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

86–877 PDF 2014

S. HRG. 113–192 

CRITICAL MINERALS POLICY ACT 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON 

ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

TO

RECEIVE TESTIMONY ON S. 1600, THE CRITICAL MINERALS POLICY ACT 

OF 2013 

JANUARY 28, 2014 

( 

Printed for the use of the 

Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES 

RON WYDEN, Oregon, Chairman 

TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota 

MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana 

MARIA CANTWELL, Washington 

BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont 

DEBBIE STABENOW, Michigan 

MARK UDALL, Colorado 

AL FRANKEN, Minnesota 

JOE MANCHIN, III, West Virginia 

BRIAN SCHATZ, Hawaii 

MARTIN HEINRICH, New Mexico 

TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin 

LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska 

JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming 

JAMES E. RISCH, Idaho 

MIKE LEE, Utah 

DEAN HELLER, Nevada 

JEFF FLAKE, Arizona 

TIM SCOTT, South Carolina 

LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee 

ROB PORTMAN, Ohio 

JOHN HOEVEN, North Dakota 

JOSHUA SHEINKMAN, Staff Director 

SAM E. FOWLER, Chief Counsel 

KAREN K. BILLUPS, Republican Staff Director 

PATRICK J. MCCORMICK III, Republican Chief Counsel 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

STATEMENTS 

Page 

Conrad, Gregory, Executive Director, Interstate Mining Compact Commission, 

and on Behalf of Alaska Department of Natural Resources, Anchorage, 

AK .......................................................................................................................... 41

Danielson, David, Ph.D., Assistant Secretary, Office of Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy, Department of Energy ........................................................ 7 

Eggert, Roderick, Professor And Director of The Division of Economics and 

Business, Colorado School of Mines, Golden, CO .............................................. 51 

Heller, Hon. Dean, U.S. Senator From Nevada .................................................... 3 

Isaacs, David, Vice President of Government Affairs, Semiconductor Industry 

Association ............................................................................................................ 36 

Latiff, Maj. Gen. Robert H., (Retired), Ph.D, Research Professor and Director 

for Intelligence Community Programs School of Engineering, George Mason 

University ............................................................................................................. 25 

Meinert, Lawrence D., Mineral Resources Program Coordinator, U.S. Geological Survey, Department of the Interior .............................................................. 13 

Murkowski, Hon. Lisa, U.S. Senator From Alaska ............................................... 4 

Sims, Jim, Vice President, Corporate Communications, Molycorp, Inc., Greenwood Village, CO .................................................................................................. 29 

Thomas, Jennifer, Director. Federal Affairs, The Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers .............................................................................................................. 48 

Udall, Hon. Mark, U.S. Senator From Colorado ................................................... 6 

Wyden, Hon. Ron, U.S. Senator From Oregon ...................................................... 1 

APPENDIXES 

APPENDIX I 

Responses to additional questions .......................................................................... 65 

APPENDIX II 

Additional material submitted for the record ........................................................ 73 

(1) 

CRITICAL MINERALS POLICY ACT 

TUESDAY, JANUARY 28, 2014 

U.S. SENATE, COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES, Washington, DC. 

The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:09 a.m. in room 

SD–366, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Ron Wyden, chairman, presiding. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. RON WYDEN, U.S. SENATOR 

FROM OREGON 

The CHAIRMAN. The committee will come to order. 

Today the committee will turn its attention to S. 1600, the Critical Minerals Policy Act of 2013. 

It has been a pleasure to join Senator Murkowski in negotiating 

a truly bipartisan bill as evidenced by the 9 Democratic and 8 Republican cosponsors. 

We’ve been joined by 17 of our Senate colleagues, including committee members—Senators Udall, Franken, Risch, Hoeven, 

Landrieu, and Manchin. 

It seems to me, Senator Murkowski, this is a testament to the 

bipartisan effort to reach agreement and I want to tell you again 

how much I’ve enjoyed being part of this bipartisan effort through 

the negotiations that were held. 

As the committee learned in passing the Helium Stewardship 

Act, our country depends on materials that are not burned or consumed for energy, but are key to many energy technologies, from 

wind turbines, to batteries, to oil refineries, as well as a host of 

other technologies. Our country is increasingly dependent on these 

minerals, to increase efficiency, lower costs, and improve performance of manufactured products in these industries. Without them, 

many of our essential U.S. industries would struggle to survive. 

Critical minerals are minerals which are essential to American 

industries and may be at risk for supply disruption such as by a 

small global market or geopolitical complexities. 

This legislation tackles these issues head on and most importantly it ensures a steady supply of the materials that are crucial 

to thousands of good paying American jobs. One of the keys to help 

putting Americans back to work and to help our businesses in a 

tough global economy is to get it right with respect to our essential, 

domestic policies. 

If I was going to sum it up in a sentence, I would say our premier challenge is to grow things in America, make things in America, add value to them in America, and then ship them somewhere. 

2 

To do that American businesses need access to raw materials in especially, in a high technology area, that means access to what is 

known as the critical mineral field. 

Critical minerals are the key to stronger permanent magnets for 

wind turbines, for cleaner energy, and electric drive vehicles. 

They’re vital to phosphors which give us more efficient lighting and 

flat panel displays and also give our military night vision goggles 

and heads up displays. 

Critical minerals are key to rechargeable batteries in hybrid and 

electric vehicles and the high efficiency motors that power them. 

They serve as catalysts for fuel cells and for refining automobile 

fuel. We also know that they’re essential for many of our advanced 

weapon systems, MRI machines, and many other technologies that 

are vital to America’s national and economic security. 

Yet for as critical as these minerals are, our country has been 

dangerously depending on imports from foreign suppliers. The 

United States imports all, all our rare earth oxides, a special class 

of critical minerals. In fact, American imports the vast majority of 

them from a single supplier. Ninety-one percent of our rare earths 

come solely from China, and our country has seen how dangerous 

this dependence can be. 

In 2009, China choked off the supply of these materials to the 

rest of the world, restricting exports by 72 percent, causing the 

prices of rare earths to skyrocket here at home. 

Although China currently enjoys near monopoly in the global 

production of critical materials, we’re talking now about both mining and processing, the truth is it didn’t used to be this way. I 

think it’s our view, of our bipartisan coalition, that it doesn’t have 

to be this way in the future. 

Fifteen years ago the United States was self-reliant for our rare 

earths. Today China holds only 50 percent of the worlds natural reserves while our country holds about 13 percent according to a recent study by the U.S. Geological Survey. 

In fact, a large part of the critical mineral supply shock in 2009 

was due to uncertainty about the global distribution of critical minerals. When China began to restrict supply, the rest of the world 

was in the dark about what the alternative sources of the supply 

were, and were they even available. 

Finally, a crucial but too often neglected part of this supply conversation is minerals processing. Although mining is an important 

part of the supply equation and S. 1600 encourages Federal agencies to expedite the permitting for new critical minerals extraction, 

it is the lack of processing capacity transforming the raw materials 

we pull out of the ground into the high-purity compounds needed 

for manufacturing. It is that challenge that is my concern and the 

concern of many experts. In a sense, it is our Achilles heel. 

Mining more ore in the United States is not going to reduce our 

dependence on foreign suppliers if the United States does not develop the processing and refining technologies and infrastructure 

needed to turn the ore into useful products and then recycle them 

at the end of their useful lives. 

S. 1600 expands the U.S supply of critical minerals by looking 

comprehensively at the entire domestic supply chain of critical minerals. The bill starts with the identification of which minerals and 

3 

elements are truly in need of special attention. It then requires the 

Interior Department to conduct assessments of where those minerals are located and expands research to find more efficient ways 

of extracting and processing the minerals. 

The bill also requires the 2 lead agencies, the Department of the 

Interior and the Department of Agriculture, to take a fresh look at 

the permitting process. We ought to make sure, with respect to 

hard rock minerals, that we’re looking at every possible way to reduce delays for mining projects that would extract critical minerals. 

The legislation also includes important training programs for our 

future scientists and the bill includes research programs to extract 

critical minerals from unconventional sources. 

Our witnesses today also represent the entire supply chain from 

research and education, to mining and processing, to manufacturing the final end products our people use every day. We thank 

them for testifying. 

Two of my colleagues have spent an inordinate amount of time 

working with the committee trying to deal with both the substance 

and the politics of putting together a bipartisan bill when sometimes people wonder if the U.S. Senate can order a Coca-Cola, let 

alone do an important piece of legislation. 

I want to commend Senator Murkowski and Senator Udall. We’ll 

recognize Senator Murkowski now, then we want to recognize Senator Udall who also has toiled hard and effectively on this issue. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Dean Heller follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. DEAN HELLER, U.S. SENATOR FROM NEVADA

Chairman Wyden and Ranking Member Murkowski, thank you for holding today’s 

hearing. Mining is integral to Nevada’s economy, and we have a proud tradition of 

leading the nation on mining and mineral research. The legislation we are considering today would go a long way towards bringing federal mineral policy into the 

21st Century, and I am proud to be an original co-sponsor of this important legislation. 

I would like to also thank Mr. Jim Sims, Vice President of Corporate Communications at Molycorp for being here. The company’s Mountain Pass rare earth facility 

is only about seventy miles south of Las Vegas. The project has been an important 

economic driver in the region, employing hundreds of Nevadans, during a time 

where my state continues to lead the nation in unemployment. I have had the pleasure of working with Molycorp while it went through the site expansion permitting 

process, and I am proud that Nevadans are playing such a leading role in our nation’s only rare earth oxide producing facility. 

In Nevada and across the country, we have an abundance of critical and strategic 

minerals that play a vital role in our everyday lives, as well as our nation’s economic success and national security. The mining industry is one of the central pillars of Nevada’s economy, directly employing thousands of Nevadans. But as many 

people familiar with mining communities know, the jobs directly at the project sites 

are just one aspect of their economic impact. The influx of hundreds of mining jobs 

into local communities ultimately facilitates additional economic growth supporting 

the mine and the people who work there. Those mine workers need restaurants to 

eat at, convenience stores to shop at, and places to live. A recent economic study 

showed that mining provides more than 60,000 direct and indirect jobs in the State 

producing over $200 million in tax revenue and nearly $10 billion of economic activity annually. That is why, even though Nevada currently has one of the highest unemployment rates in the country, the areas in my state that rely on mining, such 

as Elko County, have an unemployment rate that is nearly half of the State’s average. 

I am pleased to join this diverse bipartisan group of senators working to enact 

the Critical Minerals Policy Act. These reforms can reduce our nation’s reliance on 

other countries for the resources we need to power our economy. 

4 

STATEMENT OF HON. LISA MURKOWSKI, U.S. SENATOR 

FROM ALASKA 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Thank you Mr. Chairman. 

I do appreciate the fact that you have scheduled up this hearing 

today and very pleased that we are at this point. 

You have noted the bipartisanship that went into constructing 

this bill and you’ve mentioned several members of the committee, 

I appreciate your leadership on it as Chairman, but I particularly 

want to recognize my friend and colleague Senator Udall who had 

his own bill in the last session and our folks got together and 

worked through some of the issues. I think what we have built is 

a legislative proposal that is good and sound and rational and exactly what should happen in a committee likes this. 

So I thank you for the opportunity to hear this this morning and 

again to Senator Udall my thanks to you for your great cooperation 

in building what I think is a good bill here. 

I think it is somewhat, I suppose serendipitous, maybe it’s a little bit presumptuous the bill was numbered S. 1600 and when I 

think of 1600 I think about the white place down the road here. 

It is my hope that because our bill really does address such significant issues this critical supply chain it already has 19 members on 

board in a bipartisan sense I really do think that we can send this 

down the road this year. That would be a great win for this country, and so I will continue to keep working on this with of my colleagues. 

Mr. Chairman you’ve outlined the contents of the bill very well 

in your opening remarks. I appreciate particularly your recognition 

that if we don’t have the processing capacity and ability, we are 

still left in a very, very vulnerable state. 

I think we recognize that well we don’t have the lion’s share of 

critical minerals here in this country, we do have very good supplies, we certainly have very strong supplies in my home State and 

an opportunity to gain access to them we’re looking at it very critically. 

The problem though then the concern is we would have to ship 

it to China to be processed. So, once again they have the leverage 

that I think we’re trying to get around here. So I appreciate again 

you highlighting that aspect of what we need to do when we’re 

talking about the supply chain. 

I mentioned that we have reintroduced this bill with the proposals that I had outlined in my legislation along with Senator 

Udall’s. A little over 2 years ago at a hearing very similar to what 

we’re having today I asserted that the problem that we have on our 

hands is very real. Today I would assert that that problem has not 

diminished. 

Our mineral related policies remain outdated, our dependence on 

foreign minerals is reportedly deepening as you had mentioned. 

Our agencies are not as coordinated and focused on this issue as 

I believe they need to be, and when it comes to permitting delays 

for mines, our Nation is tied for last. In other words we’re the 

worst in the world when it comes to permitting delays. 

All along the supply chain our mineral related capabilities have 

slipped. Unless we take meaningful action, and soon, I think our 

economy and our security can be jeopardized. Our recent experiVerDate Nov 24 2008 14:20 Apr 14, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 G:\DOCS\86877.TXT WANDA
5 

ence with helium shows how dire a shortage of a critical mineral 

would be for many different industries. We need to realize that unless we do more to ensure our own domestic supply, we may have 

no way to present—prevent a crisis next time around. 

Now our colleagues over in the house have presented ideas to fix 

this problem and I think that we should consider them fairly just 

as we expect that they will consider ours. The fact to the matter 

is that we’ve taken different approaches between the 2 bodies. 

Here in the Senate we focus on the entire supply chain by establishing a process through which minerals can be designated as critical; by adding accountability to the permitting process; by returning agencies to the important work of geological surveying; by seeking alternatives and encouraging recycling; and by promoting a 

work force that can rise to the challenges that undoubtedly lie 

ahead. 

Now I know that we’re all focused here today on the big speech 

that’s going to be delivered in the Capital later this evening. While 

I would love it, as we are sitting there listening to the President, 

if he would look at us, Senator Udall, the chairman here, myself 

and other members of the Energy Committee, and say the State of 

the Union would be better if we improved our mineral policies. 

