is currently highly concentrated in China, 

which is restricting its exports of rare-earth-element raw materials; China currently 

produces 97 percent of the world’s rare earths, although 20 years ago the United 

States was the world’s leading rare-earths producer. The ability of the rest of the 

world to replace supply from China depends on the quality of known global rare 

earth element resources and the degree to which those resources have been explored 

and evaluated. 

To begin the process of understanding potential sources of RE supply, the USGS 

has recently completed an inventory of known domestic RE reserves and resources 

(Long and others, 2010). This study restates basic geologic facts about RE relevant 

to assessing domestic security of supply and reviews current U.S. consumption and 

imports of RE, current knowledge of domestic resources, and possibilities for future 

domestic production. The report also includes an overview of known global RE resources and discusses the reliability of alternative foreign sources of RE. 

The logical next steps are to (1) update a global inventory of rare earth resources 

published by the USGS in 2002 (Orris and Grauch, 2002), (2) review principal RE 

deposits outside of China and evaluate their geologic, economic, and development 

potential, and (3) conduct a global assessment of undiscovered RE resources. 

H.R. 1314, the RARE Act of 2011, outlines a reasonable approach to properly assess 

the global endowment of RE resources, to identify potential future supplies of RE 

resources, and to better understand future potential sources of RE needed for 

United States industry.. 

The USGS maintains a workforce of geoscientists (geologists, geochemist, geophysicists, and resource specialists) with expertise in critical minerals and materials, including RE. The USGS continuously collects, analyzes, and disseminates 

data and information on domestic and global RE reserves and resources, production, 

consumption, and use. This information is published annually in the USGS Mineral 

Commodity Summaries (USGS, 2011) and includes a description of current events, 

trends, and issues related to RE supply and demand. 

The USGS stands ready to fulfill its role as the sole federal provider of unbiased 

mineral resource research on known RE resources, assessment of undiscovered RE 

resources, and information on domestic and global production and consumption of 

RE resources for use in global RE supply chain analysis. We note, however, that 

the activities called for in H.R. 1314 are already authorized by existing authorities. 

Any study conducted to fulfill the objectives of the bill will require substantial resources and would need to compete with other Administration priorities. 

13 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to present the views of the Department on H.R. 1314. I will be happy to answer any questions you or the other Members may have. 

References Cited 

Long, K.R., Van Gosen, B.S., Foley, N.K., and Cordier, Daniel, 2010, The principal 

rare earth elements deposits of the United States—A summary of domestic deposits and a global perspective: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations 

Report 2010–5220, 96 p. Available at http://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2010/5220/ 

Orris, G.J., and Rauch, R.I., 2002, Rare earth element mines, deposits, and occurrences: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2002–0189, 174 p. Available at 

http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2002/of02–189/ 

USGS, 2011, Mineral Commodity Summaries 2011, p. 128–129 http://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/commodity/rare_earths/mcs-2011-raree.pdf) 

Statement submitted for the record by the U.S. Department of the Interior 

on H.R. 2011, National Strategic and Critical Minerals Act of 2011 

Thank you for inviting the Department of the Interior to testify on H.R. 2011, the 

National Strategic and Critical Minerals Act of 2011. The Department recognizes 

the need for a coherent policy concerning minerals essential to manufacturing, economic well-being and security, and economic competitiveness. Because H.R. 2011 

was just introduced on May 26, 2011, the Department has not had time to conduct 

an in-depth analysis of the proposal, but we appreciate the opportunity to provide 

testimony at this time. Consequently, we offer a more general discussion of this important issue at this time and look forward to working further with the Committee 

on H.R. 2011. 

Background 

The Department of the Interior is our nation’s largest landowner with jurisdiction 

over 20 percent of the land mass of the United States and 1.75 billion acres of the 

Outer Continental Shelf. The BLM administers over 245 million surface acres of 

public land–more than any other Federal agency in the United States. Most of this 

land is located in the 12 Western states, including Alaska. The BLM also manages 

700 million acres of sub-surface mineral estate throughout the nation. The public 

lands produce commodities that are key to the Nation’s economy, and can help provide economic stability and growth for local and regional communities. 

The development of energy and mineral resources are among the multiple uses 

for which the BLM manages lands and resources for the benefit of the public. The 

BLM manages mineral development under a number of different authorities including the Federal Land Policy and Management Act, the Mineral Leasing Act, the Materials Act of 1947, and the General Mining Act of 1872. Each of these authorities 

along with BLM regulations and guidance provide a legal framework for the development of minerals. 

The Administration supports the development of federally owned natural resources in an environmentally protective manner that ensures a fair return to the 

taxpayer. Therefore, the 2012 Budget includes a proposal to improve the return to 

taxpayers by instituting a leasing process under the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 

for new leases on certain minerals (gold, silver, lead, zinc, copper, uranium, and molybdenum) currently covered by the General Mining Law of 1872. The Budget also 

includes a proposal to reduce the environmental impacts of coal and hardrock mining by dedicating and prioritizing funds to reclaim abandoned mines on Federal and 

non-Federal lands. 

The USGS is responsible for conducting research and collecting data on a wide 

variety of nonfuel mineral resources, including rare earths (RE). Research is conducted to understand the geologic processes that concentrated known mineral resources at specific localities in the Earth’s crust and to estimate (or assess) quantities, qualities, and areas of undiscovered mineral resources, or potential future 

supply. USGS scientists also conduct research on the interactions of mineral resources with the environment, both natural and as a result of resource extraction, 

to better predict the degree of impact that resource development may have on 

human and ecosystem health. USGS mineral commodity specialists collect, analyze, 

and disseminate data and information that document current production and consumption for about 100 mineral commodities, both domestically and internationally 

for 180 countries. This full spectrum of mineral resource science allows for a comprehensive understanding of the complete life cycle of mineral resources and materials—resource formation, discovery, production, consumption, use, recycling, and 

14 

reuse—and allows for an understanding of environmental issues of concern throughout the life cycle. 

H.R. 2011 

H.R. 2011 requires the Secretary of the Interior—through the BLM and the 

USGS—to assess the capability of the United States to meet the demands for minerals essential to manufacturing competitiveness and economic and national security. It requires the Secretary to produce a report to Congress that includes an assessment of the non-fossil-fuel mineral potential of lands under the jurisdiction of 

the BLM and the U.S. Forest Service within 180 days of enactment. The report also 

must identify anticipated mineral requirements, current sources of these minerals, 

implications of shortages, timelines for mineral development projects on public 

lands, and the cost of litigation. In addition, the report must include an assessment 

of the Federal workforce and its ability to meet the challenges of the critical minerals issue. 

H.R. 2011 requires far-reaching analysis of data spanning the jurisdictions of the 

Departments of the Interior, Agriculture, Defense, Commerce, and Justice as well 

as the Office of Personnel Management. As introduced, H.R. 2011 would entail 

much more than the development of a report, likely requiring the development and 

implementation of data tracking systems and a commitment of staff resources to 

gather, input, analyze, and update the data. The administrative time and cost of 

this work would likely exceed the 180 days and $1 million authorized by the legislation. H.R. 2011 identifies some important goals, and we appreciate the opportunity 

to work with the Committee and the other affected agencies to take into account 

these resource considerations. We also would like to work with the Committee on 

language clarifying the minerals under consideration. 

Conclusion 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify here today and I would be glad to take 

your questions. 

Mr. LAMBORN. Thank you so much. 

I would like to hear now from Commissioner Sullivan. 

STATEMENT OF HON. DAN SULLIVAN, COMMISSIONER, 

ALASKA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Good morning and thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Representative Holt, thank you as well for the opportunity to testify before the Committee again. I have never been referred to as 

a recycled witness, but I think I will take the compliment. So 

thank you for that. 

Mr. HOLT. We are happy to have you. 

Mr. SULLIVAN. OK. 

Mr. HOLT. You are a good witness. 

Mr. SULLIVAN. My name is Dan Sullivan. I am the Alaska Commissioner of the Department of Natural Resources. DNR manages 

one of the largest portfolios of oil, gas, minerals, renewable land 

and water in the world. I am also a former Attorney General of the 

State of Alaska and a former U.S. Assistant Secretary of State with 

responsibilities over global energy, economic and finance issues. 

Mr. Chairman, I have submitted extensive written testimony, including this pamphlet from the Department of Natural Resources. 

Hopefully, you have had the opportunity to see this and we hope 

that the Committee finds this useful. 

In many ways, my testimony this morning will cover themes that 

are similar to my testimony yesterday on oil- and gas-related issues 

in Alaska. 

First, our country faces significant security challenges due to our 

lack of production and processing of certain strategic minerals, including rare earth elements. Second, Alaska can and should be an 

15 

important component of a national policy to address our strategic 

vulnerabilities. Why? Because we have world-class deposits of 

many of these minerals. Pages 2, 3 and 7 of my written testimony, 

and the table in the pamphlet, summarize resource estimates of 

Alaska’s critical strategic minerals. We rank in the top ten in the 

world with regard to many of these minerals in terms of our reserves. 

Third, Alaska is undertaking a comprehensive strategy to more 

fully assess, produce, and hopefully process these minerals. Alaska 

Governor Sean Parnell highlighted this in his State of the State 

speech this last January and our efforts include a statewide assessment of rare earths and other strategic minerals, which we have 

already begun significant infrastructure investments and significant permitting reform. 

Fourth, we are doing this while maintaining very strong protections for our environment, which is a hallmark of responsible resource development in Alaska. Fifth and finally, we are seeking a 

partnership with the Federal Government to support and enhance 

our efforts. On this last point, from Alaska’s view, we are off to a 

constructive start. Governor Parnell has written President Obama 

and Secretary Chu on the importance of working together on these 

issues. I and other state officials in Alaska have had productive 

discussions with White House officials and other Administration 

officials. 