Now I’m not going to hold my breath for that. Maybe we should 

try to send some mental telepathy between here and now and then, 

but I somehow doubt that that’s made it into his final text. But it 

is the truth and these are issues that deserve our attention. 

Minerals are the building blocks of our economy, critical to our 

prosperity, our standard of living and our competitiveness. We need 

a steady, affordable, and domestic supply of them and as you have 

pointed out Mr. Chairman, minerals that are mined here, refined 

here, and processed here, and made into products here. 

So again I’m pleased because we’ve got a good bipartisan bill, it’s 

practical, it’s physically responsible, it takes a comprehensive approach to an increasingly complex set of challenges. I think it’s 

worthy of our committee’s support and I would hope that we will 

reach that point very soon. 

I’ll look forward to the testimony from both panelists and thank 

you all for agreeing to be here this morning. 

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Murkowski thank you for an excellent 

statement. 

I also note that I hope that the bipartisanship of the Senate bill 

will infiltrate into the other body because their bill was not largely 

bipartisan. I think it was overwhelmingly a partisan vote. So the 

good work that you have helped to make possible I hope is going 

to set off a little bit of a push for some bipartisanship in the house 

and I thank you for it. 

Senator Udall, as Senator Murkowski has said—has put an exceptional amount of time into this and understands this issue inside out, inside and out. 

Senator Udall, we welcome you—— 

Senator UDALL. Thank—— 

The CHAIRMAN. Please go ahead. 

6 

STATEMENT OF HON. MARK UDALL, U.S. SENATOR 

FROM COLORADO 

Senator UDALL. Thank you Mr. Chairman, thank you Senator 

Murkowski for the kind words and we have been involved in this 

together. It’s been a labor of love, I’m really pleased with the point 

that we’re at and I think we’ve learned a lot in the process. 

One of the things I’ve learned is that rare earth materials and 

minerals aren’t actually rare they’re just rare in concentrated 

forms. It’s very—it’s time consuming, it’s technologically challenging, although we’re going to hear about some of the real advances today to concentrate those minerals and metals. 

I think this new term we’re using which is critical materials really does the job and sets up the agenda for us and the challenge but 

also the opportunity. So I want to associate myself with your remarks, both of your remarks and thank you for the kind words. 

I have 2 Coloradans I’m going to introduce to you in a minute, 

but I did want to add a couple of other comments. The reason I got 

involved in this, this is a very important issue for Colorado and it 

fits with 2 of my priorities which have been national security and 

clean energy, that doesn’t mean that traditional energy actually 

needs to use these kinds of materials as well. We ought to be leaders in this area not followers, we can partner with some of the 

other countries, but we can lead and this is what this legislation 

really gives us an opportunity to do. 

You all mentioned the legislative vehicles you’ve used, in 2011, 

I introduced the Critical Minerals and Materials Promotion Act 

and it focused on the very challenge and opportunity we’re talking 

about here today. My focus was on research and development 

which would then develop a -or strengthen I should say our domestic supply chain and then would have the result of further developing in more robust critical minerals industry work force. 

We want people to know how to do this and I’m really pleased 

that our revised version, the Critical Minerals Policy Act of 2013, 

includes these ideas and many more from my legislation as well as 

from what you all did. 

I can’t stay for the entire hearing, I hope you’ll understand that, 

but I did want to introduce these 2 Coloradans I mentioned. 

I want to start with Dr. Rod Eggert, he’s a professor and director 

of the Division of Economics and Business at the Colorado School 

of Mines. We’re very proud of the Colorado School of Mines. 

I don’t know, Dr. Eggert, maybe you can speak to this in your 

comments, But I don’t know if there’s any other institution in any 

other state that equals mines, but of course I’m a hometown boy 

and I care about Mines, it’s a wonderful school. As well as our Denver Broncos we’re going to win on Sunday, but anyway that—I 

shouldn’t. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator UDALL. Dr. Eggert you’re known as a leading expert on 

rare earth minerals and you chair the National Research Council 

and you helped literally to write the book on why critical minerals 

are so vital to our economy. You’re also the deputy director of the 

Critical Minerals Institute. The Institute is a DOE energy innovation hub and I believe you focus there on research to more efficiently use current materials, reduce waste during manufacturing, 

7 

diversify our supply and many other important areas of research 

occur at the institute. 

So thank you for that great work and I know the committee will 

benefit from your expertise. 

Sitting just behind you is Jim Sims and he’s the Vice President 

of Corporate Communications for Molycorp. Molycorp is a Colorado 

based company, it’s a world leader in rare earths and rare metals. 

They have a facility in California, Mountain Pass facility and 

there—and I just got an update from Jim, Molycorp is creating one 

of the most energy efficient environmentally friendly rare earth 

production facilities in the world. 

Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member we also have a third witness 

with us who has a connection with the great State of Colorado and 

that’s Major General Robert Latiff. He was the commander of 

NORAD, outside Colorado Springs and I’m glad that he’s here and 

able to share some of his insights with the committee today from 

a national security perspective. 

So again thank you all for taking your valuable time. This is a 

crucial hearing and again I extend my gratitude to the ranking 

member and the chairman for having this important hearing today. 

We’ll, whip the House of Representatives into shape on this, I have 

no doubt. 

The CHAIRMAN. There you are. Thank you again for the good 

work you’ve done, let’s just make sure the record is clear, if Senator Cantwell of Washington comes in we are going to give her 

equal time—— 

[Laughter.] 

The CHAIRMAN [continuing]. To address the gridiron front. 

Senator UDALL. That’s true. 

The CHAIRMAN. Let’s go right to our witnesses, we’ve got Dr. 

David Danielson the Assistant Secretary for the Office of Energy 

Efficiency and Renewable Energy at the Department. They house 

the Critical Minerals Institute and the advanced manufacturing office. 

Dr. Larry Meinert, he is the mineral resources program coordinator for the USGS at the Department of the Interior. 

Gentleman we will make your prepared remarks a part of the 

record in their entirety. I’ve come to feel that there’s almost a physiological need at these sessions to read every bit of what we’ll put 

into the record. If you can just kind of summarize your key views, 

that’ll leave plenty of time for questions. 

Why don’t we start with you Dr. Danielson? 

STATEMENT OF DAVID DANIELSON, PH.D., ASSISTANT SECRETARY, OFFICE OF ENERGY EFFICIENCY AND RENEWABLE 

ENERGY, DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

Mr. DANIELSON. Great, thank you. 

Chairman Wyden, Ranking Member Murkowski, and members of 

the committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify today on 

the important role that critical minerals play in moving the U.S. 

toward a clean energy economy and the Department of Energy’s ongoing work related to this topic. 

The Department is currently reviewing S. 1600, the Critical Minerals Policy Act of 2013 and has no specific comments on legislation 

8 

at this time. However DOE strongly believes in the importance of 

ensuring a stable sustainable domestic supply of critical minerals 

and has already begun to take significant actions to address this 

challenge. 

I represent DOE’s Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, EERE, which leads DOE’s efforts to help build a strong 

American clean energy economy. 

Critical materials are used in many traditional new and emerging energy applications including in lighting, solar photovoltaics, 

batteries, and wind turbines, and are expected to play an increasingly important role in meeting our national energy environmental 

and economic goals going forward. 

DOE has been moving swiftly on multiple fronts to address critical materials challenges and issued critical materials strategy reports in 2010 and 2011 that formally identified 5 rare earth materials, dysprosium, neodymium, europium, terbium, and yttrium as 

critical materials for clean energy applications and identified 2 additional elements lithium and tellurium as near critical materials. 

DOE’s Critical Materials Strategy Report identified 3 key pillars 

to address critical materials challenges. 

One, diversifying the supply of critical materials, 2, developing 

substitutes for critical materials, and 3, driving recycling, reuse, 

and more efficient use of critical materials. 

Several entities within DOE contribute to our critical materials 

R&D effort including the Office of Science, the Advanced Research 

Projects Agency-Energy, and our applied technology offices including my office EERE. 

EERE’s R&D investments including its Critical Materials Institute are directly aligned with the aforementioned 3 pillars of DOE’s 

critical materials strategy and are closely coordinated with other 

efforts across all of DOE. 

Regarding the first pillar diversifying supply, EERE has invested 

in technologies to improve domestic lithium production to supply 

the domestic battery industry as well as in technologies to recycle 

lithium batteries. We’ve also funded the development of technologies to cost effectively extract minerals such as lithium from 

geothermal brines to improve domestic production of geothermal 

energy at reduced cost. This year EERE intends to expand this 

work to develop technologies to cost effectively extract rare earth 

elements from geothermal brines as well. 

In the second pillar the area of critical materials substitutes. 

DOE has made significant research investments in alternative 

motor and generator topologies which contain no rare earth permanent magnets at all. EERE has also invested in magnetic materials 

research to develop magnets with lower rare earth content and to 

develop completely rare earth free permanent magnets as well. 

EERE also supports research on next generation wind turbine 

drive train technologies that could help reduce the use of rare 

earth elements while continuing to drive down the cost of wind energy. 

Improving the recycling and reuse of critical materials in the 

third pillar has had limited R&D investment at DOE until we recently stood up our Critical Materials Institute, or CMI, in the middle of last year in 2013. Led by Ames National Laboratory, the 

9 

Critical Materials Institute which is one of DOE’s energy innovation hubs brings together leading researchers from academia national laboratories in the private sector to develop solutions to the 

domestic shortages of rare earth metals and other materials critical 

for U.S. energy security. 

This institute has focused its R&D efforts around the 3 pillars 

of the DOE critical materials strategy. For example CMI researchers are studying new lower cost ways to extract, separate, and 

process rare earth metals from both ores and recycled materials, 

searching for substitutes for rare earth phosphors for efficient 

lighting, and developing new high strength, high temperature magnetic materials with low or no rare earth content. 

If successful the technologies being developed by CMI could reduce the rare earth content of permanent magnets by more than 

50 percent, reduce the amount of critical elements going to domestic landfills in the U.S. by up to 35 percent, and reduce the loss 

of critical rare earths within domestic manufacturing facilities by 

up to 50 percent. 

Finally DOE would like to underscore the importance of continued interagency coordination and collaboration on the topic of critical materials. DOE co-chairs an interagency subcommittee on critical and strategic mineral supply chains that facilitates coordination across Federal agencies to identify and address important 

issues related to critical minerals supply issues across all government. 

In conclusion the development and implementation of its critical 

materials strategy including the creation of the Critical Materials 

Institute, the DOE is taking strong initial steps forward to address 

the critical materials challenges faced by American manufacturers 

in the clean energy industry. We look very forward to working with 

Congress going forward to address the Nation’s critical materials 

challenges. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Danielson follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DAVID DANIELSON, PH.D., ASSISTANT SECRETARY, OFFICE

OF ENERGY EFFICIENCY AND RENEWABLE ENERGY, DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Introduction 

Chairman Wyden, Ranking Member Murkowski, and Members of the Committee, 

thank you for the opportunity to testify today on the important role that critical 

minerals play in moving the U.S. towards a clean energy economy and the U.S. Department of Energy’s (DOE) ongoing work related to this topic. 

Many domestically-manufactured products rely on critical materials, or materials 

that are important in their use and subject to supply restrictions. The energy industry is heavily reliant on critical materials and could be significantly affected by supply disruptions and resulting price increases and fluctuations. These critical materials are found in many traditional, new, and emerging energy applications, as well 

as key ingredients in lighting, solar photovoltaics and batteries, and many other applications. Technologies using critical materials are poised to make even more significant contributions to national energy, environmental, and economic goals. 

The Department is currently reviewing S. 1600, the Critical Minerals Policy Act 

of 2013, and has no specific comments on the legislation at this time. However, the 

Department believes in the importance of ensuring a stable, sustainable, domestic 

supply of critical minerals. We look forward to continuing our discussions with Congress on ways to: monitor and identify critical materials as they potentially impact 

the energy economy; address the production, use, and recycling of critical minerals 

throughout the supply chain; as well as develop alternatives to critical minerals 

moving forward. 

10 

1See: Bloomberg, ‘‘Global Trends in Renewable Energy Investment, Fact Pack as of Q4 2013’’ 

(Jan. 2014): http://about.bnef.com/files/2014/01/ 

BNEFllPRllFactPackllQ4llCleanEnergyInvestmentll2014-01-15.pdf 

The Department has been moving swiftly on multiple fronts to address challenges 

across the lifecycle of critical elements, while also exploring alternatives to those 

that are hardest to obtain. These efforts are informed by the Department’s Critical 

Materials Strategy developed in 2010 and 2011, which I will be happy to discuss 

with you today. I will also describe the Critical Materials Institute, an Energy Innovation Hub established by my office last year, and devoted to finding solutions in 

response to the scarcity of these elements that are critical to U.S. manufacturing 

and the expansion of clean energy technologies. 

DOE is pursuing an all-of-the-above approach to developing every source of American energy. I represent the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy 

(EERE), which leads DOE’s efforts to help build a strong clean energy economy, a 

strategy that is aimed at reducing our reliance on foreign oil, saving families and 

businesses money, creating jobs, and reducing pollution. We support some of America’s best innovators and businesses to research, develop, and demonstrate cuttingedge technologies, and work to break down market barriers in the EERE portfolio’s 

three sectors: 1) sustainable transportation (vehicles, biofuels, hydrogen and fuel 

cells); 2) energy efficiency (energy-saving homes, buildings, and manufacturing); and 

3) renewable electricity generation (solar, geothermal, hydrogen and fuel cells, wind 

and water). 

Our nation stands at a critical point in time regarding the competitive oppor- tunity for clean energy. In 2013, $254 billion was invested globally in clean energy, 

just over 360 percent increase since 2004; trillions more will be invested in the years 

ahead.1 In the decades-long transition to a clean energy economy, the United States 

faces a stark choice: the clean energy technologies of today and tomorrow can be 

invented and manufactured in America, or we can surrender global leadership and 

import these technologies from other countries. 