But time is of the essence. Working together, we need to take 

concerted action on a number of fronts. First, we would welcome 

additional support on our statewide assessment. The State of Alaska and the USGS have a long history of working very well together 

and we would welcome additional support, input, and coordination 

on our statewide assessment efforts. 

Second, and this is critical, Mr. Chairman, we must reform our 

Federal permitting system, which ranks at the bottom of major 

mining economies for timely processing. Permitting a major mine 

project in the U.S. takes on average seven to ten years. In Australia, that number is about one to two years. In Alaska, we had 

a particularly egregious case with the Kensington Gold Mine, 

which took almost 20 years to permit. 

Third, we need access to highly perspective Federal lands, once 

they are viewed as such, that are currently off limits to mining. 

Fourth, we must work to incentivize additional research and processing capability within the United States. Simply mining minerals 

in the U.S. only to have them processed overseas still leaves our 

country vulnerable and foregoes important value-added economic 

benefits. 

The bills that are the subject of today’s hearing, the RARE Act 

of 2011 and the Critical Minerals Policy Act as well as Senator Mikulski’s Senate bill 1113, all focus in one form or another on these 

issues, which is why the State of Alaska supports these bills. But 

we once again stress the urgency of the situation and need for coordinated action. 

Thank you. I look forward to your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Sullivan follows:] 

16 

Statement of The Honorable Dan Sullivan, Commissioner, 

Department of Natural Resources, State of Alaska 

I. Introduction: America’s Strategic Mineral Challenge 

Chairman Lamborn, Ranking Member Holt, and members of the House Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources, on behalf of Governor Sean Parnell, 

the State of Alaska welcomes this opportunity to testify about issues of such importance to Alaska and our country. We are eager to share with the U.S. Congress and 

the Obama Administration that Alaska has the potential to deliver domestic sources 

of strategic minerals to the nation. More specifically, we want to demonstrate to this 

committee and the rest of your colleagues in Congress the vital role Alaska can play 

in enhancing America’s long-term security, expanding American employment, and 

growing the economy by delivering domestically produced and processed strategic 

minerals to the U.S. marketplace. 

Today’s testimony includes a pamphlet from the State of Alaska on an overview 

on rare earth elements and Alaska’s significant potential regarding these and other 

strategic minerals. 

Biographical Information 

Before getting into substantive matters, I would like to briefly mention my professional background as it pertains to this testimony. I have been serving as commissioner of the Alaska Department of Natural Resources (DNR), a state agency of over 

1,100 personnel, since December 2010. Under the Alaska Constitution, my primary 

responsibility as the DNR commissioner is to maximize the development of the 

state’s resources in a manner that furthers the public interest. DNR manages one 

of the largest portfolios of oil, gas, minerals, renewable, land, and water resources 

in the world, including approximately 100 million acres of uplands, 60 million acres 

of tidelands, shore lands, and submerged lands, and 40,000 miles of coastline. 

Prior to my appointment as DNR commissioner, I served as the Alaska Attorney 

General and as the U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for Economic, Energy, and 

Business Affairs under Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. I am also a United 

States Marine, having served on active duty and in the reserves as an infantry officer since 1993. 

II. Alaska is a Storehouse of America’s Strategic Mineral Wealth 

Alaska also has much to offer the nation in the effort to secure a stable domestic 

supply of minerals. In 2010, the value of Alaska’s total mineral ore exports was $1.3 

billion, with exports to China, Japan, Canada, Korea, and Spain. Over $200 million 

was spent by companies exploring in Alaska. This production is the tip of the iceberg; estimates of Alaska’s mineral wealth potential are staggering: 

• Coal: 17% of the world’s coal; 2nd most in the world 

• Copper: 6% of the world’s copper; 3rd most in the world 

• Lead: 2% of the world’s lead; 6th most in the world 

• Gold: 3% of the world’s gold; 7th most in the world 

• Zinc: 3% of the world’s zinc; 8th most in the world 

• Silver: 2% of the world’s silver; 8th most in the world 

• Rare earth elements: over 150 occurrences 

Despite this enormous resource potential, Alaska is the most under-explored region for mineral deposits in North America, and is considered highly prospective 

with regard to strategic and critical minerals, including Rare Earth Elements 

(REEs) needed for domestic use. 

III. Alaska is Well Positioned to Meet the Nation’s Strategic Mineral Challenges 

Strategic minerals, such as Rare Earth Elements, are becoming increasingly critical to our nation’s economic well-being and security. China possesses an estimated 

48% of the world’s proven resources of REEs and is the dominant global supplier 

with nearly 97% of the world’s production. Recent curtailment of REE exports from 

China and reliance on the Chinese industry for processing and manufacturing critical REE-reliant products has heightened awareness of the fragility of the supplydemand chain for REEs worldwide. Given China’s virtual control of the market, it 

is clearly in our nation’s best interest to establish a stable domestic supply of REEs. 

Alaska can become a new, stable source of REEs for the nation. Alaska is by far 

the most under-explored U.S. state for mineral deposits and is considered highly 

prospective with regard to strategic and critical minerals needed for domestic use. 

Our vast land base is thought to contain at least 70 known areas with documented 

potential to host REE deposits and over 40 million acres of high mineral potential 

lands. 

17 

Alaska contains one of the most significant REE prospects in the U.S.: the Bokan 

Mountain/Dotson Ridge property. The property is currently ranked 15th in North 

America for total tonnage of contained rare earth metal oxides. But unlike other 

U.S. deposits, Bokan Mountain is enriched in yttrium, dysprosium, and critical 

Heavy REEs, which are essential for the production of permanent magnets in some 

of our country’s most important industries and products. 

IV. The State of Alaska is Taking a Leadership Role in Facilitating Domestic Production of Strategic Minerals 

In Alaska Governor Sean Parnell’s State of the State Address in January 2011, 

he stated: 

If we want our economy to become even more dynamic, we must also look 

to our untapped resources. [R]are earth minerals are of increasing importance in the world economy. These rare earth elements are used in almost 

every piece of electronic equipment you can think of; flat screen TVs, iPods, 

cell phones, aircraft radar systems, and much, much more. Today, our Pacific Rim neighbor, China, controls 97 percent of the world market for these 

rare earth elements. Recently, China imposed trade quotas and increased 

tariffs on these precious commodities. And, China announced it is substantially reducing access to these rare earth elements. These policies will cost 

Americans more of our hard-earned money and jeopardize national security. 

We cannot afford to rely on foreign sources to meet our nation’s demand. 

And you know what; there may be no reason to. Alaska is a storehouse of 

rare earth minerals. Let’s explore them. That’s why this year we should 

work together to fund a strategic assessment of these minerals to determine, once again, how Alaska can help meet America’s needs. 

As the Governor’s remarks indicate, the State of Alaska is focused on advancing 

Alaska’s capacity to develop our strategic minerals for the nation’s benefit. We are 

undertaking the following interrelated actions: 

First, the state is undertaking a statewide assessment of REEs and other strategic minerals potential to better understand the extent of REE resources in Alaska. 

The state will gather data and improve industry access to these data to encourage 

and facilitate private-sector investment in Alaska’s REE exploration and development. The Alaska state legislature recently appropriated, pursuant to Governor Parnell’s request, $500,000 to begin a statewide survey of state, federal, and native 

lands. We have already begun Phase I of this strategic minerals assessment. 

Second, the state is providing support for the development of known or highly prospective REE and other strategic mineral occurrences throughout Alaska by exploring potential infrastructure improvements that could spur development, such as 

roads, port facilities, and power sources. The state legislature recently appropriated 

approximately $75 million in bonding authority for infrastructure projects that will 

advance mining development and roughly $1.5 million for studies to construct a 

road to the highly prospective Ambler mining district. State economic development 

agencies also are actively engaged with the private sector on developing long-term 

financing for important resource-related infrastructure projects. 

Third, the state is improving the structure and efficiency of its permitting process 

in order to expedite mineral development, including development of REEs and other 

strategic minerals. The state has gone to great lengths to improve its permitting 

process for mineral development. The state’s large project permitting team is viewed 

as a model for signal point of contact coordination for efficient permitting. Nevertheless, there are still many permitting challenges, especially with the interplay between state, federal, and local regulatory processes. The state is therefore taking an 

aggressive approach to working with all levels of government to further refine and 

streamline permitting. The Governor’s budget request of more than $4 million for 

permitting reform was recently approved by the state legislature. 

Fourth, the state is deepening its partnership and cooperation with stakeholders, 

including the federal government, local governments, Native corporations, and other 

potential new entrants to encourage domestic exploration, development, and processing of REEs and other strategic minerals. Improving these relationships is imperative for the country, not just Alaska. In Alaska, REEs are likely to be found on 

state, federal, and private (Native) lands, thus establishing a strong partnership 

with these entities will be critical to the initiative’s success. The state is planning 

with the University of Alaska an important conference that will bring together all 

stakeholders to discuss REEs and strategic minerals. 

Finally, the state needs to attract new investment and needs new markets for its 

abundant mineral resources. To achieve this goal, the state is promoting its mineral 

resource wealth to the rest of the country and overseas markets by discussing, for 

example, our resource base, our favorable fiscal structure, our robust environmental 

18 

protections, and how we partner with industry to assist in the exploration and development of strategic mineral resources. 

V. Alaska Supports Federal Efforts to Enhance Domestic Development of 

Strategic Minerals 

The federal government will play a critical role in the development and processing 

of strategic minerals in Alaska and other states. The State of Alaska has been seeking a close working relationship with the federal government on these issues. In 

particular, Governor Parnell has recently sent letters to President Obama and Secretary Chu to strengthen the state’s partnership with the federal government to facilitate the development of REEs and strategic materials in Alaska. In his letters, 

the Governor made the following requests: • that the Administration direct the United States Geological Survey partner 

with the state to conduct an inventory of federal lands in Alaska • that the Administration improve federal permitting by having high ranking 

mangers from federal agencies with decision making authority coordinate 

early and often with each other, permit applicants, and state agencies • that the Administration use the University of Alaska’s Arctic Region Supercomputing Center for REE research and development • that Congress review the merits of amending existing federal statutes to 

allow the Department of Energy to provide loan guarantees, grants, and tax 

credits for the general mining and processing of REEs. 

Alaska therefore supports federal legislation that will increase domestic production and processing of strategic minerals. The State of Alaska appreciates the opportunity to provide comment on the Critical Minerals Policy Act of 2011 and the Rare 

Earths Act of 2011 and endorses the underlying principles of these Acts. The state 

supports these bills, and Senator Murkowski’s Senate Bill 1113, which seek to promote a stable supply of minerals to maintain our nation’s economic well-being, security, and manufacturing, industrial, and technological capabilities. 

Increase Federal Mineral Assessments 

The state supports the Critical Minerals Policy Act of 2011 and the Rare Earths 

Act of 2011 requirement that the Department of the Interior conduct a comprehensive assessment of the nation’s strategic minerals. Federal assessment of mineral 

commodities on federally managed land has been significantly reduced to date and 

no complete resource assessment of federal lands in Alaska has been completed. For 

example, the BLM disbanded their solid minerals group in Alaska in 2007 despite 

the fact that Alaska has 40 million acres of high mineral potential state and private 

land. 

Nonetheless, the State of Alaska lacks sufficient information to fully assess the 

mineral potential in most areas of Alaska, which is why the state is preparing a 

first-level study of our 70 known areas of REEs. The state has already spent over 

$10 million on mineral assessment work on some of these lands, including 10.6 million acres of high resolution geophysics and 5.2 million acres of geologic mapping, 

and as noted above will be spending another $500,000 on a new assessment of 

REEs. Any federal assistance to further this effort will advance the country’s ability 

to develop a secure and domestic supply of strategic minerals. 

Enhance Access to Federal Lands 

Even preliminary assessments in Alaska indicate that many of Alaska’s strategic 

mineral resources will be found on federal lands. Indeed, Bokan Mountain is one 

prospect on federal lands. Therefore, it is important to increase the availability of 

access to federal lands for mineral development when assessments of such lands indicate high prospectivity. 

In addition, as a part of the assessment, the federal government should review 

why these lands were withdrawn and provide a determination of whether the withdrawal is still appropriate. This is particularly important in Alaska because approximately 165.4 million acres of the total 215 million federally owned acres in Alaska 

have been withdrawn from mineral entry (or 82%). 

Undertake Federal Permitting Reform 

The state also applauds the Critical Minerals Policy Act of 2011 call for the federal government to improve coordination efforts among federal agencies and to ‘‘minimize duplication, needless paperwork, and delays in the administration of Federal 

and State laws and regulations, and issuance of permits and authorizations necessary to explore, develop, and produce minerals and construct and operate mineralrelated facilities.’’ 

Changes to the permitting system are particularly needed because the U.S. has 

received low rankings for difficult permitting of mineral development. The federal 

19 

mine permitting system in the United States ranks as least efficient or timely 

among 25 mining countries, requiring an average time frame of seven to ten years 

to deliver a permit. This compares to Australia where permits are often issued in 

one to two years. A particularly egregious example of federal permitting delays is 

the Kensington Gold Mine in Southeast Alaska, which took almost 20 years to permit. The State of Alaska successfully intervened in litigation to help secure the necessary permits for this mine. The Kensington Mine is now in operation, producing 

significant quantities of gold, and employing hundreds of Alaskans. 

Alaska has gone to great lengths to make its permitting system one of the most 

robust and efficient in the nation, but we can only improve so much without similar 

improvements the federal side. We have initiated measures to reform and streamline our permitting process, and continue to seek improvements and efficiencies, and 

we are partnering with new entrants to encourage private sector exploration, including at the Bokan Mountain REE deposit. 

For these reasons, the state encourages federal efforts at permitting reform because permitting uncertainty and delay are stifling development. The State of Alaska has developed a coordinated permitting system that has evolved and worked well 

over the last 20 years. Our system ensures that all state agencies are working well 

together throughout the lengthy and complex permitting processes for all large resource development projects in the state. The federal agencies have no analogous 

system. We therefore recommend that the federal agencies adopt a coordination 

model similar to Alaska’s. A strong federal coordinator would not only ensure that 

the federal agencies are working well together during permitting, but would help 

establish an experienced permitting team within the federal agencies. Strong coordination would also help the federal agencies develop new procedures that could make 

permitting more efficient, such as better synchronization between the EIS process 

and ACOE 404 permitting. 

Establish Incentives for Domestic Processing and Research 

Even if the United States increases domestic production of strategic minerals and 

REEs, we still lack a sufficient industrial base for processing these minerals. For 

example, if U.S. REE production were to begin next year, the processing of these 

minerals would have to take place in China. Thus, it is critical to develop domestic 

processing capability in conjunction with the production of strategic minerals and 

REEs. 

Domestic processing capabilities will go hand-in-hand with a renewed effort expanding America’s research capability. The Department of Energy’s world-class laboratories could expand their focus on the development and domestic processing of 

these strategic minerals in partnership with universities and the private sector. 

Given how vulnerable we are to a shortage of these minerals and critical importance 

to our national security and economy, a renewed federal research effort on strategic 

minerals and REEs is appropriate. 

Mr. LAMBORN. Thank you. Mr. Duclos. 

STATEMENT OF STEVEN DUCLOS, CHIEF SCIENTIST AND MANAGER, MATERIALS SUSTAINABILITY, GENERAL ELECTRIC, 

TESTIFYING ON BEHALF OF NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF 

MANUFACTURERS 

Mr. DUCLOS. Chairman Lamborn, Ranking Member Holt, and 

members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to 

testify before you today about rare earth and critical minerals. 

My name is Steven Duclos, and as Chief Scientist and Manager 

of Material Sustainability at GE Global Research, it is my job to 

identify ways that our businesses can manage our minerals in a 

sustainable way. GE is a board member of the National Association 

of Manufacturers, NAM, and I am pleased to testify on their behalf 

today. 

The NAM is the nation’s largest manufacturing trade association, 

representing manufacturers in every industrial sector and in all 50 

states. Manufacturing has a presence in every congressional 

district, providing good, high-paying jobs. The United States 

20 

manufacturing economy produces 1.6 trillion in value each year or 

11.2 percent of GDP. It employs nearly 12 million Americans. 

Minerals play a fundamental role in manufacturing. Manufacturers use critical minerals such as the rare earths to produce many 

products. As an example, GE uses at least 70 of the first 83 elements on the Periodic Table, including rare earth minerals in production of energy efficient florescent lighting, in permanent 

magnets for our most advanced wind turbines, in compressor motors for our oil and gas business, in medical imaging technologies, 

and in coatings for aircraft engines and power generation turbines. 

Chairman Lamborn, I commend you for convening this hearing 

today to discuss the issue of rare earth and other critical minerals. 

I would like to share with you the NAM’s policy in regards to rare 

earths minerals and outline a series of recommendations for how 

the Federal Government can strengthen its support for industry in 

this area. The NAM’s core policy is that U.S. manufacturers require access to basic inputs in the manufacturing process in order 

to become and remain competitive in the global economy. 

Foremost, the NAM believes that any solution to the critical minerals issue needs to be comprehensive and take into consideration 

the following multiple efforts that are necessary to resolve the 

shortage of these minerals. First, the Federal Government should 

play a vital role in strengthening the domestic rare earths minerals 

supply chain. Such a domestic supply chain can make U.S. manufacturers stronger and more competitive. For example, manufacturers are supportive of legislation that allow for the reopening of 

mines and processing plants in the United States. We believe that 

this is a great first step. 

Second, there needs to be support of a workforce that can carry 

out this mining and processing. A legislative effort should include 

workforce assessment, curriculum development, and worker training. Without this workforce, the U.S. will not be able to mine these 

minerals in a safe and environmentally sound manner. 

Third, comprehensive legislation needs to address the issue of 

technology development, particularly for the heavy rare earth elements. These elements currently are not mined in sufficient quantities domestically to meet growing demands. In those cases where 

affordable alternative materials may be available, an important solution for these heavy rare earths is to provide manufacturers incentives to develop technologies that either reduce or eliminate the 

use of these elements. 

The Federal Government can help by enabling public/private collaborations that provide the materials understanding and resources 

to develop these technologies. This also includes voluntary development of manufacturing technologies that more efficiently use these 

materials. 

Fourth, is the development of recycling technologies that extract 

these elements from both end-of-life products and manufacturing 

yield loss. This includes developing technologies that assure the 

parks and systems that contain these minerals have as long a life 

as possible. 

Mr. Chairman, these are the basic principals, which we the NAM 

believe are necessary to address the shortage of rare earth minerals and other critical elements. However, it is imperative to note 

21 

that each element is different and some problems are easier to 

solve than others. Typically, a unique solution will be needed for 

each element and each use of that element. Therefore, comprehensive legislation must also take into consideration and propose solutions that are applicable to real-life manufacturing and system design. 

In regards to H.R. 1314 and H.R. 2011, Chairman Lamborn and 

Congressman Johnson, we thank you for your efforts in introducing 

these measures. We believe that it is important to have legislation 

by Congress that mandates a comprehensive approach that takes 

into account domestic mining and processing of these minerals, 

strengthening of the workforce, government incentives for creating 

alternative manufacturing and materials technologies, and recycling of these materials so that we can truly address the current 

issues with rare earth minerals. 

I thank you for the opportunity to describe the NAM’s policy on 

rare earth and critical materials. I look forward to your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Duclos follows:] 

Statement of Dr. Steve Duclos, Chief Scientist and Manager of Material 

Sustainability, General Electric Global Research, on behalf of the 

National Association of Manufacturers, on H.R. 2011 and H.R. 1314 

Chairman Lamborn, Ranking Member Holt and members of the Subcommittee on 

Energy and Mineral Resources, thank you for the opportunity to testify before you 

today about rare earth and critical minerals. 