DOE’s Critical Materials Strategy 

Many of today’s clean energy technologies rely on the use of materials with certain essential properties, such as efficient light emission or strong magnetism. Many 

of those critical materials are essential to producing products that EERE is also investing in, and in order to address this reliance, in both 2010 and 2011, DOE issued 

Critical Materials Strategy reports that defined and assessed critical materials by 

analyzing two dimensions: importance to the clean energy industry, and supply risk. 

The Department’s 2010 and 2011 Critical Materials Strategy reports identified five 

rare earth materials—neodymium, europium, terbium, dysprosium, and yttrium—as 

critical materials currently essential for America’s transition to cost-competitive 

clean energy technologies, like wind turbines, electric vehicles, and energy efficient 

lighting. The Strategy reports also identified two additional elements, lithium and 

tellurium, as ‘‘near-critical’’ materials. Identifying and addressing near-critical element challenges is crucial as both the clean energy industry and critical materials 

market dynamics change. These particular non-rare earth materials play, at this 

time, an indispensable role in batteries for hybrid and electric vehicles and commercial photovoltaic thin films, and represent the next-highest criticality in terms of importance to the clean energy industry and risk of supply disruption. 

The Department’s Critical Materials Strategy reports identified three pillars to 

address critical materials challenges: 1) diversifying supply of critical materials, 2) 

developing alternatives to critical materials, and 3) driving recycling, reuse, and 

more efficient use of critical materials. I will address these in turn: First, diversified 

global supply chains are essential. To manage supply risk, multiple sources of materials are required. This means taking steps to facilitate the extraction, processing, 

and manufacturing of critical materials here in the United States, as well as encouraging other nations to expedite alternative supplies. In all cases, extraction, separation, processing, and manufacturing must be done in an environmentally sound 

manner. Second, substitutes must be developed. Research leading to material and 

technology substitutes will improve flexibility, decrease demand for critical materials, and help meet the materials needs of the clean energy economy. Third, recycling, reuse and more efficient use of critical materials could significantly lower 

world demand for newly extracted materials. Research into recycling processes coupled with well-designed policies will help make recycling economically viable over 

time. Addressing these three pillars is a moving target, as critical materials challenges change over time. Ongoing assessments are necessary to identify the status 

of current and emerging critical materials; as new technology develops and markets 

respond to supply risk, the criticality of materials will also shift. 

11 

DOE R&D Organizations 

Several entities within the Department contribute to the critical materials research and development (R&D) effort. The Basic Energy Sciences program in the Office of Science supports broad-based, fundamental materials research. The Advanced 

Research Projects Agency—Energy (ARPA-E) invests in high-potential, high-impact 

energy technologies that are likely too early for private-sector investment. Within 

EERE, investment in research related to critical materials occurs within the Vehicle 

Technologies Office (VTO), the Wind Power Technologies Office, the Solar Energy 

Technologies Office (SETO), the Geothermal Technologies Office (GTO), and the Advanced Manufacturing Office (AMO). 

DOE national laboratories are also integral to this R&D effort. The national laboratory system includes the nation’s historic leader in rare earth materials research, 

the Ames Laboratory in Ames, Iowa. While Ames Laboratory has a core-competency 

in rare earth materials, many other national laboratories also contribute significantly to R&D aimed at reducing the criticality of critical materials. For example, 

Argonne National Laboratory, Brookhaven National Laboratory, Pacific Northwest 

National Laboratory, Sandia National Laboratories, and Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory have complementary efforts spanning from basic and applied research to development and demonstration. 

In response to the Critical Materials Strategy reports, the Department of Energy 

launched a national competition for an Energy Innovation Hub. Early in 2013, DOE 

announced the Critical Materials Institute (CMI), led by Ames National Laboratory. 

CMI is the nation’s premier research, development and analysis institute dedicated 

to finding innovative solutions and developing creative, transformational paths to 

eliminating the criticality of rare earth and other materials. CMI began operations 

in June of 2013. CMI has brought together leading researchers from academia, four 

Department of Energy national laboratories, as well as the private sector to develop 

solutions to the domestic shortages of rare earth metals and other materials critical 

for U.S. energy security. CMI addresses materials criticality problems by developing 

technologies spanning the supply chain for the rare earth (plus lithium and tellurium) elements, as well as providing research infrastructure to address any emergent challenges related to materials criticality. 

CMI faces a formidable task: developing solutions to potential supply chain risks 

across the lifecycle of several different materials. The solutions will not be the same 

for different kinds of materials or applications. For example, technologies to improve 

separation and processing of rare earth elements from domestic deposits may increase the supply of neodymium (for magnets) but not europium (for lighting) due 

to the ore composition. 

The Institute has focused its efforts around the three pillars of the Critical Materials Strategy. For example, to diversify supply, researchers are studying new, lower 

cost ways to extract, separate and process rare earth metals from ores and recycled 

materials. To develop substitutes, Institute researchers, in partnership with private 

sector partners, are searching for substitutes for rare earth phosphors. Energy-efficient lighting phosphors currently need europium, terbium, and yttrium, and this 

group is searching for alternatives using materials such as manganese. To improve 

reuse and recycling, CMI’s R&D in this area is focused on two major areas: first, 

improving the cost- and energy-efficiency of separating the rare earth containing 

components from end-of-life products like light bulbs, hard drives and motors; and 

second, developing new technologies to extract rare earth elements from these endof-life components to produce new materials. If successful, the technologies proposed 

by CMI could reduce loss of critical rare earths within domestic manufacturing by 

50 percent and reduce critical rare earths elements going to domestic landfills by 

35 percent. 

In its first year of operations, the team is off to a fast start. Key start-up and 

management operations have been put in place. About 35 projects across the Institute are up and running. All of these projects involve multiple partners, often three 

or four partners collaborating to achieve the best solutions under CMI’s mission. 

EERE is pleased to report that CMI researchers filed seven intellectual property invention disclosures. While there is tremendous work still to be done by the Institute, 

that is a great sign of things to come. 

R&D Progress by DOE Programs 

In my office and across the Department, we have an obligation to research issues 

relevant to supporting manufacturing as it relates to energy. Increasing U.S. manufacturing competiveness relies on thinking broadly about addressing challenges 

across the supply chain and across various industrial applications in our R&D investments. By stepping up research related to critical materials, DOE will help ensure clean energy technologies will be invented and manufactured in America. 

12 

EERE’s R&D investments are directly aligned with the aforementioned three pillars 

of the Critical Materials Strategy and coordinated among the program offices across 

the Department. 

Regarding the first pillar—diversifying supply—some of the key research challenges in separations and processing of rare earth elements have been addressed 

historically at a small scale within the research portfolios of the Basic Energy 

Sciences program in the Office of Science, Laboratory Directed Research and Development, Small Business Innovation Research, and Small Business Technology 

Transfer. EERE has also invested in technologies to improve domestic lithium production. Through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, VTO supported a project to expand lithium carbonate and lithium hydroxide production to 

supply the domestic battery industry as well as a project to recycle lithium batteries 

for resale of lithium carbonate. The EERE Geothermal Technologies Office has funded the development of technologies to cost effectively extract minerals such as lithium, manganese and zinc from geothermal brines—to improve domestic production 

at reduced costs and to increase the overall value of geothermal electricity generation. 

For substitutes, DOE has made significant investments, specifically toward rare 

earth permanent magnets for motors and generators. For instance, both EERE 

(through VTO and the Wind Power Technologies Office) and ARPA-E have significant efforts related to addressing rare earth materials criticality in these areas 

through the development of alternative motor and generator topologies which do not 

require rare earth permanent magnets. VTO has also invested in optimizing the use 

of rare earth materials in permanent magnets—focusing on magnet processing, composition, and improving high temperature performance with reduced rare earth content. In addition, VTO supported researchers are working to develop rare earth-free 

permanent magnets for advanced traction motors. For example, they are modifying 

aluminum, nickel and cobalt (alnico) magnets for improved performance in these 

new motors and developing new iron-cobalt based alloys to replace rare earth permanent magnets. ARPA-E’s ‘‘Rare Earth Alternatives in Critical Technologies’’ program focuses on early-stage alternative technologies that reduce or eliminate the 

need for rare earths by developing substitutes in two key areas: electric vehicle motors and wind generators. Technological advances that utilize low-cost and abundant 

alternatives such as manganese and nickel will become increasingly vital to our national economic and energy security. The projects funded by ARPA-E must aim to 

meet or exceed the performance of their rare earth predecessors while remaining 

cost-competitive. 

EERE’s Wind Power Technologies Office supports several next-generation drive 

train technology projects. One of the key goals for these projects is reduction in the 

cost of wind energy. Although not a stated requirement for the program, many of 

these innovative technologies would also reduce or eliminate the use of permanent 

magnets containing rare earth materials, particularly for next-generation directdrive wind turbines. For example, innovative superconducting direct-drive generators and new processes to make these materials on a cost-competitive basis for large 

wind turbines are being investigated. 

The Department is also addressing substitutes for near-critical materials. DOE’s 

2011 Critical Materials Strategy classified lithium as ‘‘near-critical.’’ R&D efforts 

continue across the Department to develop alternatives to this material. In December 2012, the Joint Center for Energy Storage Research (JCESR), which is the Energy Innovation Hub for Battery and Energy Storage, began operations. JCESR is 

managed out of DOE’s Office of Science and is led by Argonne National Laboratory. 

The mission of JCESR is to develop new battery chemistries beyond lithium-ion, and 

its goal is to deliver electrical energy storage with less or no lithium, five times the 

energy density, and at one-fifth the cost of today’s commercial batteries within five 

years. 

Additionally, in the 2011 Critical Materials Strategy, tellurium was also assessed 

as near-critical. It is a material used in solar cells being deployed in the United 

States today. EERE’s Solar Energy Technologies Office has supported a large number of projects to develop new technologies that focus on earth abundant materials 

as alternate, inexpensive materials in solar photovoltaics. For example, in September 2011, DOE awarded funding to 23 projects ($24.5 million) through the Next 

Generation Photovoltaics II solicitation, many of which incorporated earth-abundant 

materials such as copper, iron, and tin. Improving the recycling and reuse of critical 

materials—the third pillar—has, until recently, had limited DOE R&D investment. 

However, with the startup of the Critical Materials Institute and its work in this 

area, DOE is primed to make strides in this arena of R&D. 

13 

Interagency Coordination 

Finally, the Department would also like to underscore the importance of continued interagency coordination and collaboration on the topic of critical materials. 

Issues related to critical materials and minerals touch on the missions of many federal agencies, and the full interagency perspective can help us proactively address 

critical materials issues. DOE co-chairs the National Science and Technology Council’s Subcommittee on Critical and Strategic Mineral Supply Chains, which was established in December 2010. This Subcommittee facilitates a strong, coordinated effort across federal agencies to identify and address important policy implications 

arising from strategic minerals supply issues. Areas of focus for the Subcommittee 

include identifying emerging critical materials, improving depth of information, and 

identifying R&D priorities. The Subcommittee also informally reviews and examines 

domestic and global policies that affect the supply of critical materials, such as permitting, export restrictions, recycling, and stockpiling. 

Conclusion 

The work being done across the Department, including at the Critical Materials 

Institute, shows that DOE is taking steps to address the global demand for critical 

materials that underpin clean energy technologies. The United States intends to be 

a world leader in clean energy technologies. To this end, we must ensure a sustainable domestic supply chain for our clean energy economy. We look forward to working with Congress on addressing critical materials challenges. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

Mr. MEINERT. 

STATEMENT OF LAWRENCE D. MEINERT, MINERAL RESOURCES PROGRAM COORDINATOR, U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Mr. MEINERT. Good morning Chairman Wyden, ranking member—Good morning Chairman Wyden, Ranking Member Murkowski and members of the committee, and thank you for the opportunity to discuss the Critical Minerals Policy Act of 2013, I’m 

joined today by Karen Mouritsen, deputy assistant director energy 

minerals and realty management for the Bureau of Land Management. 

The Department of the Interior supports the goal of facilitating 

the development of critical minerals in an environmentally responsible manner. As background the U.S. Geological Survey is responsible for conducting research and collecting data on a wide variety 

of mineral resources. Studies include how and where deposits are 

formed, the interactions of minerals with the environment, and information to document current production and consumption of 

about 100 mineral commodities within the United States and 

around the world. 

This full spectrum of mineral resource science allows for comprehensive understanding of the complete life cycle of mineral resources and materials including resource formation, discovery, production, consumption, use, recycling, and reuse, and allows for understanding of environmental issues of concern throughout the 

lifecycle. 

The Bureau of Land Management administers over 245 million 

surface acres of public land located in the 12 Western States including Alaska, as well as 700 million acres of subsurface mineral 

estate throughout the Nation. The BLM manages mineral development under a number of different authorities. Each of these authorities along with the BLM regulations and guidance provides a 

legal framework for the development of minerals including critical 

minerals on Federal and Indian lands. 

14 

Global demand for critical mineral commodity is on the rise with 

increasing applications of consumer products, computers, automobiles, aircraft, and other advanced technology products. To better understand potential sources of critical mineral commodities 

the USGS has completed studies of known domestic and global rare 

earth reserves, resources, and uses, which summarize basic geologic facts and materials flow issues related to rare earth element 

resources one type of critical materials. 

Other USGS studies analyze worldwide trade and supply chains 

for other critical minerals including lithium, platinum group metals, and tantalum. 

In 2012 the United States was 100 percent dependent on foreign 

suppliers for 17 mineral commodities and more than 50 percent dependent on mineral sources for an additional 24 mineral commodities. 

In 2008 a National Research Council Committee funded largely 

by the USGS, developed a criticality matrix that combines supply 

risk with importance of use as a first step toward determining 

which mineral commodities are essential to the Nation’s economic 

and national security. 

This has been updated by subsequent studies and ongoing work 

by the Critical and Strategic Mineral Supply Chain Interagency 

Subcommittee of the National Science and Technology Council. As 

David mentioned that is co-chaired by DOE and the USGS representing the Department of the Interior. 

For S. 1600 it directs the Secretary of the Interior through the 

Director of the USGS to perform a number of actions that build on 

current USGS activities and capabilities, including the recent rare 

earth element inventory that I mentioned. It also describes the 

BLM -directs the BLM to improve the quality and timeliness of decisions regarding the environmentally responsible development of 

critical minerals on Federal lands. The BLM supports the responsible development of minerals on Federal lands and is working to 

improve efficiencies while ensuring protection of other resources. 