My name is Dr. Steven Duclos, and I am the Chief Scientist and Manager of Material Sustainability at General Electric Global Research. At GE, we have more than 

35,000 scientists and engineers working in the U.S. and around the globe, with extensive expertise in materials development, system design, and manufacturing. As 

Chief Scientist and Manager of Material Sustainability at GE Global Research, it’s 

my job to understand the latest trends in materials and to help identify and support 

new R&D projects with our businesses to manage our needs in a sustainable way. 

GE is a diversified global infrastructure, finance, and media company that provides a wide array of products to meet the world’s essential needs. From energy and 

water to transportation and healthcare, we are driving advanced technology and 

product solutions in key industries central to providing a cleaner, more sustainable 

future for our nation and the world. 

GE is also a board member of the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) 

and is pleased to testify on their behalf today. The NAM is the nation’s largest manufacturing trade association, representing manufacturers in every industrial sector 

and in all 50 states. Manufacturing has a presence in every single congressional district providing good, high-paying jobs. The United States is the world’s manufacturing economy. It produces $1.6 trillion in value each year or 11.2 percent of GDP, 

and employs nearly 12 million Americans working directly in manufacturing. 

Manufacturers use minerals, in some cases, rare earth minerals, to create a number of products. For instance, GE uses the following rare earth minerals in production of the following products: 

A) GE Lighting utilizes Cerium, Terbium, and Europium in synthesizing efficient phosphors for fluorescent lamp products, which are critical in the Department of Energy’s transition from inefficient incandescent lamps. 

B) GE Energy uses Neodymium, Samarium, Dysprosium, and Terbium in permanent magnets for compact and efficient generators in GE’s most advanced 

2.5 MW wind turbines. 

C) GE also uses permanent magnets in technology prototypes for traction motors for our hybrid locomotives, high-speed motors and generators for aviation applications, high speed motors for turbo-expanders, high power density 

motors for PHEVs and EVs, ultra high-efficiency industrial motors, as well 

as compressor motors for GE Oil and Gas business. 

D) GE Healthcare uses rare earth materials for scintillators in both Computed 

Tomography (CT scan) and Positron Emission Tomography (PET scan) 

health imaging technologies. 

E) GE Aviation uses small quantities of rare earth permanent magnet materials for defense technologies in guidance systems. 

22 

F) Small amounts of rare earths are used in materials and coatings in aircraft 

engines and power generation turbines. 

Minerals play an essential part in manufacturing. As an example, GE uses at 

least 70 of the first 83 elements listed in the Periodic Table of Elements. GE also 

spends $40 billion annually on materials, with 10% devoted to direct purchase of 

metals and alloys. Because materials are so fundamental to everything manufacturers do, we are constantly watching, evaluating and anticipating supply changes with 

respect to materials that are vital to the manufacturing process. 

Chairman Lamborn, I commend you for convening this hearing today to discuss 

the issue of rare earth and other critical minerals. What I would like to do now is 

to share with you the NAM’s policy in regards to rare earth minerals, as well as 

outline a series of recommendations for how the federal government can strengthen 

its support of the industry in this area. 

The NAM’s core policy is that U.S. manufacturers require access to basic inputs 

to the manufacturing process in order to become and remain competitive in the global economy. The NAM opposes government policies and practices that unfairly limit 

the availability and raise the cost of such inputs, thereby reducing the competitiveness of U.S. manufacturers. With that said, the NAM believes that first and foremost, any solution needs to be comprehensive and to take into consideration the 

multiple efforts that are necessary to resolve the shortage of these minerals in the 

manufacturing supply chain. 

As you know, the United States was at one point a global leader in providing rare 

earth minerals. However, as the mining and processing of these minerals were economically intensive, U.S. mining and processing has ceased. However, over the past 

years demand for some of these minerals has continued to increase. Current mining 

and processing will not be able to keep up with this demand. In addition, a shortage 

of these minerals can increase the cost of energy for manufacturers as they are used 

in refining petroleum as well as in renewable energy products. Therefore, the U.S. 

should resume its mining and processing of these minerals. 

Strengthening Domestic Supply Chain and Workforce 

First, the federal government should play a vital role in strengthening the domestic rare earth minerals supply chain. By strengthening our domestic supplies we will 

have a more diversified supply chain for these minerals and this will help make 

U.S. manufacturers stronger and more competitive. Manufacturers are supportive of 

legislation that increases domestic supply. For example, legislation that re-opens 

mines and processing plants in the United States would be an excellent first step. 

Second, there needs to be support for a workforce that can carry out mining and 

processing. Therefore, a legislative effort should include workforce assessment, curriculum development and worker training. This is a vital element for re-opening 

mining and processing of any critical minerals, including rare earth minerals. Without the necessary workforce, the U.S. will not be able to mine these minerals in a 

safe and environmentally sound manner. Therefore, in order to truly secure manufacturers’ access to these vital minerals, the U.S. needs to provide a domestic source 

of mining and processing of these minerals. 

Alternative Technologies 

Furthermore, comprehensive legislation needs to address the issue of heavy rare 

earth elements. These elements cannot currently be mined in sufficient abundance 

domestically to meet manufacturers’ growing demands. An important solution for 

the shortage of these heavy rare earth minerals, in those particular cases where affordable alternative materials may be available, is to provide manufacturers incentives to develop technology that either reduces or eliminates the use of these elements. This includes the voluntary development of manufacturing technologies that 

more efficiently use these materials. 

While there are cases where the properties imparted by the element are uniquely 

suitable to a particular application, there are examples where a manufacturer is 

able to invent alternative materials or use already existing alternate materials to 

minimize mineral shortage risks. Manufacturers may be able to overcome the shortage of these minerals by using alternatives that will provide them more flexibility 

in designing their products. However, pursuing this path is not easy and presents 

significant challenges that need to be addressed. As such, the federal government 

can help by enabling public-private collaborations that provide both the materials 

understanding and the resources to attempt higher risk approaches. Both are required to increase manufacturers’ chances of success in minimizing the use of those 

heavy rare earth elements. 

23 

Recycling Efforts 

Another approach to minimizing the use of at-risk elements over the long term 

is to develop recycling technologies that extract these elements from both end-of-life 

products and manufacturing yield loss. This includes developing technologies that 

assure that parts and systems that contain these minerals have as long a life as 

possible. For instance, designing a product that can be serviced will reduce the need 

for replacing parts that will use additional materials. The basic understanding of 

those practices and designs that limit the life of products can be critical to extending 

the useful life of parts, particularly those exposed to extreme conditions. It is these 

parts that tend to be made of the most sophisticated materials, oftentimes containing scarce raw materials. 

Mr. Chairman, these are the basic principles which we, the NAM, believe are necessary to address the shortage of rare earth minerals and other critical elements. 

However, it is imperative to note that each element is different and some problems 

are easier to solve than others—typically a unique solution will be needed for each 

element and each use of that element. Therefore, a comprehensive legislation must 

also take into consideration the varying degrees of manufacturing, and propose solutions that are applicable to real-life manufacturing and system design. 

Comments on H.R. 1314 and H.R. 2011 

In regards to H.R. 2011 and H.R. 1314, we thank you for your efforts in introducing these measures. As per my testimony today, manufacturers rely on these 

minerals for the creation of a number of products and sources of energy. Therefore, 

we welcome Congressional actions that not just draw attention to the issue, but attempt to resolve it was well. 

We believe that it is important to have some form of legislation by Congress that 

mandates a solution that is comprehensive and incorporates those solutions highlighted above. It is only through a comprehensive solution that takes into account: 

(1) the domestic mining and processing of these minerals; (2) strengthening of the 

workforce; (3) government incentives for creating alternative manufacturing and 

materials technologies; and (4) recycling of these minerals that we can truly address 

this current problem with rare earth minerals. 

Mr. LAMBORN. Thank you. Mr. Engdahl. 

STATEMENT OF JAMES B. ENGDAHL, PRESIDENT AND CHIEF 

EXECUTIVE OFFICER, GREAT WESTERN MINERALS GROUP 

Mr. ENGDAHL. Chairman Lamborn, Ranking Member Holt, 

distinguished members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the 

opportunity to testify today. As President and CEO of the Great 

Western Minerals Group, I am pleased to participate in this important legislative hearing on H.R. 2011 and H.R. 1314. 

These bills offer important elements of a comprehensive solution 

to challenges in developing a complete, reliable, and competitive 

rare earth supply chain in the United States. I am particularly 

pleased to present both an international perspective related to 

Great Western’s rare earth projects and a domestic perspective related to Formation Metals’ Idaho Cobalt Project. 

The Great Western Minerals Group is a rare earths processor 

pursuing a vertically integrated business model. Focused primarily 

on the permanent magnet industry, GWMG owns two rare earth 

alloy manufacturing companies, Great Western Technologies in 

Troy, Michigan and Less Common Metals in Birkenhead, England. 

In addition to permanent magnet alloys, these manufacturers can 

produce a variety of specialty alloys for the battery, automotive, 

aerospace, defense, and clean energy industries. 

As part of our vertical integration, we also hold interests in several rare earth exploration and development properties in the 

United States, Canada, and South Africa. I am also a member of 

24 

the Board of Directors of Formation Metals, a company currently 

developing the United States’ only primary cobalt project in Idaho. 

As highlighted in the legislation under discussion today, an understanding of availability of critical minerals is a key starting 

point for their successful development. With rare earth projects 

coming online outside China, including Great Western 

Steenkampskraal Mine in South Africa and shortly thereafter 

Hoidas Lake in Saskatchewan, Canada, it is like that the supply 

of light rare earths, such as lanthanum and cerium will soon ease 

current shortages. 

However, the prospects for light rare earths such as neodymium 

and praseodymium and samarium and production of heavy rare 

earths, such as dysprosium and terbium, to name a few are much 

less certain. The key point, and one that is addressed by the legislation before the Committee is that simply lumping all critical materials or all rare earths into one category is not helpful in alleviating supply shortages. Instead, a comprehensive supply demand 

analysis of the 17 distinct rare earth elements is needed to more 

fully inform the market as to which materials will continue to be 

in short supply and those which must be brought online rapidly to 

avoid downstream supply disruptions. 

Once an ore body for these critical materials is discovered and 

proven to be economically viable for extraction, the lengthy permitting process begins. While many exploration companies and mining 

interests are quick to decry the arduous and often decade-long permitting process, a few of these company can provide a comprehensive list of the reasons for the delay. This lack of detailed framework for reform prevent companies from expediting their applications. 

It does, however, appear that one potential issue is the lack of 

detailed knowledge of industrial minerals mining and processing 

with people in position to make or influence decisions. As a result, 

these people make wrong decisions or don’t make one at all, resulting in significant cost delays and normal delays. We want to be 

very clear. Great Western Minerals Group does not support shortcuts that skirt important environmental and safety protection as it 

is in no one’s best interest. Rather, we are encouraging a streamlining of the permitting process by the identification of unnecessary 

bureaucracy and inefficiency in the process. 

While there are numerous critical materials that the Committee 

should consider, the situation in rare earths is one of the dearest 

and is in most urgent need of finding and developing alternative 

source of supply. 

In its legislation, the Committee should not only identify sources 

for critical materials, but also strive to ensure that a full supply 

chain is developed in the United States to provide downstream 

processing and value-added capabilities, such as separation and 

metal and alloy manufacturing. This problem cannot be solved by 

mining alone. Nevertheless, solutions are possible. 

As a first step, the legislation proposed today makes great strides 

in providing a more thorough breakdown of critical materials by individual elements. These analysis should include long-term supply/ 

demand comparison and risk assessments related to elements, 

prospects for long-term availability and be made available to people 

25 

in decision-making positions as it relates to permitting of exploration and permitting. 

The United States can also take near-term steps to solve challenges, such as its national security concerns, simply by creating a 

small inventory for those rare earths in short supply as required 

by Representative Coffman. Additionally, the United States and its 

allied nations must develop downstream commercial capabilities to 

produce metals currently 100 percent produced in China, and rare 

earth magnets currently produced primarily in China. Without 

these capabilities, there will be no demand to reestablish a vibrant 

rare earths economy. 

We are hopeful that a bipartisan solution will include the best 

elements of both bills in a final piece of legislation by this Committee. Such legislation would serve as an important first step in 

mitigating the rare earth and critical materials crisis. Thank you 

again for the opportunity to testify. I look forward to your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Engdahl follows:] 

Statement of Jim Engdahl, President & Chief Executive Officer, 

Great Western Minerals Group 

Chairman Lamborn, Ranking Member Holt, distinguished Members of the Subcommittee, 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify today. As President & Chief Executive 

Officer of the Great Western Minerals Group, I am pleased to participate in this 

important legislative hearing on H.R. 2011, the National Strategic and Critical 

Minerals Policy Act of 2011 and H.R. 1314, the Resource Assessment of Rare 

Earths Act of 2011. These bills offer important elements of a much needed comprehensive solution to challenges in developing a complete, reliable and competitive 

rare earth supply-chain in the United States. 

Great Western Mineral Group and Formation Metals, Inc. 

I am particularly pleased to present both an international perspective, related to 

GWMG’s rare earth projects, and a domestic perspective related to Formation Metals’ Idaho Cobalt Project. 

The Great Western Minerals Group is a rare earth processor pursuing a vertically 

integrated business model. Focused primarily on the permanent magnet industry, 

GWMG owns two rare earth alloy manufacturing companies: Great Western Technologies Inc. of Troy, Michigan and Less Common Metals Limited of Birkenhead, 

United Kingdom. In addition to permanent magnet alloys, these manufacturers can 

produce a variety of specialty alloys for the battery, automotive, aerospace, defense 

and clean energy industries. As part of our vertical integration we also hold interests in several Rare Earth exploration and development properties in the United 

States, Canada and South Africa. 

I am also a member of the Board of Directors of Formation Metals, a company 

currently developing the United States’ only primary cobalt project in Idaho. 

Resource Development 

As highlighted in the legislation under discussion today, a solid understanding of 

the availability of critical minerals is a key starting point for their successful development. With rare earth projects coming online outside China, including GWMG’s 

Steenkampskraal mine in South Africa and shortly thereafter, Hoidas Lake in Saskatchewan Canada, it is likely that supply for light rare earths, such as lanthanum 

and cerium, will soon ease current shortages. However, the prospects for light rare 

earths related to permanent magnet manufacturing, such as neodymium, and production of heavy rare earths, such as dysprosium and terbium to name a few, are 

much less certain. 

The key point—and one that is addressed by the legislation before the committee—is that simply lumping all ‘‘critical materials’’ or all ‘‘rare earths’’ into one 

category is not helpful in alleviating supply shortages. Instead, a comprehensive 

supply-demand analysis for the 17 distinct rare earth elements is needed to more 

fully inform the market as to which materials will continue to be in short supply 

and those which must be brought online rapidly to avoid downstream supply disrupVerDate Nov 24 2008 14:29 Feb 06, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 L:\DOCS\66731.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
26 

tions. It is necessary to first identify materials that will be in shortfall, then develop, as rapidly as possible, sources of supply for those material in shortest supply 

(such as the heavy rare earths). 

Permitting 

Once an ore body for these critical materials is discovered and proven to be economically viable for extraction, the lengthy permitting process begins. While many 

exploration companies and mining interests are quick to decry the arduous and 

often decade long permitting process, few of these companies can provide a comprehensive list of the reasons for the delay. This lack of a detailed framework for 

reform prevents companies from expediting their applications. It is our hope that 

this hearing and the legislation under considerations will be a catalyst for both industry and government in identifying specific roadblocks and systematically eliminating them. 

We want to be very clear, GWMG does not support shortcuts that skirt important 

environmental and safety protections, as these are in no one’s best interest; rather, 

we are encouraging a streamlining of the permitting process by the identification 

of unnecessary bureaucracy and inefficiency in the process. 

Rare Earth Supply Chain Development 

While there are numerous critical materials that the committee should consider, 

the situation in rare earths is one of the direst and is in most urgent need of finding 

and developing alternative sources of supply. 

In its legislation, the committee should not only identify sources for critical materials, but also strive to ensure that a full supply chain is developed in the United 

States to provide downstream processing and value-added capabilities such as separation, and metal and alloy manufacturing. This problem cannot be solved by mining alone. 

There are many challenges facing our industry. For example, much of the solvent 

extraction expertise required to convert ore to separated oxides is no longer resident 

in the United States, and is found today primarily in China. 

Also, even with recognition of the need in the United States for supply of rare 

earths and other critical materials, without domestic demand for downstream, 

value-added products, it is inevitable that industry development in the United 

States will be limited. Quite simply, companies cannot invest in value added manufacturing capability without the demand to justify it. 

Solutions 

Nevertheless, solutions are possible. 

As a first step, the legislation proposed today makes great strides in providing a 

more thorough breakdown of critical materials by individual elements. These analyses should include long-term, supply-demand comparisons and risk assessments related to the elements’ prospects for long-term availability. 

The United States can also take near term steps to solve challenges such as its 

national security concerns simply by creating a small inventory of those rare earths 

in short supply as required by Representative Coffman in an amendment to the 

FY12 National Defense Authorization Act. 

Additionally, the United States and its ally nations must develop downstream 

commercial capabilities to produce metal, currently 100% produced in China, and 

rare earth magnets, currently produced primarily in China. Without such capabilities, there will be no demand to reestablish a vibrant rare earth sector in the United 

States. These holes in the supply-chain might very well lead to the United States’ 

status as nothing more than an exporter of raw materials to nations such as China 

and Japan, which would transform those rare earth oxides into more specialized 

materials—materials that we would then have to import to support military and energy technologies in this country. 

Conclusion 

We are hopeful that a bi-partisan solution will include the best elements of both 

bills in a final piece of legislation passed by this committee. Such legislation would 

serve as an important first step in mitigating the rare earth and critical materials 

crisis. By taking this first legislative step, and then moving on to additional legislation such as the comprehensive Coffman RESTART bill to address issues such as 

manufacturing and national security challenges, the United States Congress can 

demonstrate important leadership in the global community regarding the ever more 

important issues surrounding the United States’ precious natural resources. 

Thank you again for the opportunity to testify. I look forward to your questions. 

27 

Mr. LAMBORN. Thanks to you and to all of our witnesses for your 

testimony. I will begin the questioning. 

Mr. Doebrich, the Energy Policy Acts of 2000 and 2005 had provisions requiring that DOI and the USGS inventory the onshore 

Federal estate to determine what the oil and natural gas resources 

were and what impediments there were for access to these resources. These ranged from statutory to administrative withdrawals and lease stipulations to protect game and threatened and 

endangered species, and these are known as the EPCA studies. 

Interior owns that database. How difficult would it be to utilize 

the computer program designed to accomplish the EPA studies, and 

how difficult would it be, in other words, more specifically to add 

another data layer to that program that includes solid minerals? 

Mr. DOEBRICH. With regards to the computer program you are 

referring to, I am assuming this is the one used by the EIA? That 

is unknown at this point. That would require from our standpoint 

a better understanding of what the capabilities of that computer 

software is before I think I could answer that fully. But I would 

be happy to get back to you on that. 

Mr. LAMBORN. Please do. If the EPCA studies—the data programming—were to be utilized by expansion, our understanding is 

that that program allows for adding data layers. That is part of 

why we wanted the ambitious six-month requirement for completion of this study, thinking that that would be feasible. So please 

get back to us on that. 