In conclusion the Department maintains a work force of 

geoscientists including geologist, geochemist, geophysicists, and resource specialists with expertise on critical minerals and materials. 

The Department continuously collects, analyzes and disseminates 

dated information on domestic and global rare earth and other critical mineral reserves and resources, production, consumption, and 

use. 

The Department through the USGS stands ready to fulfill its role 

as the Federal provider of unbiased research on known mineral resources, assessment of undiscovered mineral resources, and information on domestic and global production and consumption of mineral resources for use in global critical mineral supply chain analysis. 

The BLM is committed to implementing efficiencies for the environmentally responsible development of critical minerals on Federal lands. 

Thank you for the opportunity to present the views of the Department on S. 1600, I’ll be happy to answer any questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Meinert follows:] 

15 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF LAWRENCE D. MEINERT, MINERAL RESOURCES PROGRAM

COORDINATOR, U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Good morning Chairman Wyden, Ranking Member Murkowski, and Members of 

the Committee, and thank you for the opportunity to discuss S. 1600, the Critical 

Minerals Policy Act of 2013. The bill directs the Secretaries of the Interior and Energy to perform a large number of activities intended to support and enhance the 

Nation’s critical mineral supply chain, beginning with developing a methodology to 

determine which minerals are critical to the Nation’s economy. In this statement, 

I will address the provisions relevant to the Department of the Interior. 

The Department of the Interior supports the goal of facilitating the development 

of critical minerals in an environmentally responsible manner. We note that many 

of the activities called for in S. 1600 are within the scope of existing Department 

of the Interior authorities. 

Background 

The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) is responsible for conducting research and collecting data on a wide variety of mineral resources. Research is conducted to understand the geologic processes that have 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 critical mineral commodities is on the rise with 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. To better understand potential sources of critical mineral commodities, the USGS has 

completed studies of known domestic and global rare-earth reserves, resources, and 

uses (Long and others, 2010; Tse, 2011; Wilburn, 2012). These studies summarize 

basic geologic facts and materials flow issues related to rare earth element resources, which are a type of critical mineral. Other USGS studies analyze world 

trade and supply chains for other critical minerals including lithium, platinumgroup metals, and tantalum (Goonan, 2012; Yager and others, 2012; Soto-Viruet and 

others, 2013). 

The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) administers over 245 million surface 

acres of public land located in the 12 Western states, including Alaska, as well as 

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

manages mineral development under a number of different authorities, including 

the Federal Land Policy and Management Act, the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, the 

Materials Act of 1947, and the Mining Law of 1872. Each of these authorities, along 

with BLM regulations and guidance, provides a legal framework for the development of minerals, including critical minerals, on Federal and Indian lands. 

Though rare earth elements are currently of most concern to many stakeholders, 

including the Department of Defense which funded some of the studies, it should 

be noted that in 2012 the United States was 100 percent dependent on foreign suppliers for 17 mineral commodities and more than 50 percent dependent on foreign 

sources for an additional 24 mineral commodities. Import partners include Brazil, 

Canada, China, France, Germany, Japan, Mexico, Russia, and Venezuela. In 2008, 

a National Research Council committee, funded largely by the USGS, developed a 

‘‘criticality matrix’’ that combines supply risk with importance of use as a first step 

toward determining which mineral commodities are essential to the Nation’s economic and national security (National Research Council, 2008). This has been updated by subsequent studies and ongoing work by the Critical and Strategic Mineral 

Supply Chain Interagency sub-committee of the National Science and Technology 

Council, which is co-chaired by the USGS on behalf of the Department of the Interior. 

S. 1600 

S. 1600, the Critical Minerals Policy Act of 2013, directs the Secretary of the Interior, through the Director of the USGS, to perform a number of actions that build 

16 

on current USGS activities and capabilities, including the recent rare earths inventory. The bill in Section 101 directs the USGS to develop a rigorous methodology 

for determining which minerals are critical and then to use that methodology to designate critical minerals. Section 103 calls for a comprehensive national mineral resource assessment within four years of the bill’s enactment for each mineral designated as critical under Sec. 101, and it authorizes field work for the assessment, 

as well as technical and financial assistance for States and Indian tribes. The bill 

establishes in Section 108 a collaborative effort between USGS, academic institutions, and the U.S. Energy Information Administration for annual reviews of domestic critical mineral trends as well as forward-looking analyses of critical mineral production, consumption, and recycling patterns. Section 301 of the bill repeals the National Critical Minerals Act of 1984. 

S. 1600, Section 102, amends the National Materials and Minerals Policy, Research and Development Act of 1980 to encourage Federal agencies to facilitate the 

availability, development and environmentally-responsible production of critical 

minerals. Section 105 directs the BLM to improve the quality and timeliness of decisions regarding the environmentally responsible development of critical minerals on 

Federal lands. The BLM supports the responsible development of minerals on Federal lands and is working to improve efficiencies while ensuring protection of other 

resources. Section 105 also directs the BLM to annually report on the implementation of these measures and on critical and hardrock mineral production on Federal 

land. We note that under the Mining Law of 1872, the BLM does not collect the 

quantity, type, and estimated value of minerals produced on Federal land. 

Conclusion 

The Department maintains a workforce of geoscientists (geologists, geochemists, 

geophysicists, and resource specialists) with expertise in critical minerals and materials. The Department continuously collects, analyzes, and disseminates data and 

information on domestic and global rare-earth and other critical mineral reserves 

and resources, production, consumption, and use. This information is published annually in the USGS Mineral Commodity Summaries (USGS, 2013) and includes a 

description of current events, trends, and issues related to supply and demand. 

The Department, through the USGS, stands ready to fulfill its role as the federal 

provider of unbiased research on known mineral resources, assessment of undiscovered mineral resources, and information on domestic and global production and 

consumption of mineral resources for use in global critical mineral supply chain 

analysis. The BLM is committed to implementing efficiencies for the environmentally-responsible development of critical minerals on Federal lands. 

We note, however, that many of the activities called for in S. 1600 are already 

authorized by existing authorities. Any activities conducted to fulfill the objectives 

of the bill would require substantial resources and would need to compete for funding with other priorities. 

Thank you for the opportunity to present the views of the Department on S. 1600. 

I will be happy to answer any questions. 

The CHAIRMAN. Alright gentlemen, thank you very much. 

Dr. Danielson let me start with you. 

We’ve talked about how the supply of critical minerals is essential for a whole host of things; let’s start with say—electric vehicles. It seems to me this is also an opportunity though to significantly improve the economics of a number of other energy technologies. So for example minerals like lithium can be recovered 

from battery packs now one of the major costs of electric vehicles. 

So we tried to capture as many of these opportunities as we could. 

You have a background in materials science, what additional recommendations might you have so that we can continue with our 

work on minerals to recapture as much economic value as we possibly can? That’s why I cited the example of the lithium recovery 

from the battery pack. Are there are other areas where we can recapture value? 

Mr. DANIELSON. Thank you for that question Mr. Chairman. 

You know DOE performed these—the Critical Materials Strategy 

Reports in 2010 and updated it in 2011 and our approach was really based on the 3 pillars I mentioned. You know the first being diVerDate Nov 24 2008 14:20 Apr 14, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 G:\DOCS\86877.TXT WANDA
17 

versifying supply, the second being about developing substitutes 

that don’t have criticality, and the third is really focused on reuse 

and recycling and more efficient use of critical materials. The third 

pillar is really the area that you’re touching upon. 

I think we’ve seen tremendous opportunities on the recycling side 

in a number of critical technologies as you mentioned. For DOE’s 

work we’ve identified 4 specific technologies that are especially vulnerable to critical materials, electric vehicles both for motors, permanent magnets for motors and lithium for batteries, efficient 

phosphors for lighting where europium, terbium, yttrium are critical there. Wind turbines, which is an area where permanent 

magnets are a big part of the road map going forward which contain critical materials. 

One of the areas where we see great opportunity and we’re attacking this head on with the Critical Materials Institute is in the 

area of recycling rare earth phosphors from fluorescent light bulbs. 

This is an area where europium, terbium, yttrium, they’re—these 

are critical elements that we’ve identified, 3 of 5 critical elements 

at DOE. We’re already collecting about 30 percent of fluorescent 

light bulbs to remove the mercury from these light bulbs. 

So we already have a supply chain to collect those materials, but 

we don’t have the cost effective technology to separate out the rare 

earths from those phosphors. So one of the major focus areas of our 

institute is in developing new separations technologies which is an 

area where we haven’t made a lot of investment in the past but I 

already see a lot of opportunity to cost effectively recycle those rare 

earth elements in phosphors. 

The CHAIRMAN. Good let me ask you one other question. 

One of the things I was struck by with respect to this issue, 

when I talked to Senator Murkowski and Senator Udall who have 

spent so much time on it, is that the programs that the Department-that the Federal Government really runs were just sort of 

strewn all over the country side. There are a lot of different programs and just because you have a lot of people in the kitchen 

doesn’t necessarily mean you produce a good meal. 

[Laughter.] 

The CHAIRMAN. You’ve worked in materials science for quite 

some time. Is it your view that making sure that we have a more 

organized effort here, which is right at the heart of the bill, is a 

valuable contribution that this legislation makes? 

Mr. DANIELSON. Yes, without commenting directly on the bill 

itself I would point out that—— 

The CHAIRMAN. We know the people at OMB are listening, I just 

want to make sure that the emphasis of the sponsors, which is to 

have a more organized effort that the value of that is something 

that you and other experts realize. 

Mr. DANIELSON. Yes, I and my colleagues, we see tremendous 

value in having coherent efforts around this, and within the Department as well as across all of government we have seen that 

within the DOE universe it was tremendously valuable to have our 

energy policy and strategic analysis office take the lead in organizing all of us. As my colleague mentioned we have an interagency 

subcommittee on critical and strategic mineral supply chains where 

18 

we are all pulling together and so we—I see tremendous value in 

interagency—— 

The CHAIRMAN. Let me use—— 

Mr. DANIELSON [continuing]. Coordination. 

The CHAIRMAN. Let me use my last 20 seconds on something 

that’s important for folks at home, at Oregon State. 

On December 20th a senior official in your office informed the directors of the Northwest National Marine Renewable Energy Center, which has collaboration between Oregon State University and 

University of Washington, that it would not be receiving any more 

funding to operate. It’s our view that this is a critical area. We’re 

falling behind our international competitors. 

It’s my understanding that the Senators funding agreement with 

DOE runs through the first half of fiscal 2015 so you’re not only 

cutting them off, but you are cutting them off in mid stream. Also 

that was a decision made a full month before Congress passed the 

Appropriations Bill, which provided the funding that we thought 

was needed to continue the program. 

Before the end of the week, I want to hear back from you on why 

this decision was made and in light of the fact that the Congress 

has passed and the President has now signed this new bill whether 

or not continued funding is going to be provided to the center. Will 

you get back to me on this by the close of business Friday? 

Mr. DANIELSON. Absolutely. 

The CHAIRMAN. Very good, alright. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Thank you Mr. Chairman and gentleman, 

I do appreciate you being here, but I have to admit I am a little 

bit disappointed in the written testimony that you have provided 

and your comments indirect support or opposition of the bill are 

very—they’re so nuanced I can’t tell, which is not usually a good 

sign. 

But—and we’ve got a second panel here that I think speaks very 

clearly to some of the issues that have been raised in S. 1600, so 

I’d like Dr. Danielson for you to give me a little bit more of your 

comments in—both in writing and what you have affirmed here is 

the Department is currently reviewing it, you’ve got no specific 

comments on the legislation at this time. 

We introduced the bill back in late October, we certainly gave 

plenty of notice to the Department that we were planning this 

hearing and asking for folks to come in and testify. It’s not a 

lengthy bill it’s only 40 pages long. Are you saying that nobody 

within the Department has really had an opportunity to review and 

to be able to then provide comment? 

Mr. DANIELSON. Critical materials is an area that the Department and our interagency task force takes very seriously. I think 

we’ve evidenced that at DOE by publishing these critical materials 

reports that allow—— 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Yes, but what about this bill that has been 

out there now for 3 months, this 40 page bill. If critical minerals 

are so important why have you not formed an opinion one way or 

another that you would like to relay publicly? 

Mr. DANIELSON. At this point the DOE is reviewing it. We don’t 

have any formal administration comments on the bill itself. I would 

19 

welcome a request if desired for technical assistance related to this 

bill to the Department of Energy. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. I don’t know that there’s any technical assistance. I think you guy’s just need to read the bill and let us 

know whether it’s something that you can support or not support. 

Everything that you have conveyed here in the hearing about the 

significance, the importance of critical minerals in our supply chain 

is certainly all fine well and good and we’re talking about what 

you’re doing within the Department to ensure that we’re focusing 

on recycling, reuse, the other priorities. But we need to move a bill 

in order to advance some of this so we would greatly appreciate 

DOE weighing in. 

Dr. Meinert your testimony begins by stating that the Department supports the goal of facilitating the development of critical 

minerals in an environmentally responsible manner, you repeated 

that a couple of times, do you think that enactment of this bill 

would further enhance that goal? 

Mr. MEINERT. Yes, we have read the bill in detail and we are 

thrilled and delighted at a bill that focuses on mineral resources. 

I as the head of the mineral resources program am particularly 

thrilled and delighted that the bill focuses on this critical need for 

the Nation. So as I stated very clearly here the Department is supportive of the goals of this bill and we are glad to see it introduced. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. I’m thrilled and delighted, thank you. 

Let me ask both of you in the bill itself we—where we establish 

a process to designate which minerals are critical. We require that 

the list not exceed 20 in total, and I have to confess that that’s a 

somewhat arbitrary number. The question to both of you is whether or not you think we have the right number? Should we be higher, should we be lower, does it make a difference? Your input here, 

Dr. Meinert you can go first. 

Mr. MEINERT. This is a subject that we spent a lot of time on so 

we are the Nation’s chief compiler of this type of information and 

so we’ve given a lot of thought to it. As you have pointed out there 

is no specific number that is absolutely correct. 