Mr. DOEBRICH. If I could elaborate on that, with regards to 2011 

and the six-month provision, it is important I think to, at least 

from our term to what assessment means, when we use the term 

‘‘assessment,’’ which is what is used in the bill, we mean assessment of undiscovered resources. So first we do an inventory of 

known resources and then use that as a foundation to do an assessment of undiscovered resources. So I would just ask if, in fact, that 

is how you are using the term ‘‘assessment’’ in the language of the 

bill? 

Mr. LAMBORN. We are going to have to discuss that and pin that 

down because we are not anticipating sending teams of prospectors 

throughout the entire 2.5 billion-acre Federal estate to redo 113 

minerals. 

Mr. DOEBRICH. No, I understand. It is just that when we talk 

about assessment then we are talking about the assessment of undiscovered resources rather than an inventory of what we know already and so I guess we would like clarification perhaps on what 

you mean by ‘‘assessment.’’ 

Mr. LAMBORN. Now it is our understanding that you are in the 

middle of currently doing an assessment, can you update us on 

that? 

Mr. DOEBRICH. We are in the process of preparing for our new 

national assessment. In that process over the last two or three 

years, we have been updating our databases, our mineral deposit 

models and grid and tonnage models that we use in these assessments. So our intent has been to initiate that assessment in 2013. 

We are in the process now also of determining what we would assess for. The last time we did a national assessment back in 1995 

it was for gold, silver, copper, lead, zinc and clearly we need to do 

28 

more than that, given the concerns of various other critical minerals today. 

So that is what we are planning for. We actually are updating 

models that provide resources of a variety of critical minerals, including rare earths. And so our plan all along was in 2013 to be 

in a position to initiate that assessment, which would more or less 

be a four- or five-year effort. 

Mr. LAMBORN. We appreciate what you have been doing, but our 

hope is to help jumpstart some of that and get things actually moving. So thank you for that answer. 

Mr. Duclos, given the potentially serious problems our country 

would face if we have a critical shortage of strategic minerals, including rare earth metals, but going beyond those would the National Association of Manufacturers prefer legislation that calls for 

a comprehensive study to be finished in six months or three years? 

Mr. DUCLOS. I would certainly think the faster the better. In 

fact, really what manufacturers need is a comprehensive action 

here that goes beyond this assessment. It also invests in solutions. 

Also investing in the mining and the workforce and developing of 

technologies can minimize and recycle these materials. It has to be 

comprehensive. 

Mr. LAMBORN. Thank you. 

I would now like to recognize the gentleman from New Jersey, 

the Ranking Member. 

Mr. HOLT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We will move right along 

because I see votes have begun on the Floor. 

There is much to discuss in this issue only some of which is in 

the jurisdiction of this Committee. I would like to begin with just 

a comment. 

Mr. Sullivan, as an Alaskan I am sure you are aware of the 

name of Seward. It was Seward’s folly to purchase all of Alaska 

and its contents for a little over $7 million. We are now talking 

about a bill that would assess all of the strategic mineral resources 

of the United States with an authorized amount of I think $1 million. I think we need to return the word ‘‘investment’’ to our vocabulary here and recognize that it would, indeed, be an investment 

to provide the kind of assessment that we need in this area. 

A couple of things, Mr. Duclos, in your testimony you talked 

about the need to pay attention to the workforce. That is within the 

jurisdiction of our Committee, particularly as it applies to mining 

schools and so forth. Briefly, what specifically do you think we need 

to do? Do we need new programs, or larger enrollment in existing 

programs? 

Mr. DUCLOS. Yes, all of the above. The fact is that currently 

today there isn’t a robust workforce in, for example, the rare 

earths, either mining or processing. Inasmuch as that presents 

some challenges in terms of making for efficient processing of these 

materials, we need to have more folks involved. 

Mr. HOLT. If you or NAM, the National Association of Manufacturers could give us specific recommendations, we would welcome 

that. 

Mr. DUCLOS. Certainly. We could do that. 

Mr. HOLT. I noticed a slight discrepancy between your oral testimony and your written testimony. You were talking about the long 

29 

permitting process. In the written testimony you said few of the exploration companies can provide a comprehensive list of the reasons for the delay. In your oral testimony you said a few of these 

companies can provide. In your written testimony I was relieved to 

hear finally someone say what I thought you were saying. It gets 

frustrating around here to hear complains about the big, bad Department of the Interior not giving permits because when you ask 

people to explain what is the problem the story ends. 

So they have no problem with the Lamborn bill taking a look at 

this issue, but I would like you to clarify, are you saying that you 

cannot put your finger on actual problems in the permitting process or are you saying you can put your finger on problems in the 

permitting process in the big, bad Department of the Interior. 

Mr. ENGDAHL. I think what I am saying is that you can put your 

finger on a few of them. I think there is a little more than that. 

I think one of the examples that really comes out is the Formation 

Metals Group that developed the Idaho Cobalt Project mine in 

Idaho which will go into production here fairly shortly. That was 

a 13-year process from discovery to which will be to production 

next year. 

There were conflicting issues as it related to approvals through 

the EPA and through Forestry. What really came out of it is that 

the people in those positions making decisions didn’t necessarily 

understand the full implications and that goes, I think, beyond 

cobalt. 

It goes more in particularly and would be much more applicable 

in the rare earths sector where the knowledge of what happens 

downstream after you mined is very critical to understand what it 

takes—the cost, et cetera. 

At the same time, there were some very, very good things that 

happened as it related to the Formation Idaho Cobalt Project. One 

program that is in play right now is your industrial bonds and 

that, in the eleventh hour, allowed Formation Metals to get financed. Those industrial bonds are something that I think should 

be continued to be looked at and expanded on, as it relates to very 

reasonable sources of financing, without putting residents of the 

United States at any financial risk or very little financial risk. 

Mr. HOLT. We are short on time because of votes on the Floor, 

so I thank the Chairman. 

Mr. LAMBORN. Thank you all for being here. We do have to go 

cast a vote. It finishes in roughly six minutes. We are going to rush 

over there, vote, and then come straight back. Thee is only one 

vote, so it won’t take that long while we are over there. So in 

roughly 15 to 20 minutes, we will reconvene. I would ask your indulgence to remain during that time and then we will finish up our 

questions. Thank you so much. We will be in recess. 

[Recess] 

Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Flores, we will have questions from you. 

Mr. FLORES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Sullivan this question is for you. There is a little bit of variability among some of the testimony, both written and verbal with 

respect to the regulatory environment and I think you have some 

first-hand experience in terms of dealing with the EPA in Alaska. 

I was wondering if you could share those reflections with us. 

30 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Yes, sir. One of the things that we think—— 

Mr. FLORES. I hate to interrupt you. Could you also talk about 

the Department of the Interior as well? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Sure. 

Mr. FLORES. Thank you. 

Mr. SULLIVAN. One of the things that actually we were just discussing, particularly on large mining projects, is that what we 

think would be very useful to have within the Federal Government 

is a single point of contact that helps shepherd companies through 

the permitting process itself. That is something that in Alaska at 

DNR we have a group called the Large Project Mining Group and 

that is exactly what we do with all the different state permits on 

large projects. We have a single point, an actual state official who 

coordinates all the permitting and we think that that system—we 

have a lot of our own issues in terms of permitting reform that we 

are working on, but we think that that is one area of our permitting that actually works quite well and has made it more efficient. 

We think that a model like that similar with regard to Federal permitting could be very useful and help to deal with some of the inefficiencies that we have seen. 

As I mentioned, the Kensington Mine example in Alaska was just 

a case that—there was also litigation, but it was problems with regard to Federal agencies overlap, different interpretations of Federal law and it took almost 20 years. 

Mr. FLORES. We have heard testimony about how long it takes 

in Australia and other developed countries. In your view, what do 

you think the optimum time period is for permitting that still allows the regulators to be satisfied that they have properly addressed all the environmental issues, safety issues, so forth versus 

also being responsive to what we are trying to do here and that is 

to restore our rare earths footprint? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. I think, and I would agree 100 percent with what 

Mr. Engdahl said. In the permitting, when we advocate for efficiencies and timeliness and certainty, that does not mean we are 

advocating for cutting corners on environmental regulations or 

safety. However, seven to ten years, which is as I mentioned the 

average in the United States, just makes it too difficult in terms 

of permitting certainty. I don’t know what the number in Canada 

is. I did mention the average time frame in Australia, which is a 

country that has also got a strong record. So I think more along 

the lines of that time frame, one to two years, three years maybe 

max as opposed to seven to ten I think can bring a lot more certainty and accelerate the production that I think we all recognize 

we need. 

Mr. FLORES. OK. 

Mr. SULLIVAN. There is one other issue, Congressman, if I may? 

There are processes sometimes like the EIS and the 404’ under the 

Clean Water Act a lot of times Federal agencies view that you have 

to do one and then you have to do the other. If there are ways to 

actually start on those together in parallel, you could cut down a 

lot of time. 

Mr. FLORES. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Mr. LAMBORN. Thank you. Mr. Johnson of Georgia. 

31 

Mr. JOHNSON OF GEORGIA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. 

Ranking Member, and Subcommittee members for joining us today. 

I appreciate the Subcommittee allowing me to join you today. 

Mr. Chairman, it is a testament to your statesmanship that you 

have placed a bill offered by a Democrat on the table for discussion 

today. That bipartisan approach will be necessary if we are going 

rise to the level of solving the important challenges that we face 

as a nation. So I deeply appreciate the spirit with which enabled 

me to come here. I also thank Congressman Markey and Congressman Holt for their hard work in helping to develop H.R. 1314, the 

RARA Act, which jointly introduced earlier this year. 