If you look at the various estimates that have been made around 

the world, so the European Union has looked at this and came up 

with a list of 14 elements in their study in 2011 and then they 

have redone that study and now expanded it beyond 20. So it’s very 

clear that reasonable people could come up with lists of different 

lengths and I think the actual length of the list is less important 

than focusing the Nation and the world’s attention upon minerals 

resources as a subject. 

So we are comfortable with the number that you have put forward and we recognize that it’s not an absolute number and we understand the reasoning behind it. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. OK, good, good. 

Mr. MEINERT. I’ll add that in our DOE—you know detailed DOE 

critical materials assessment strategy we looked at 16 separate 

materials that were identified by our stakeholders and narrowed 

that down to 5 to 7 just within the Department of Energy space. 

So if we look at our interagency level a number in the—on the 

order of 20 plus or minus seems like a reasonable number. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. OK, thank you Mr. Chairman. 

20 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you Senator Murkowski. 

In order of arrival we have Senator Baldwin, Senator Risch, and 

then Senator Franken. 

Senator BALDWIN. Thank you Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member 

Murkowski. 

I’m delighted that we’re having this hearing and I wanted to just 

start off with a couple of points that are slightly off topic for the 

bill but related. One is that the bill obviously focuses on critical 

materials critical minerals and you were drilling down on the critical aspect of it. Right now the State of Wisconsin is facing a very 

severe propane shortage. 

Now I’m not pretending that’s the subject matter of the bill before us, but it gives a really stark illustration of what happens 

when there are disruptions, how dangerous it can be when resources that we absolutely rely on for, in this case warmth of our 

constituents homes are disrupted and we need a stable supply of 

our critical resources. 

The other issue that I wanted to bring up where Wisconsin I 

think is playing a proud leadership role is also slightly off topic, 

but pretty closely related and that’s the supply of, and I can never 

pronounce this very accurately, but Molybdenum-99. We nickname 

it Moly-99, which is used in a lot of health diagnostic applications. 

Currently our country is reliant on nondomestic sources for this 

in reactors in Canada, in the Netherlands, and elsewhere in the 

world. Because of maintenance and other shutdowns of these reactors we’ve been in short supply. I think its 55 thousand Americans 

use or have tests in any given day that use Moly-99 and our domestic production of it is going to be important in the future and 

Wisconsin is taking a real lead in that in coming up with nonreactor based ways of producing Moly-99. 

While not the subject of this legislation it is related closely and 

an area in which my state is very concerned. I—this bill is important to my state not because we are the home to large or even any 

perhaps supply or stocks of critical minerals, but we are home to 

manufacturers that rely on these critical minerals in their products 

and also as a manufacturing state have long been the home to companies that build the mining machines that extract these minerals. 

So this legislation and these policies at the national level are 

really critical to my State’s economy too and I am very appreciative 

that we’re spending some time on this today. 

Dr. Danielson, I took particular notice in your written testimony 

and your testimony provided here today about the value of one of 

your pillars the recycling and reuse programs for critical minerals 

and how research into recycling processes could make these more 

economically viable over time. Wisconsin is home to recycling businesses like Veolia Environmental Services as an example which 

utilizes innovative ways to remove hazardous materials like mercury from our waste stream. 

But recycling programs not only reduce the amount of unwanted 

waste products they also and crucially can reduce demand for 

newly extracted critical minerals. So based on the testimony that 

we’ve heard today indicating a demand for critical minerals that 

continues to outpace our domestic supply, recycling programs can 

be ever more important. 

21 

I’m interested in knowing in more detail the strategies that the 

Department is utilizing to improve the recycling of critical materials and what you view as the greatest opportunities for recycling 

and reuse in your sphere and energy? 

Mr. DANIELSON. Thank you very much Senator for that question. 

Recycling is one of the 3 pillars that we really are driving our 

strategy around, and the Critical Materials Institute being at the 

center of our strategy. We’re looking at a wide array of activities 

across the whole supply chain, which I think, is one of the key important elements of the approach the bill is taking. All the way 

from you know separations, processes that can actually remove the 

small amounts of these rare earths from magnets or phosphors that 

need to be recycled. 

All the way going back to analyzing—designing these motors or 

batteries or lighting fixtures so that they’re easy to disassemble 

and perform recycling processes on. One of the elements that is 

particularly critical when it comes to the clean energy applications 

is dysprosium, which is very important for magnets that can perform at high temperature required, especially, for motors for electric vehicles. 

So that element in particular is one that we are targeting in a 

serious way as we go forward with our work related to recycling 

of critical materials. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you Senator Baldwin. 

I’m going to recognize Senator Risch, but just note that I’m very 

pleased that you brought up this propane issue and I know Senator 

Franken cares a lot about this as well because the Midwest has 

been hit very hard. Senator Murkowski and I have always tried to 

make sure that the committee and those who are following these 

issues can get briefed. 

So this afternoon at 3:30 in this room the Energy Information 

Administration will be putting on a briefing at the request of Senator Murkowski and I—and this is going to be important and I 

think actually quite fitting this week. Not only are people really 

getting clobbered with these high propane prices, but it also gets 

into the issue that we’re going to have to debate and that’s the 

question of exports. Senator Murkowski and I have agreed that 

Thursday we’re going to have a hearing on the whole oil export 

issues. 

So we’ll have a good briefing this afternoon and on Thursday all 

who are interested in that issue and I think it’s very timely that 

we have the debate and start talking about the pros and cons and 

Heaven forbid have a civilized conversation about the merits of an 

important issue. 

We’re very glad Senator Risch is here, he’s got a lot of expertise 

in this area. 

Senator RISCH. Thank you Mr. Chairman. 

Senator Baldwin I was delighted to hear you talk about the 

issues with Moly–99, there’s a lot of us been beating the drum for 

many years on this. There’s absolutely no reason why the United 

States of America should be reliant on other countries to provide 

this. 

Most Americans have no idea how important it is in the diagnostic aspects of medicine and obviously at the Idaho National LabVerDate Nov 24 2008 14:20 Apr 14, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 G:\DOCS\86877.TXT WANDA
22 

oratory there’s been work done on this and we’ve been a player in 

this for a long time, so welcome to the fight and I hope you’ll join 

us. 

I think that Moly–99 and all these others are—is underscoring 

a situation we have in America where as we do more and more of 

these high tech things we’re going to be more reliant on some very 

rare commodities and last year we went through the helium fight, 

which again most Americans weren’t aware of how critical it is. 

We have a very large high tech operation in Idaho called Micron 

Technology and they are incredibly reliant as is virtually all—are 

virtually all IT manufacturers on helium and so we got right to the 

edge I think, but in a bipartisan manner we got the job done and 

we’re going to be hitting more and more of these walls I think as 

we go forward. So this hearing is particularly important. 

Again most people don’t realize how many of these critical commodities there are and how reliant we are on countries like China 

where political stability in the long term certainly is not something 

that can be counted on and so we need to continue that. 

I want to thank the chairman and co-chairman for sending bill 

S. 1600, I’m proud to be a co-sponsor with many other people. It 

is very simple, it simply directs the USGS to establish a list of 

these critical minerals that we need and then set out a comprehensive set of policies, and I’m assuming they would give these policies 

to us because this is going to be a matter of debate and I think 

that we should all have or get our 2 cents worth it. 

The question I have for the 2 witnesses briefly is these 2 things 

that were being—were asked the USGS to do is to establish a list 

of minerals and to set out a comprehensive set of policies. It’s 

something that I’m sure there’s been a lot work done on over the 

years so the question I have for you is how much of this work is 

already done, that is what kind of an effort is this bill going to take 

and how quickly can we expect to get some results from this? 

Dr. Meinert maybe we could start with you? 

Mr. MEINERT. Thank you for that question. 

We have indeed done a lot of work on this over the years, some 

of this is continuing and ongoing work so the inventory of materials, the collection of materials flow, studies of the global trade 

tracking that—that’s something we do on a continuous basis and 

every year we put out the minerals commodities summary that describes for the Nation and for the world what’s the resources are 

and their availability. So that’s one part of the whole criticality 

analysis is having the data that you would then base those analysis 

on. 

Relative—— 

Senator RISCH. I’m glad to hear that you’ve done that much work 

already I mean that—and that—obviously that’s a foundational 

point that’s very critical if we’re going to answer these questions 

so thank you for that. 

Mr. MEINERT. We appreciate your support for that because this 

requires a huge amount of work if you can imagine anybody’s who’s 

collected this sort of data. The other part of the bill directs is the 

assessment of critical materials in the United States and that 

would be a major, major undertaking. We have done assessments 

of many different areas we just completed the first global assessVerDate Nov 24 2008 14:20 Apr 14, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 G:\DOCS\86877.TXT WANDA
23 

ment for copper which is the assessment of the entire world for 

copper. 

So we have the expertise, we have the methodology for doing this 

and we have done a lot of work in development and anticipation 

of doing these sort of assessments and we try to maintain the scientific capability to perform that service for the Nation. 

Senator RISCH. Thanks very much. 

Mr. DANIELSON. Thank you, Mr. Senator. 

I would just add or reiterate you know that we’ve done a lot of 

work to date with the leadership of the Department of the Interior 

and USGS in particular in establishing methodology that works in 

terms of criticality assessment and we’ve applied that to the Department of Energy through our critical materials strategy report 

and that’s been the basis for our work. 

I think we are ahead of the curve in terms of we are collaborating across the agencies through this interagency working group 

on critical and strategic mineral supply chains out of the National 

Science and Technology Council. But I do believe that there is more 

work to be done, but I do think we’re setup to work together well 

under the leadership of whatever entity would take the lead going 

forward. 

Senator RISCH. Thank you Mr. Danielson. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Franken. 

Senator FRANKEN. Thank you Mr. Chairman. 

I have to run so I’m going to submit my questions for the record. 

I would like to say thank you for having this 3:30 meeting on 

propane. We in Minnesota have had very cold winter, we’ve had 

our corn came in kind of wet and we used the propane to dry that, 

so thank you for having that meeting at 3:30. 

One of the things I just want to say is that you know so many 

of these critical minerals are needed for things like electric cars 

and for—just for winter binds and lighting and that this—I know 

that so many folks want to make sure that we are able to do those 

technologies to lower our carbon footprint and the tradeoff in terms 

of making sure that we—Mr. Meinert at the Bureau of Land Management you’re looking at the environmental aspects of the processes by we—which we get these things. I want to keep a lot of people to understand that these are essential in these clean energy 

technologies and that’s why I’m proud to be a sponsor of the Chairman and Ranking Member’s bill. 

So I’ll submit those questions for the record and thank you gentleman for your testimony, thank you Secretary Danielson for coming to Minnesota so recently. 

Thanks. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you Senator Franken. 

I don’t have any other questions for this panel, Senator Murkowski any additional questions? 

Senator MURKOWSKI. I have just one very quick one for Dr. 

Meinert and you mentioned the assessment going forward and 

what I am curious about and would like to understand better is, 

what’s our analytical capacity here in assessing future supply and 

demand? 

24 

As we kind of forecast out and we’ve got a section in this bill that 

relates to forecasting, can you tell us whether USGS supports a 

joint effort with EIA to bolster our analytical and forecasting capabilities for these minerals? 

You talked a lot in your—both of you in your opening statements 

particularly Mr. Danielson here in terms of how we diversify supply, how we look for substitutes, how we recycle, reuse. We know 

that we’re going to continue to do good things in Senator Baldwin’s 

state in terms of manufacturing so we’re going to need more, but 

given the effort that is underway with substitution or reuse, how 

do we forecast with any degree of reliability? 

Mr. Meinert the question is for you, but I think it also goes to 

what you’re doing in DOE as well. 

Mr. MEINERT. Forecasting is a complex science and the foundation is always built upon the data that you have and so you are 

looking at the history, the current uses, the current supplies and 

then modeling that forward. So we have some experience with that, 

our main expertise is in the collection of the data, the assessment 

of the resources. 

You mentioned EIA, they certainly have done much more in the 

modeling realm than we have. But we have a long history of working with other Federal agencies, both DOE, BOM with an Interior, 

EPA, and a lot of agencies to try to work toward a common goal. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Do you think it makes sense to bring in 

EIA or others that may have that assessment or forecasting perspective? 

Mr. MEINERT. As we move in that direction we would certainly 

attempt to learn from anybody who has—— 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Yes. 

Mr. MEINERT [continuing]. Been further out in the curve than we 

are. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Dr. Danielson. 

Mr. DANIELSON. I will point out that, although it’s not under my 

purview, I know that the EIA would welcome any partnership that 

would be beneficial to the USGS to share best practices that have 

been established at the EIA and have worked out well in terms of 

forecasting. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. OK, thank you Mr. Chairman and I would 

hope that as we move forward, not only with this legislation, but 

just in the efforts that are out there, that when we talk about the 

interagency coordination that that is more than just good buzz 

words, it’s—we all talk about interagency working, but it really is 

going to be necessary in this area to know and understand what 

we have and how cross department we can be working to be more 

effective in all these areas. 

With that I thank both of the witnesses and look forward to second panel. 

The CHAIRMAN. Alright we’ll excuse you, thank you gentlemen. 

Our next panel retired Major General Robert Latiff a research 

professor and director in the Intelligence and National Security Research Center at George Mason University and an adjunct professor at Notre Dame. He previously served as vice commander for 

the U.S. Air Force Electronics System Center and as commander 

of the NORAD Cheyenne Mountain Operation Center in Colorado. 

25 

Mr. David Isaacs, the vice president of Government Affairs for 

the Semiconductor Industry Association. Semiconductors are of 

enormous importance in my home state so we’re glad that they’re 

here. 

Jennifer Thomas is the director of Federal Government Affairs 

for the Auto Alliance, a leading advocacy group for the automobile 

sector and we’re very glad that Senator Stabenow felt that it was 

important to have Mr. Thomas. 

Mr. Jim Sims is the vice president of Corporate Communications 

for Molycorp, Inc. Molycorp is one of the world’s leading producers 

of custom engineered rare earth and rare metal products. 

Mr. Gregory Conrad is the executive director for the Interstate 

Mining Commission. Senator Murkowski thought it was important 

to have Mr. Conrad and we’re glad to have him. 

Professor Rod Eggert, who Senator Udall requested, is the director of the Division of Economics and Business at the Colorado 

School of Mines and we’re very glad that Professor Eggert is here 

as well. 

As I say to our witnesses, we will put your prepared statements 

into the record in their entirety and it’s going to start getting hectic 

here in a little bit. So if you could just summarize your principal 

concerns, that would be very helpful and I want everyone to know 

that every single word in your prepared statement will be part of 

the record. 

OK, Professor Latiff. 

STATEMENT OF MAJ. GEN. (RETIRED) ROBERT H. LATIFF, 

PH.D, RESEARCH PROFESSOR AND DIRECTOR FOR INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY PROGRAMS SCHOOL OF ENGINEERING, GEORGE MASON UNIVERSITY 

Mr. LATIFF. Yes sir, I will try to be brief. 

Good morning Chairman Wyden, Ranking Member Murkowski 

and distinguished members of the committee. 

I’m honored to be able to testify to this committee on a subject 

of great importance. My name is Robert Latiff, I’m currently a private consultant, I’m a retired Air Force Major General serving 32 

years active duty mostly in research and development in weapons 

acquisition. 

As was noted I’m also an academic with appointment at George 

Mason University and at the University of Notre Dame. I hold a 

doctorate in metallurgical engineering and materials science. 

Pertinent to the interests of this committee, I’m also the former 

chairman of the National Materials and Manufacturing Board of 

the National Academies. I serve as a member of the Minerals, Metals, and Materials Society, a major professional society of materials, engineers, and scientists. 

At a Strategic Materials Advisory Group, a group of former defense and government officials concerned about critical minerals 

and metals. 

I’m here to speak in strong support of S. 1600. For several years 

I followed the attempts in both the House and the Senate to pass 

legislation on this important topic. It remains critical to national 

security in my opinion that this bipartisan piece of legislation be 

acted—enacted into law. 

26 

While the rare earth crisis of the last few years appears to have 

somewhat abated, we should not become complacent. The fundamental risks that result from not having a secure supply of critical 

materials has not gone away. 

S. 1600 would require the U.S. Government to define criticality 

as it relates to materials, identify those materials that deems critical, and establish policies to ensure their availability. It would authorize funding for research and development and would advance 

work force development in areas important to materials. 

In all of these actions I believe we’ll have positive effects on national security and national defense. To the first point I note that 

the European Union published a report in 2010 that identified 14 

materials and now I understand 20 that they deemed critical and 

recommended policies to the member Nations for their supply conservation and potential substitution. The U.S. has no such policy, 

nor do we have a single definition. S. 1600 is an important step in 

correcting that issue and establishing a coherent policy. 

I’ve been following these issues since 2007 when I chaired a committee concerned with the national defense stockpile of the Defense 

Logistics Agency. Our committee was very concerned over what we 

felt to be DOD’s continued inaction on the topic 

Subsequently in a report to Congress, DOD reported that there 

had in fact been cases in which materials issues had impacted 

weapons acquisition programs in some way. However, even in the 

face of these materials impacts and by the then well known issues 

surrounding rare earth materials, DOD policy continued to be silent on the topic and insisted that market forces would be sufficient 

to satisfy DOD needs. 

It has only been in the last year that DOD has finally agreed 

that the market might not be sufficiently robust to supply needs for 

several materials. That recognition was a positive result. However, 

while they may choose to stockpile materials like yttrium and dysprosium, there is still not a domestic supply of some key rare earth 

metals or oxides, thus it becomes essentially affixed to the supply 

chain. 

What is needed is not just a near term fix, but also a long term 

solution and my hope is that S. 1600 might better inform DOD policy which could in turn lead to better availability and availability 

of key weapon systems. 

On the subject of materials research a highlighted June 2013 report by the U.S. Air Force Chief Scientist entitled, ‘‘Global Horizons’’. In that report the Chief Scientist lists materials science as 

the first of 5 enabling technologies important to the Air Force from 

FY13 to FY27. The subsequent chart lists declining domestic availability of raw materials as an important key trend. 

Policy makers should take note of this, clearly the services in 

executing their Title 10 training equip responsibilities recognizing 

-recognized the criticality of these issues as they are forced to deal 

with availability and material scarcity. 

The National Materials Advisory Board and paneled a committee 

in 2005 on the globalization of materials research and development, which it is important to note was funded by the Department 

of Defense. The report of that committee quite accurately predicted 

an increase in the importance of materials research in other counVerDate Nov 24 2008 14:20 Apr 14, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 G:\DOCS\86877.TXT WANDA
27 

tries, along with a decreased dominance by the United States in 

the materials research field. 

More recently a 2011 report by Thompson Reuters verified this 

result and concluded that while materials research publications 

have been on the rise worldwide, the U.S. has in fact been in decline. 

I would point out to many that past DOD weapon systems from 

satellites to submarines, from missiles to manned aircraft have 

pushed the state-of-the-art in material science and the DOD historically has been a funding source and a beneficiary. The Chairman: General I apologize I just think we’re going to have to have 

you wrap up so we can move on. 

Mr. LATIFF. I am happy to wrap up and take your questions Senator. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Latiff follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MAJ. GEN. (RET) ROBERT H. LATIFF, PH.D., RESEARCH

PROFESOR AND DIRECTOR FOR INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY PROGRAMS SCHOOL OF

ENGINEERING, GEORGE MASON UNIVERSITY

Good morning Chairman Wyden, Ranking Member Murkowski and distinguished 

members of the Committee. I am honored to be able to testify to this Committee 

on a subject of great importance and about which I have written and spoken frequently. 

My name is Robert H. Latiff. I am currently a private consultant, providing technology and management advice to FFRDCs, universities, and private industry. I am 

a retired Air Force Major General, having served 32 years of active duty, largely 

in research and development and weapons system acquisition. I am also an academic, with appointments at George Mason University, where I teach systems acquisition and intelligence technologies, and at the University of Notre Dame where 

I am an adjunct professor in the Department of Philosophy. I hold a doctorate in 

metallurgical engineering and materials science. 

Pertinent to the interests of this Committee, I am the former Chairman of the 

National Materials and Manufacturing Board and am a member of the Air Force 

Studies Board of the National Academies. I am also a member of The Minerals, Metals, and Materials Society (TMS), a major professional society of metals, minerals, 

and materials engineers and scientists, and of the Strategic Materials Advisory 

Council, a group of former senior U.S. government defense and materials officials 

and industry experts concerned about critical minerals and metals. 

I am here to speak in strong support of S1600. For several years I have followed 

the attempts in both the House and Senate to pass legislation on this exceptionally 

important topic. For reasons I will discuss, it remains critical to national security, 

in my opinion, that this bi-partisan bill be enacted into law. While the rare earth 

crisis of the last few years appears to have somewhat abated, we should not become 

complacent. The fundamental risks that result from not having a secure supply of 

critical materials have not gone away. 

S1600 would require the U.S. government to define criticality as it relates to materials, identify those materials it deems critical and establish policies to enhance 

the their domestic availability. It would authorize funding for research and development on those materials and would advance education and workforce development 

in areas important to materials. All of these actions will, I believe, have positive 

effects on national security and national defense. To the first point I note that the 

European Union published a report in 2010 that identified fourteen materials they 

deemed critical and recommended to the member nations broad policies for their development, recycling, conservation, and potential substitution. The U.S. has no such 

policy document. Nor do we have a single definition of what constitutes critical materials. S.1600 is an important step in correcting this issue and establishing a coherent national policy. 

I have been following these issues since 2007 when, as a member of the National 

Materials Advisory Board, I chaired a committee concerned with Defense Logistics 

Agency’s National Defense Stockpile. Our committee was very concerned over what 

we felt to be Department of Defense’s continued inaction on the topic. Subsequently, 

in a report to Congress, DOD reported that there had, in fact, been cases in which 

materials issues had impacted weapons acquisition programs in some way. HowVerDate Nov 24 2008 14:20 Apr 14, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 G:\DOCS\86877.TXT WANDA
28 

ever, even in the face of these materials impacts and the by then well-known issues 

surrounding rare earth materials, DOD policy continued to be silent on the topic 

and insisted that market forces would be sufficient to satisfy DOD needs. It has only 

been in the last year that DOD has finally publicly agreed that the market might 

not be sufficiently robust to supply needs for several materials deemed extremely 

important to current weapon systems. That recognition was a positive result. However, while they may now choose to stockpile materials like Yttrium and Dysprosium, there still is not a domestic supply of some key rare earth metals or oxides; 

thus it essentially becomes a fix to the supply-chain. What is needed is not just a 

near-term fix, but also a long-term solution to the underlying and systemic problems. My hope would be that a national policy, such as that engendered by S1600 

might better inform DOD policy, which could in turn lead to better materials security, and availability of key weapon systems. The end result of the activities required by this legislation will likely mean that the DOD would not have to depend 

on extraordinary measures to insure access to important materials for its weapon 

systems 

On the subject of materials research, I highlight a June 2013 report by the USAF 

Chief Scientist entitled ‘‘Global Horizons’’. In that report, the Chief Scientist lists 

materials science as the first of five enabling technologies of importance to the 

USAF from FY13 to FY 27. A subsequent chart lists declining domestic availability 

of raw materials as an important key trend. Policy makers should take note of this. 

Clearly, the services, in executing their Title 10 ‘‘train and equip’’ responsibilities, 

recognize the criticality of these issues as they are forced to deal with availability 

issues and materials scarcity. 

Turning again to the work of the National Academies, as early as 2005 The National Materials Advisory Board impaneled a Committee on the ‘‘Globalization of 

Materials Research and Development’’ which, it is important to note, was funded by 

the Department of Defense. The report of that committee quite accurately predicted 

an increase in importance of materials research in other countries, along with a decreasing dominance by the United States in the materials research field. More recently, a 2011 report by Thomson Reuters, verified this result and concluded that 

while materials research publications have been on the rise world-wide, the U.S. has 

in fact been in decline in regard to materials R&D. I would point out that many 

past DOD weapon systems, from satellites to submarines, from missiles to manned 

aircraft, have pushed the state of the art in materials science and that DOD historically was a significant funding source and beneficiary of advanced materials research. 

On the topic of education and workforce development, I note with some dismay 

the decline in the number of university materials science departments in the U.S. 

and the steep decline in the number of materials science and engineering degrees 

conferred. While some of this decline can be attributed to and explained by the concomitant increase in degrees in associated fields, it remains true that knowledge of 

basic materials science, materials design, mining, extractive technologies, materials 

processing, etc. has been on the decline. While admittedly dated, a 2004 American 

Association for the Advancement of Science article advised graduates not to seek a 

job in the metals industry unless they intended to work overseas. At that time, in 

the previous 30 years the number of jobs for scientists working in metals had declined from more than 13,000 to fewer than 2000. This is consistent with the more 

recently expressed views of Dr. Karl Gschneidner of Ames Laboratory, considered 

to be the leading U.S. expert in rare earth materials. Policies and the requirements 

of S1600 to enhance education and workforce development in theses areas will have 

important national security as well as economic implications. A reinvigoration of 

materials education writ-large will also benefit DOD and its industrial base as they 

seek to retain or regain technical superiority in weapon systems performance. 

In summary, I feel this is an extremely important piece of legislation in placing 

a long needed emphasis on domestic security of critical minerals. The national defense implications are, in my opinion, profound. I reiterate my support for S1600 

and my hope that this bi-partisan legislation will be successful. 

The CHAIRMAN. Very good. 

Mr. SIMS. 

29 

STATEMENT OF JIM SIMS, VICE PRESIDENT, CORPORATE 

COMMUNICATIONS, MOLYCORP, INC., GREENWOOD VILLAGE, CO 

Mr. SIMS. Thank you Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Murkowski. 

I’m Jim Sims I work with Molycorp, I’m glad to be here today. 

S. 1600 is a solid step forward in the effort to revitalize domestic 

supply chains for critical materials. As many of us know the words 

permitting reform are often a type of third rail of politics in natural 

resource discussions and that’s why I think this bipartisan compromise is so important and I thank the chairman, the ranking 

member and the other members of the committee who have put 

this forward. It’s a good step forward if it were to be enacted. 

Molycorp is a U.S. company. We recently complete construction and—of our $1.55 billion rare earth processing facility in Mountain 

Pass, California. We spent all private capital in building that facility, now as a result the U.S. is back in business in both mining, 

processing, and doing value added manufacturing of rare earth materials. 

Moreover, we’ve worked on assembling a relatively robust 

vertically integrated rare supply chain that can now produce a 

wide range of materials from all 15 rare earths and from 5 rare 

metals: niobium, tantalum, rhenium, gallium, and indium. We sell 

these materials to U.S. and other manufacturers all around the 

world. 

As part of our downstream supply chain we also produce a very 

important value added rare earth material, rare earth magnetic 

powders. Those are used in the construction of rare earth permanent magnets, and those magnets are increasingly vital to a wide 

range of technologies. 

I know both of you know a lot of these technologies, but things 

such as direct drive wind turbines, high efficiency owned home appliances, and HVAC systems, MRI’s, medical imaging devices, national defense systems, hybrids, plug in electrics, electric veal—vehicles, etc., many things, too numerous to list. The list continues 

to grow, by the way as new uses for these rare earth materials are 

found every year. 

Our company walked a regulatory pathway to bring U.S. back in 

rare earth production for about 15 years. It took us just over 500 

individual permits in order to get Mountain Pass back online, so 

with that back drought let me make just a couple of observations 

quickly. 

No. 1 the fact that the U.S. is back online is important, but it’s 

also important I think to note how the U.S. through Mountain 

Pass, now produces these rare earth materials. Once our facility is 

fully operational at full scale commercial rates and all of our chemical plants that comprise that facility are optimized, we will be able 

to produce rare earths with the environmental footprint that is 

smaller than has ever been done before and is smaller than it’s 

done anywhere in the world. 

Moreover the very technologies that we invested in, a lot of early 

stage capital, to shrink the environmental footprint of that production with precisely the technologies that also help to drive down 

our cost to production. So what we’ve found at Mountain Pass is 

30 

that improving our environmental performance is also going to help 

us prove our—is also going to help us improve our competitiveness 

in U.S. global markets. 