Mr. Doebrich, H.R. 1314 would direct USGS to conduct a global 

assessment of rare earth element resources. Does USGS support 

the goals of the bill? 

Mr. DOEBRICH. Yes, sir, we do. We think, as written, the language represents a reasonable approach to better understand the 

global endowment of rare earths development resources. 

Mr. JOHNSON OF GEORGIA. It is a fact, is it not, that 97 percent 

of rare earth mineral production takes place in China currently? 

Mr. DOEBRICH. Production. That is correct. 

Mr. JOHNSON OF GEORGIA. China has recently slapped on some 

export or has increased export quota and also export tariffs, which 

have raised the price of these rare earth goods to the tune at least 

400 percent, are you aware of that? 

Mr. DOEBRICH. Yes, sir. 

Mr. JOHNSON OF GEORGIA. So as the supply dwindles, the price 

increases and we are losing control over our ability to compete in 

this global economy without these kinds of materials being available, is that true? 

Mr. DOEBRICH. Yes, sir. 

Mr. JOHNSON OF GEORGIA. Now do you agree that the completion 

of a global assessment of rare earth resources is a logical next step 

to ensure that the United States understands adequately where 

these rare earth elements are located across the world? 

Mr. DOEBRICH. Yes, we do. I mean the issue is China is a supply 

risk issue. When we have commodities being produced from geographical—the production is geographically concentrated that 

present potential a supply risk issue. Other commodities, for example, copper where production is geographically disbursed, even 

though it is a very important commodity for a lot of things that we 

manufacture, the supply risk is not there because it is geographically disbursed. So I think with a better understanding of rare 

earth resource potential supply with potential friendly trading 

partners, if you will, that perhaps would put us in a better position 

to understand where our future supply may come from. 

Mr. JOHNSON OF GEORGIA. Thank you, Mr. Doebrich. 

Mr. Engdahl, from your vantage point in the business of rare 

earth element production, do you agree that H.R. 1314 would be 

an important piece of a broader effort to secure U.S. supply of rare 

earth elements? 

Mr. ENGDAHL. Yes, I do. First off, Congressman Holt, I would 

just like to clarify the first point. In my written statement that is 

correct—you are correct on that. And Mr. Johnson, I appreciate 

your leadership on this issue as well. 

32 

On your question, yes I do believe it is important to have a global 

perspective on this as well to really understand—the knowledge of 

any commodity you really have to understand the global perspective as we are operating in a global industry right now. And to 

really have an effective industry within your own country, you really do need to understand the big picture. 

Mr. JOHNSON OF GEORGIA. It does cost money in order to develop 

this information that we need in order to compete in this century. 

Mr. ENGDAHL. Yes, it does. 

Mr. JOHNSON OF GEORGIA. Ten million dollars over three years 

does that sound to be an excessive amount to you to undertake this 

global survey? 

Mr. ENGDAHL. I would probably have to think about that a little 

bit, but it sounds like it might be in the reasonable ballpark, but 

depending how in depth you want to really go as this industry is 

changing radically by the day and new sources are coming through 

right often. 

Mr. JOHNSON OF GEORGIA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. LAMBORN. All right. Thank you. 

Next to ask question is Mr. Johnson of Ohio. 

Mr. JOHNSON OF OHIO. Thank you Mr. Chairman for holding this 

important legislative hearing on how critical and strategic minerals 

are essential to our economy, our livelihood, and in fact our national security. I want to thank the panel for being with us this 

morning. 

I am proud to be an original cosponsor of H.R. 2011, the National Strategic and Critical Minerals Policy Act because as we 

have heard from the panel’s testimony and the witnesses today 

these rare earth minerals and components are important consumer 

products, but more importantly to defense equipment. 

It is clear to me that America doesn’t currently have a rare 

earths strategy to ensure that America has access to these important minerals. H.R. 2011 would give us the information necessary 

to understand what resources America has and from there we can 

develop a plan that allows for a strong domestic mineral policy that 

creates American jobs and reduces our dependence on foreign 

sources for these rare earth minerals. I do have a couple of questions. 

Mr. Engdahl, in your testimony you briefly mentioned the need 

for permitting reform and how Great Western Minerals has operations overseas. Can you give this Committee an idea of how the 

U.S. process compares to other countries where you are active, 

based on your experience? 

Mr. ENGDAHL. Yes. We are very familiar with the permitting 

process in Canada and South Africa is where we are operating 

right now. In Canada, the permitting process is not a whole lot different than it is in the United States and the average time to take 

a mine from exploration to production is very similar to unfortunately what Mr. Sullivan had mentioned. Seven to ten years is 

kind of the expected from discovery right through. So we have the 

same issues as it relates to some of the permitting issues as well. 

On the other side, in South Africa my experience there is somewhat limited as we had already bought an operation that was virtually fully permitted right through to mine production, as it was 

33 

a former existing producing mine. But in South Africa we understand, and the experience that we have there is that it will be 

somewhat less, certainly, than the seven to ten years, but how 

much we are not sure. The bureaucracy is still fairly heavy there 

as well. 

Mr. JOHNSON OF OHIO. Is Canada and South Africa the only two 

places where you do business overseas? 

Mr. ENGDAHL. It is the only two places at the moment that we 

are in the process of developing and exploring mining operations. 

We have other operations in the alloy manufacturing in England. 

Mr. JOHNSON OF OHIO. OK. 

Commissioner Sullivan you mentioned how Governor Parnell recently wrote the President and the Secretary of Energy and asked 

the Administration to further coordinate with Alaska so that we 

are properly facilitating the development of rare earth minerals in 

Alaska. Have you heard back formally or even informally from the 

Administration on this request? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Yes, sir. 

Mr. JOHNSON OF OHIO. What is the result? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. This is a little bit different from my testimony 

yesterday, but I think in this regard the conversations we have had 

have been positive. There is an interest from the Administration on 

working with the State of Alaska. As I mentioned, we are trying 

to do a lot of things on our own, but we have had discussions with 

White House officials and there is a lot of interest in terms of coordinating and cooperating. So we are viewing that constructively. 

The Governor in his letters to the Secretary and the President 

has had a lot of recommendations in terms of where we can cooperate. We haven’t gotten specifics on that yet, but the initial feedback, as I mentioned has been positive. 

Mr. JOHNSON OF OHIO. OK. 

For anyone on the panel, Mr. Engdahl you as well, is a sevento ten-year permitting process is that acceptable in your mind in 

terms of being a leader and going after these rare earth minerals? 

Mr. ENGDAHL. It is always nice to be able to do it in the shortest 

period possible, and whatever that period is without impacting in 

a negative way the environment and safety. I think the opportunity 

to reduce below seven to ten years is absolutely there just through 

improvements in the efficiencies and without affecting in a negative way the environment and safety. Really, it comes down to coordination. In our case, where I am fairly familiar on the Canadian, is the cooperation between provincial and Federal governments as opposed to state and Federal governments here. The cooperation between the two is one of the holes that create a lot of 

the inefficiencies in the process. 

Mr. JOHNSON OF OHIO. Thank you very much. I yield back, Mr. 

Chairman. 

Mr. LAMBORN. Thank you. 

Mr. Thompson of Pennsylvania. 

Mr. THOMPSON. Thank you, Chairman. Thank you gentlemen for 

your expertise and your testimony on this very important issue 

where obviously access to needed minerals, rare earths—all minerals I think are extremely important to our country from many 

different perspectives—and we have heard about a lot of different, 

34 

multiple variables. I want to stay with the permitting process and 

so my question is for maybe Mr. Doebrich or maybe Ms. Burke. I 

don’t know who is most appropriate. 

I have heard a lot of numbers, seven to ten years in terms of 

Federal permitting. One specific example of a gold mine was I 

think Kensington was referenced in someone’s testimony for 20 

years, is our agencies working to improve the efficiency of that 

process? If so, what is the goal and what measures are being taken 

to improve the efficiency of that process or is seven to ten years the 

most efficient that we will ever get? 

Mr. DOEBRICH. I will have to defer to Ms. Burke here, please. 

Ms. BURKE. Good morning and thank you for this opportunity to 

clarify some of this information. 

It is true that from discovery to production that it takes seven 

to nine or ten years. But generally, with respect to large mines 

from the beginning of our processing of a plan or an application, 

if you will, to our decision averages about four years. 

Mr. THOMPSON. What kind of variables go into that period of 

time? 

Ms. BURKE. There is the initial review of the plan for completeness and oftentimes there is some back and forth that we need to 

ask for additional information. There is the NEPA process, which 

is by far the largest part of that time, which can take I would say 

it is a three-year average, but we know it can take more time than 

that sometimes. 

Then there is the financial guarantee negotiation, if you will, to 

determine what kind of bonding is necessary and then to get to the 

final approval. So all that is wrapped up into a four-year average. 

Mr. THOMPSON. Thank you. 

Commissioner Sullivan, first of all, congratulations on frankly 

based on your testimony Alaska’s efforts to really facilitate domestic production of strategic minerals, seeing the things that you 

mentioned, the actions you have taken in Alaska, the bonding authority, road construction studies and the permitting, single point 

of contact. 

In your efforts to refine and streamline the permitting process 

from a state perspective, are there lessons that you have learned 

in your state that you would recommend to this Committee in 

terms of considering on a more national perspective? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Yes, sir. I think the one that I mentioned earlier 

is the single point of contact. And we have this team in the state 

and we permit large mines on state land and work through that. 

This is a project team that does not just mining, any major project 

development in the state. If an industry or company wants to go 

through this large project team, they essentially get an advocate 

who is the single point of contact and who coordinates all the permitting within the state government system. We have been complimented on that working very well because this person knows the 

system well and can help streamline and accelerate what the different agencies within state government have to do in terms of permitting. We think a system like that could work in the Federal permitting process and could be a good model on working through 

these efficiencies and making sure different agencies have similar 

goals. 