No. 2 there are a lot of advances being made in helping manufacturers use rare earth more efficiently and this was a big deal for 

our company, we’ve done a lot of this research ourselves. For example we’re finding ways in working with downstream manufacturers 

on how to use less of the—of one of the more scarce rare earths 

called dysprosium, less of that rare earth in these permanent rare 

earth magnets. What that does is it allows more dysprosium to be 

made available for use in other magnets, and the more magnets 

that can be made, the more that the automotive makers and many 

other technologies can use these. That research is improving the efficiency of many more products, it’s also helping more consumers 

gain the benefits that these magnets provide. 

Finally let me just note there’s understandably a lot of focus on 

the upstream side of rare earth and critical material production 

and that’s important, and that’s what this bill looks at. I would 

also encourage though the committee to look at the demand side 

or the downstream side of the critical materials equation. What I 

mean by that is the reality of the marketplace today is that downstream demand for these materials is what is largely driving upstream investment in their production. 

Today the fact is that most rare earth materials wherever they’re 

produced in the world are not consumed by manufacturers in the 

U.S., their isn’t as much of a manufacturing base in the U.S. that 

needs these materials, it’s largely overseas. So as you look at the 

policy implications of how to make this process better, I would encourage you to look at the downstream manufacturing demand because that helps drive supply. 

Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Sims follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JIM SIMS, VICE PRESIDENT, CORPORATE COMMUNICATIONS, 

MOLYCORP, INC., GREENWOOD VILLAGE, CO 

Chairman Wyden, Ranking Member Murkowski, and distinguished members of 

the Committee, my name is Jim Sims, and I am Vice President of Corporate Communications for Molycorp, Inc. I very much appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss S. 1600, the Critical Minerals Policy Act. 

A U.S. company headquartered in Greenwood Village, Colorado, Molycorp is the 

only advanced material manufacturer in the world that both controls a world-class 

rare earth resource and can produce high-purity, custom engineered rare earth 

products to meet increasingly demanding and varied customer specifications. With 

27 locations in 11 countries, Molycorp produces a wide variety of specialized products from 14 different rare earths (lights, mids and heavies), the transition metals 

yttrium and zirconium, and five rare metals (gallium, indium, rhenium, tantalum 

and niobium). Molycorp produces rare earth magnetic materials through its 

Molycorp Magnequench subsidiary, including neodymium-iron-boron (NdFeB) magnet powders used to manufacture bonded NdFeB permanent rare earth magnets. 

Through its joint venture with Daido Steel and the Mitsubishi Corporation, 

Molycorp manufactures next-generation, sintered NdFeB permanent rare earth 

magnets. The Company also markets and sells a line of rare earth-based water 

treatment products through its Molycorp Advanced Water Technologies subsidiary. 

HOW S. 1600 WILL ADVANCE THE CAUSE OF DOMESTIC MINERAL SUPPLY 

CHAIN REVITALIZATION 

Rare earth elements (REEs), and rare metals more broadly, are increasingly critical to high-tech, clean tech and advanced civilian and defense systems. While the 

U.S. has significantly increased its domestic production capabilities of REEs in reVerDate Nov 24 2008 14:20 Apr 14, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 G:\DOCS\86877.TXT WANDA
31 

cent years, a wide variety of critical and strategic metal and mineral supply chains 

are missing a domestic production component. The Critical Minerals Policy Act is 

a solid step forward in the effort to revitalize domestic mineral supply chains in the 

U.S. 

Given that permitting reform is often a ‘third rail’ in natural resource policy discussions, the fact that a majority of both parties on this Committee have found common ground on this issue is an extraordinary achievement. It demonstrates both 

courage and principled leadership by the bill’s authors and cosponsors. Chairman 

Wyden, Ranking Member Murkowski, Senators Udall and Heller, and the other 

original cosponsors of this bill, all deserve praise for working so hard to forge the 

compromise that resulted in this legislation. Your demonstration of bipartisan commitment significantly increases the chances of Congressional passage of this legislation. 

On behalf of a company that walked a regulatory pathway that took 15 years and 

more than 500 permits to restart rare earth production in California, let me offer 

some observations on several elements of S. 1600: 

• By launching a process to update and modernize critical minerals policies in the 

U.S., and by encouraging better coordination across the many federal agencies 

that oversee aspects of mineral development, this bill would provide additional 

regulatory certainty for all parties in permitting processes. Increased regulatory 

certainty is a must if the U.S. is to encourage greater private sector investment 

in domestic mineral exploration, processing, and downstream supply chains that 

can help meet the needs of manufacturers here in the U.S. and around the 

world. 

• The bill recognizes that much can be done to make permitting processes more 

efficient, even without wholesale changes in underlying law. Requiring performance metrics for the processing of permit applications should spark new thinking and innovative ideas for reasonable reforms. 

• The bill’s directive to complete a comprehensive national resource assessment 

for each element designated as critical should help to prioritize resource opportunities for both government officials and private sector interests. 

• Its focus on encouraging more efficient production and use of critical materials, 

development of alternative materials, and increased recycling is equally important. For a number of critical materials, increased production will need to be 

supplemented by these strategies to meet future global demand. 

• Strengthening the education and workforce training infrastructure related to 

critical material, a goal of this bill, also is a high priority. The U.S. lags behind 

many nations in this area, which in turn can negatively impact investment decisions by private sector companies in critical material supply chain development. 

THE RE-BIRTH OF U.S. RARE EARTH PRODUCTION 

REEs offer a window into many of the issues listed above as well as the challenges of bringing more critical minerals and metals through permitting and into 

production. 

The U.S. was once the world’s largest producer of REEs, thanks to the rare earth 

production done for more than 45 years at Mountain Pass, California, home to one 

of the largest, richest and most readily processable REE ore bodies in the world. 

Production at the original processing facility at Mountain Pass was halted in the 

late 1990s, and active mining of rare earth ore was suspended in 2002. 

However, fast forward to today: the U.S. is back online in REE production. Construction is complete at Molycorp’s new, $1.55 billion state-of-the-art rare earth 

processing facility at Mountain Pass, and production is ramping up. Not only that, 

but once this facility is up to full-scale operation and its chemical processes are fully 

optimized, we will be able to produce REE materials with a dramatically smaller 

environmental footprint and at a cost of production that will make the U.S. competitive with any REE material producer in the world. 

Taking REEs from the ground, separating them from one another, and converting 

them to usable REE materials involves a highly complex, multi-stage series of chemical processes. The Mountain Pass facility is actually a collection of 12 operating 

systems that must work together both in series and in parallel. As our current rare 

earth production ramp-up continues, we are working to optimize and strengthen the 

system, improve rare earth recovery rates, improve on-time reliability, add redundancy, and increase product throughout. 

In order to better understand the process by which REE ore is converted into useful REE products, a short 4.5-minute Technology Tour video outlining this process 

can be seen here: http://www.brainshark.com/molycorp/vu?pi=zHCzU9yV6zCQamz0. 

32 

* All photos have been retained in committee files. 

1 ‘‘Rare earth oxide equivalent’’ is the industry’s standardized unit of measurement across all 

rare earth containing products. It is comparable to the oil and gas industry’s ‘‘unit of measurement. 

You can also click on the photo* at left to see the Technology Tour. 

All key production components of the Mountain Pass facility are operational, and 

we are in the process of conducting an orderly ramp-up of the many systems that 

work together to convert REE ore into usable products. The new facility was designed to produce at an annual rate of about 20,000 metric tons (mt) of rare earth 

oxide (REO) equivalent1 products. Output can vary during the ramp-up and optimization phase, and that is normal for new chemical plant start-ups. To date, the system has demonstrated an annualized production rate of 15,000 mt of REO equivalent1 product, but we haven’t sustained that rate due to the demands of process optimization. After we complete these procedures, which we expect to do in the first 

half of 2014, we anticipate increasing production volumes as demand requires. 

TECHNOLOGY INNOVATION: REDUCED ENVIRONMENTAL FOOTPRINT 

Mountain Pass may be a re-started rare earth mine, but it is by no means the 

same facility it was in the late 1990s. After rare earth production was halted at 

Mountain Pass, Molycorp scientists went back to the drawing board to design new 

processes and technologies that could help to dramatically shrink the environmental 

footprint of rare earth production. 

These new technologies and process innovations, some of which have never before 

been used in the rare earth industry, have been successfully integrated in our new 

facility. They include: 

• High-efficiency, on-site power generation through a clean-burning natural gasfired Combined Heat and Power (CHP) plant. Among other things, this technology is helping us reduce our greenhouse gas emission (GHG) intensity as 

compared to legacy operations. 

• A high-efficiency water treatment and recycling plant. This plant allow us to 

greatly reduce our fresh water usage and helps to recycle process water. 

• An onsite chlor-alkali plant, which allows us take wastewater and convert it 

into the chemical reagents used in rare earth processing 

• Higher rare earth recovery rates from our ore, which means that the facility 

can produce more rare earth products using the same amount of ore as before. 

• An innovative tailings disposal system, which removes most of the water from 

mine tailings (for recycling) and allows tailings to be formed into a paste, which 

sets up into a solid substance for permanent onsite disposal. This eliminates the 

creation of a tailings ‘‘dam.’’ 

In short, once fully operational and optimized, this facility will operate as the 

world’s most environmentally advanced rare earth processing complex. 

TECHNOLOGY INNOVATION—GLOBALLY COMPETITIVE PRODUCTION 

COSTS 

In addition to significantly reducing environmental externalities associated with 

REE production, the technology innovations developed by Molycorp also will help reduce the cost of producing REE materials at Mountain Pass. Producing REEs at a 

cost that is competitive in global markets is vital to the viability of any REE production facility. 

For example, Molycorp dedicated a significant amount of early-stage capital to install an onsite chlor-alkali plant, which when fully operational will enable Mountain 

Pass to convert what was once wastewater discharge—hundreds of gallons a minute 

of salty water—into chemical reagents needed for rare earth processing. In essence, 

Molycorp has built a recycling loop at Mountain Pass that continually regenerates 

these reagents from wastewater and recycles virtually all of our process water. 

This capability will significantly reduce the overall environmental footprint of rare 

earth production, as well as drive down our cost of production. By making our own 

reagents from wastewater, we will be able to do the following: 

• Buy less reagents from the open market. (Chemical reagents are a significant 

portion of rare earth production costs); 

• Sell excess reagents we produce; and 

• Virtually eliminate wastewater disposal costs. 

Additionally, this capability allows Molycorp to produce REE materials that are 

recognized in downstream markets for the environmentally superior manner in 

33 

which they are produced. We believe that what is good for the environment can also 

be good for business. 

HOW REES ARE ENABLING TECHNOLOGIES THAT INCREASE ENERGY EFFICIENCY AND LOWER POWER-RELATED EMISSIONS 

One of the more exciting rare earth materials that we make from Mountain Pass 

ore is permanent rare earth magnetic materials, which when made into magnets 

can significantly improve the energy efficiency of motors, generators, compressors, 

and other devices. Because they also are significantly smaller than competing, less 

efficient ‘‘ferrite’’ magnet technologies, rare earth permanent magnets allow for 

smaller motors. This allows manufacturers to save on the use of other materials 

such as copper, steel, etc. 

One example of the growing use of rare earth permanent magnets is in residential 

water circulation pumps. 

In Europe, regulations now require the use of high efficiency water circulation 

pumps to distribute heat in buildings. The European Commission (EC) estimates 

that there are more than 100 million of these devices currently installed in the EU, 

and that their energy draw can make up between 5 and 10 percent of the typical 

electricity bill in households. That adds up: across the EU, these devices consume 

more than 50 terrawatt-hours per year of electricity, which is equivalent to about 

two percent of the overall electricity consumption in the EU. This amount of electricity generation equates to more than 30 million tons per year of CO2, according 

to the EC. 

Manufacturers are now turning to pumps that utilize rare earth permanent 

magnets in order to increase efficiencies. These next-generation, variable speed 

pumps can reduce annual electricity use by 60 percent or more, according to the EC. 

This equates to more than 30 TWh/year of avoided energy consumption. 

Another example of rare earth materials used to increase energy efficiency is in 

electric motors used in automobiles. There can be dozens of individual electric motors in a modern automobile. When these motors utilize permanent rare earth 

magnets, instead of larger, heavier and less powerful iron-based permanent 

magnets, manufacturers are able to significant reduce vehicle weight. That translates into higher fuel efficiency and an enhanced ability to meet increasing stringent 

Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFe ́) standards. Additionally, rare earth permanent magnets allow motors to be smaller and more compact, which in turn allows 

more space in the passenger compartment. Hybrid electric, plug-in hybrid, and allelective vehicles especially benefit from rare earth permanent magnets. 

From a macroeconomic perspective, motors and motor-driven systems are estimated to be the single largest end use of electricity in the U.S., consuming over 

twice as much electricity as lighting, the second largest end use. Even small increases in the efficiency of these systems can translate into very significant reductions in energy demand and associated emissions, such as GHGs. 

Energy efficiency experts and motor industry leaders agree that enhancing motor 

and motor-driven system efficiencies is one of the most promising—and currently 

overlooked—pathways to lower energy use and emissions reductions. Rare earth 

permanent magnets can play a key role in those efforts. 

ADVANCES IN REE MATERIAL SCIENCE ARE INCREASING THE EFFICIENT 

USE OF SCARCE HEAVY REES 

One of the most important technology advances being made today in rare earth 

material science relates to the use of relatively scarce heavy rare earths, such as 

Dysprosium, in permanent rare earth magnets. This heavy rare earth (HREE) generally exists in very small quantities relative to other rare earths in virtually all 

REE ore bodies. It is added in small amounts to high-performance rare earth permanent magnets that must operate in relatively higher temperature, ‘under the hood’ 

operating environments, generally those above 150°C. When added at levels between 2 percent and 10 percent, Dysprosium helps these magnets retain their magnetic power. 

Given that this HREE is a truly ‘rare’ rare earth, and is overwhelmingly produced 

today in one nation (China), manufacturers have been reluctant in recent years to 

utilize these high-performance magnets in some applications. 