35 

Mr. THOMPSON. Getting back to Ms. Burke, we had a gentleman 

in here from another agency. He was talking about how the Administration is going to fast track environmental assessment and I believe it was for wind offshore, which I thought was a brilliant idea, 

building a very fast track, efficient, NEPA assessment. I don’t 

know if it was considered that. Has there been any consideration 

of that with the agency since it sounds like the largest part of— 

and I am not talking about shortcuts that would threaten the environment in any way, but really just streamlining the process. 

It looks like the Administration is willing to do that for some alternative energies. Has there been any consideration, as you described, that this is probably the largest piece of that permitting 

time, the extensive permitting time? 

Ms. BURKE. Yes, you are correct that with respect to renewable 

energy that we have a fast track process in that we have deployed 

additional resources so that we are able to get from start to finish 

more expeditiously. 

With respect to mining, we have not employed such a concept. 

However, we are working, and I know that it can be frustrating for 

the mining companies, for everyone involved, we are working to be 

better coordinated across the Federal family and that involves coordination early at the beginning of the process so there can be an 

exchange of information and so we don’t get rather far down the 

line and then have to back up and fix some things. So I think my 

time has expired. 

Mr. THOMPSON. I would just offer that I think the return investment from mining—we are talking about rare minerals so we don’t 

want to be dependent on China. The return on investment by doing 

that for mining I think would be a much bigger yield than the return on investment from alternative energies. 

Mr. LAMBORN. Thank you. 

Now with the agreement of the witnesses, I would like to have 

a second round of questions. There is a limited number of us here, 

so it should go pretty quickly. Seeing agreement, I will go ahead 

and start the second round. 

Madame, you just mentioned, if I heard you right, that you expedite renewable energy projects, but not mining or oil and gas 

projects, did I hear you correctly? 

Ms. BURKE. That is correct. We have a process for expediting renewable projects. 

Mr. LAMBORN. Why don’t you give the same what I would consider equitable expedited review to all projects? 

Ms. BURKE. We have made some decision prioritizing and are 

open to discussion about how we should be deploying our resources, 

but we have made the decision as an Administration to make renewable energy one of our priorities. 

Mr. LAMBORN. So this is just in the last two years or so? 

Ms. BURKE. Actually, the deployment of resources began during 

the last administration, but we have certainly made it a more robust program during this administration. 

Mr. LAMBORN. That is something we are going to want to delve 

more into. I can guarantee you that. 

36 

Mr. Duclos, above and beyond the rare earth minerals, what 

other minerals would you consider strategic or critical, or are there 

others? 

Mr. DUCLOS. Yes, we have done an assessment based on supply 

and price risk as well as criticality to GE, so this is a GE assessment in terms of what elements are critical. And to be honest, 

these are proprietary information because we consider this analysis. So the process was a quantitative process of assessing supply 

and demand risks as well as a quantitative process of assessing the 

criticality to our company. So those things that ended up high on 

both of those scales are materials that we are looking at in terms 

of developing a comprehensive plan to minimize the risk. 

It is based on a procedure that the National Academy has developed a couple of years ago and actually that the Department of 

Energy used for their study that came out in December on critical 

elements for green energy. What comes out of this is the fact that 

there is a limited set of elements that you really do need to focus 

on and we need to do that analysis so that we can get on with solving the issues. I would say that these assessments of the supply 

and demand are a key part of that. Certainly, as manufacturers 

that need to do this analysis that supply and demand risk is pretty 

much independent of who you are, OK. It is the impact access that 

depend on who you are. 

So by having this analysis done, it simplifies our analysis by a 

factor of two, roughly. It is something that I think the Federal Government certainly can helps. 

Mr. LAMBORN. So it is fair to say without going into proprietary 

information that there are elements above and beyond the rare 

earths that are potentially critical or strategic? 

Mr. DUCLOS. Yes, speaking from the standpoint of General Electric rare earths are definitely high on the list, but there are others. 

yes. 

Mr. LAMBORN. Also for the National Association of Manufacturers, would the same hold true? 

Mr. DUCLOS. At this point I can only speak for GE. 

Mr. LAMBORN. But certainly GE. OK. Can this change in the future as new technologies drive demand for new materials? 

Mr. DUCLOS. Yes. We have been doing these analyses for years 

now. We do see elements moving around in this chart of demand 

and supply risk versus impact. It does depend on time. 

Mr. LAMBORN. So looking at the two bills that are in front of this 

Committee today, would you prefer a study that focused only on 

the rare earths or on the broader spectrum of critical minerals? 

Mr. DUCLOS. Since there are a few elements that we do consider 

critical outside of the rare earths, it should be a bit broader. However, our focus right now would be on the rare earths and the 

NAM’s position is that rare earths are clearly the area that needs 

to be the focus today. 

Mr. LAMBORN. OK. Thank you. And is it important to know, as 

H.R. 2011 calls for, what part of the nation’s mineral endowment 

is open for mineral entry and what is not available? 

Mr. DUCLOS. From my standpoint, I guess I am not expert 

enough to address that. 

37 

Mr. LAMBORN. Would any of the other witnesses care to answer 

that particular question? Mr. Sullivan? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Yes, sir. I think it is a very important question. 

I think that in my testimony there are very significant parts of 

Alaska, which are Federal land, but there are significant parts of 

that Federal land that are not open to mineral exploration. What 

we would not propose is to say everything should be open, but 

when we have done an assessment, and we are doing our state assessment right now is going to be both state lands, Federal lands, 

and native lands. 

When we do an assessment and if we find something that has 

a lot of potential—and as I mentioned in the testimony we have 72 

different occurrences of rare earth elements in Alaska. If we do see 

that and it is in a Federal area where it is closed off to mineral 

exploration, we believe it would make sense on the highly prospective areas to carve out an area on those Federal lands that are currently banned from exploration to actually make an exception in 

those areas. 

Mr. LAMBORN. Thank you all for answering the questions. Ranking Member Holt. 

Mr. HOLT. Thank you. Some good exchanges. 

Mr. Duclos, I think we will want to, as we look at supplies of 

rare earths and critical minerals look at alternatives, manufacturing tradeoffs and substitutions as well as opportunities for recycling. I am wondering whether we or whoever we designate to do 

this will be able to do a reasonable job if we don’t have the full cooperation of the users, the manufacturers. Will it be possible to 

talk about substitutions, will the manufacturers give full cooperation about what is used and what might be used instead of it? 

Furthermore, I would like you to first answer the question and 

maybe others would add to this also of whether recycling is even 

feasible, whether small amounts of rare earths that are used in 

certain alloys or certain paints or whatever can be recovered economically, whether that is a reasonable way to go. If it is, whether 

proprietary limitations would prevent that from being part of any 

initiative that we would start? 

Mr. DUCLOS. Certainly, to address your first question, the availability of these materials is absolutely critical to manufacturing. I 

mean you can’t build these products without them. So manufacturers will be very open in terms of trying to figure out solutions to 

this. 

Mr. HOLT. I mean more open than you would be. You couldn’t 

even say what non-rare earth materials you would consider critical. 

You weren’t talking about amounts. You weren’t talking about 

where they would be used. This is a company that makes everything from plumbing to jet engines. This is where I am wondering 

where we are going to go with this without being really more restrictive than your company or similar companies would want us 

to be. 

Mr. DUCLOS. Yes. So this is actually I think an area where the 

Federal Government can play a role. In terms of collecting this proprietary information from companies so that as GE see our use of 

a particular element increasing over the next three or four years, 

as we develop technologies and decide to use new elements this is 

38 

information that is proprietary because we can’t telegraph to our 

competitors. However, we would be willing to share this with the 

Federal Government that could then pull in that proprietary information from all of the manufacturers and help develop and see 

around the corners of where we need to be. 

Mr. HOLT. In the short time that we have because I really wanted to get to some other things too, is recycling feasible? Who has 

looked at that? Mr. Doebrich? 

Mr. DOEBRICH. Yes, my understanding is that recycling in the 

strictest sense was not terribly feasible for rare earths. Actually extracting the rare earths from the manufactured products would be 

just as difficult, if not more than what is required to extract it from 

the very complex minerals that they are found in now. 

I think where people are talking about recycling is actually really 

reuse. For example, magnets, neodymium magnets, very strong 

magnets. If there is a 5-gram magnet used in a discarded product, 

that 5-gram magnet could be taken out and used in a new product, 

or that 5-gram magnet could be remanufactured into two smaller 

2-gram magnets. So that is the type of reuse as opposed to recycling that I think is what is feasible in terms of rare earth. 

Mr. HOLT. Let me get to two quick questions about permitting. 

Let me ask Ms. Burke. When we talk about streamlining the permitting, how many permits are currently pending, are we talking 

about ones or twos, or thirties or forties? 

Ms. BURKE. Currently, under the Mining Law of 1872, we have 

370 pending plans that we are evaluating. 

Mr. HOLT. On critical minerals I am talking about. I am sorry. 

Critical minerals. 

Ms. BURKE. Critical I don’t have the numbers broken down. Rare 

earths? None. 

Mr. HOLT. OK. 

And Mr. Engdahl, just a quick question. Is it true, as I understand, that Canadian companies in international mining operations 

must adhere to regulations on safety and environment that are at 

least as strict as Canada’s. 

Mr. ENGDAHL. That is correct. 

Mr. HOLT. Is it also not true that some of the largest and most 

successful mining companies in the world are headquartered in 

Canada? 

Mr. ENGDAHL. That is also correct. 

Mr. HOLT. All right. Thank you. 

Mr. LAMBORN. Thank you. I want to thank all of the witnesses 

for being here today. This has been illuminating, very helpful, and 

we appreciate your comments and your testimony. 

We would like to say that members of the Committee might have 

additional questions for you for the record and I would ask that 

you respond to those in writing, if you receive those. 

And if there is no further business, without objection, the 

Subcommittee stands adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:30 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 

Æ