Fortunately, continuing advances in REE material science, some of which are 

being pioneered by Molycorp scientists, are allowing magnet manufacturers to make 

rare earth permanent magnets with less and less Dysprosium. 

Manufacturers are also finding ways to incorporate low-Dysprosium NdFeB 

magnets into their systems. Together, these efforts are allowing greater use of sintered NdFeB magnets with only 2 percent—4 percent Dysprosium, instead of traditional levels of 8 percent—10 percent Dysprosium. Such reductions are already havVerDate Nov 24 2008 14:20 Apr 14, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 G:\DOCS\86877.TXT WANDA
34 

ing an impact on global demand levels for these scarce rare earths. With more Dysprosium available to markets, a greater number of sintered NdFeB magnets can be 

made and utilized in energy efficiency applications. 

Also, advances in material science and engineering are expanding the use of bonded NdFeB magnets, made by Molycorp’s Magnequench subsidiary, that have no Dysprosium content. 

Some of the motors in a modern automobile that can utilize permanent rare earth 

magnets with little to no Dysprosium. 

A separate technology trend is the continuing migration from tri-phosphor fluorescent lighting to LED lighting. Tri-phosphor lighting utilizes several relatively scarce 

rare earths, such as Terbium, Europium, and Yttrium. This continuing shift to LED 

lighting is already helping to soften demand, and increase the availability, of 

HREEs like Terbium and Yttrium. 

CHALLENGES TO EXPANDING DOMESTIC REE PROCESSING CAPACITY IN 

THE U.S. 

The most significant barrier to entry for new rare earth producers is undoubtedly 

the capacity to take mixed rare earth minerals out of the ground and chemically 

process them into separated, usable rare earth products. Virtually no two rare earth 

deposits are the same, and the often complex mineralogy of some deposits makes 

them highly challenging to chemically process. Consider these facts: 

1. There are more than 200 different minerals that contain rare earths. 

2. Virtually all rare earth deposits are comprised of multiple types of minerals. 

3. The unique chemical structure of the rare earth-bearing minerals in an ore 

body can require a chemical processing facility that is unique to that deposit. 

Many rare earth deposits will require their own unique separate chemical processing facility. 

4. Some rare earth-bearing minerals in a single deposit can require different 

chemical approaches to rare earth separation than other minerals found in the 

same deposit. Such multi-mineralogic ore bodies can be so difficult and costly 

to process as to be uneconomic. 

5. Some rare earth-bearing minerals, including those that have a relatively 

higher percentage of HREEs, have never been successfully processed at the 

commercial scale to remove and separate the rare earths they contain. 

These factors only scratch the surface of the many challenges inherent to economically extracting and separating rare earth elements from various ore bodies. From 

the perspective of policymakers, this underscores the importance of encouraging investment and continuing research and development in the area of rare earth chemical processing. With so many technical and economic challenges that must be met, 

more certainty in permitting and the overall regulatory framework would be welcomed by those seeking to bring new mines and production facilities online. 

A close corollary to this is the relative lack of workforce knowledge and training 

in the U.S. today relative to rare earth chemical processing challenges. Fortunately, 

several U.S. universities, including Iowa State University, Montana State University, and the Colorado School of Mines, ably represented here today by Dr. Rod 

Eggert, have in recent years initiated new curricula aimed at better educating the 

next generation of technical leaders for work in the rare earth industry. 

Additionally, the Administration‘s support for the Critical Materials Hub, housed 

in the Department of Energy’s Ames Research Lab in Ames, Iowa and led by Dr. 

Alex King, also is helping to strengthen and reinforce the America’s knowledge infrastructure in this area. 

THE ROLE OF INCREASING GLOBALIZATION IN CRITICAL MATERIAL SUPPLY CHAINS 

The increasing rare earth production at Molycorp’s Mountain Pass facility, as well 

as new production that has come online in Malaysia by the Australian company 

Lynas, is helping to diversify global production of rare earths and to reduce the 

world’s collective reliance on the world’s predominant rare earth producer, China. 

Other nations are working to start rare earth mines and associated separations capabilities. Additionally, facilities that process rare earths into various downstream, 

value-added products, such rare earth metals, rare earth alloys, and rare earth magnetic materials, also have come online in various nations around the world. 

One impact of such increasing globalization of vertically integrated rare earth 

supply chains is to provide manufacturers with multiple options for their rare earth 

supplies. This helps to de-risk critical material upstream supply chains and to reVerDate Nov 24 2008 14:20 Apr 14, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 G:\DOCS\86877.TXT WANDA
35 

duce rare earth price volatility. All of these factors are helping to restore confidence 

in rare earth markets. 

The capital market’s response to the market instability of 2010 and 2011 has been 

to shift private capital to the development of these integrated supply chains. This 

has resulted in a significantly stronger global rare earth supply chain for manufacturers around the world. 

SUMMARY 

Thank you again, Chairman Wyden, Ranking Member Murkowski, and distinguished members of the Committee, for allowing Molycorp to present our views on 

S. 1600. This bipartisan legislation represents a very good step forward in the effort 

to revitalize domestic mineral supply chains in the U.S. It deserves bipartisan support in the Congress and should be supported by critical material producers and the 

manufacturing community that relies upon reliable supplies of these materials. 

The CHAIRMAN. Let’s do this. If I can call an audible with the indulgence of my colleagues, I have got to be in 2 other places right 

now. We also have the chairman of the mining subcommittee and, 

of course, the ranking member of the full committee here. I just 

wanted to ask one quick question and then we’ll just continue with 

our witnesses. 

Mr. Sims you all were the largest producer of rare earths in the 

country, but you shut down your operations and you’ve since revived it and are actively ramping up production. Why did you shut 

down? 

Mr. SIMS. A couple of reasons Mr. Chairman, but I could probably boil them down to 2. 

No. 1 Mountain Pass, that facility had some environmental 

issues with wastewater spills. We produce a lot of saltwater in this 

chemical process and there were some spills of that water and 

those were issues that shutdown the processing of rare earths. 

Then we had a mine permit that lapsed in 2002, we didn’t get 

that renewed in time, it was probably more our fault than anything 

else. So that physically stopped mining at the facility. Then when 

that permit was renewed in 2004 the then owners of that facility 

which was Unocal, Union Oil of California, looked at the global economics of rare earths and determined that they just didn’t know 

how to make money making rare earths at that facility. 

The CHAIRMAN. So the China issue had—was a factor in what 

you all were trying to do and that—— 

Mr. SIMS. A major factor Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN [continuing]. Part of the shutdown, because what 

we’re trying to do, what Senator Murkowski and Senator Udall and 

I have all been a part of. Senator Manchin is trying to get more 

processing in the United States and it seemed to me as we looked 

at it that China was a big factor in that shutdown and also the 

price situation was a factor. Is that fair to say? 

Mr. SIMS. Very fair to say and I’ll say that now with the new 

technologies that have been developed, we’re going to be able to 

produce rare earths at a cost that’s among the lowest in the world 

including that in Asia and China. 

The CHAIRMAN. I don’t want to take time from additional witnesses, but it seems to me there are lessons here that relate to the 

development of other U.S. sources of rare earths and that’s why our 

legislation is so important. 

So I apologize to our other witnesses for the hectic nature of the 

morning. Senator Manchin is chairman of the mining subcommittee, Senator Murkowski, of course (is the key author of this 

36 

legislation, and they will helm the remainder of the panel and I appreciate all the witnesses. We’ll be working very closely with you. 

Senator Murkowski noted an enormous amount of work has gone 

into this bill, literally years and we’re going to get the administration, Senator Murkowski on this as well—— 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Yes. 

The CHAIRMAN [continuing]. I appreciate your bringing up. 

Senator Manchin gavel is yours and know we are in good stead 

with you and Senator Murkowski, thank you. 

Senator MANCHIN. [Presiding]. She’ll lead me straight I know 

that. 

So what we’ll do Mr. Isaacs if you would proceed now with your 

statement. 

STATEMENT OF DAVID ISAACS, VICE PRESIDENT OF GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS, SEMICONDUCTOR INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION 

Mr. ISAACS. Thank you Senator Manchin and Senator Murkowski. 

My name is David Isaacs, I’m with—testifying on behalf of the 

Semiconductor Industry Association, we are the association of the 

U.S. based semiconductor companies involved in the design and 

manufacturing of semiconductors. As you probably know semiconductors are the key enabling technology that support all modern 

electronics and therefore advancements in semiconductor design 

and manufacturing has led to the innovations in IT, and telecommunications, and transportation, and medical devices, and national security systems. 

So in addition to being a major employer and one of the country’s 

leading exporters we are a key foundational technology that supports our overall economic strength. We very much appreciate the 

chairman and ranking member for convening this hearing and addressing this important legislation because the process of manufacturing and fabricating advanced semiconductors depends on the 

use of certain key materials, whether they are minerals or gases 

or chemicals that have certain unique chemical and physical properties. 

In many instances there are no known substitutes for those materials and therefore having a secure and continuous supply of 

those materials is essential to our continued success and our continued ability to innovate, and central to the economy as a whole. 

As semiconductors get more and more advanced and feature sizes 

are at the nanoscale level, the use of materials with these unique 

properties becomes ever more critical. 

Our views on this issue are very much informed by our recent 

experience with helium and as this committee well knows and 

thanks to the leadership of Senator Murkowski and others and 

Chairman Wyden this Congress was able to address that issue last 

year and get enacted into law one of the few bills that passed Congress to avoid a major shortage of helium. 

Helium is not just used for party balloons and the like, but is 

critical to a number of industrial applications including semiconductors and we were facing major shortages, major price increases of that essential gas and again there—for many of our procVerDate Nov 24 2008 14:20 Apr 14, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 G:\DOCS\86877.TXT WANDA
37 

1SIA seeks to strengthen U.S. leadership of semiconductor design and manufacturing by 

working with Congress, the Administration and other key stakeholders. SIA works to encourage 

policies and regulations that fuel innovation, propel business and drive international competition in order to maintain a thriving semiconductor industry in the United States. Additional information on SIA is available at www.semiconductors.org. 2During the period 2008-12, semiconductors were the second largest export from the U.S., 

after aircraft. Source: U.S. International Trade Commission. Industry Defined By: NAIC Codes 

336411 (Aircraft); 334413 (Semiconductors); 336111 (Automobiles); 324110 (Petroleum Refinery 

Products), Based from total exports revenue. 3http://www.semiconductors.org/clientuploads/Jobs %20Rollout/ 

Jobs%20Issue%20PaperllAprilll2013.pdf. 

esses there were no known substitutes and so it was a really dire 

situation. 

But again thanks to the leadership of this committee we were 

able to get enacted into law the helium stewardship act which 

avoided a very dire situation. But this was a near miss and so our 

interest in this bill is very much consistent with the intent of the 

legislation, which is to identify critical materials and develop a policy framework for avoiding future disruptions in the supply chain. 

So we are taking action as an industry and working with a industry consortium known as SEMATECH and through our global 

technology roadmap to identify critical materials and we very much 

look forward to engaging in the effort that will take place under 

this bill to identify key materials for the semiconductor industry 

and develop the appropriate policies. 

We very much appreciate this bill and support it and are—one 

point we would like to raise for your consideration as you continue 

with work on this bill is to ensure that the definition of critical 

mineral is broad enough to encompass the full range of materials 

that are critical to semiconductors manufacturing and other industrial applications. We very much agree with the holistic approach 

that the bill takes that looks not only at the extraction step but 

also processing and other downstream steps that could serve as 

bottlenecks in the supply chain. 

So we very much appreciate the opportunity to testify and we’re 

happy to answer any questions. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Isaacs follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DAVID ISAACS, VICE PRESIDENT OF GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS, 

SEMICONDUCTOR INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION

The Semiconductor Industry Association (SIA), the voice of the U.S. semiconductor industry,1 appreciates the opportunity to testify in support of the Critical 

Minerals Policy Act (S.1600). We commend Ranking Member Murkowski and Chairman Wyden, as well as the large group of bipartisan co-sponsors, for introducing 

this important legislation and for convening this hearing. We look forward to continuing to work with this Committee to ensure that the U.S. has a secure supply 

of the materials that are critical to the manufacture of semiconductors and by extension the health of the U.S. semiconductor industry and the U.S. economy as a whole. 

Semiconductors are the micro-circuits (sometimes referred to as ‘‘chips’’ or ‘‘computer chips′′) that are the enabling technology for all modern electronics found in 

computers and cell phones, transportation and health care devices, information and 

communications systems, and numerous aspects of our national defense. Because 

semiconductors are a foundational technology for virtually all areas of our economy, 

continued U.S. leadership in semiconductor technology is essential to America’s continued global economic leadership and our national security. Semiconductors are one 

of the nation’s top exports2 and the industry directly employs about 250,000 employees and supports approximately 1 million indirect jobs.3

38 

4The majority of production (56 percent) from U.S. semiconductor firms is located in the 

United States, and the U.S. is home to more leading-edge process technology manufacturing facilities (i.e., 22 nanometer process technology or less) than any other country in the world. 

Source: IC Insights, Global Fab Database. SIA member companies continue to invest and expand in the U.S., with the construction of new and expanded state-of-the-art fabrication facilities across the country. Overall, U.S.-based semiconductor companies retain over 50 percent of 

global market share in a highly competitive market. Source: SIA/iSuppli/WSTS. 5The industry invests on average 22 percent of revenue in R&D, amounting to approximately $32 billion in 2012. Source: World Semiconductor Trade Statistics (WSTS) and IC Insights. 

Semiconductor companies receive a large number of patents each year and possess extensive 

patent portfolios. Six of top 15 US companies receiving patens in the U.S. were semiconductor 

companies. Source: US Patent and Trademark Office, compiled by IFI CLAIMS Patent Services 

(January 2013). 6 Nanotechnology is the science, engineering, and technology conducted at the nanoscale, a 

range from 1 to 100 nanometers (nm). One nanometer is a billionth of a meter, or 10-9 of a 

meter.) See http://www.nano.gov/nanotech-101. Current leading edge chips have over a billion 

transistors on a single chip and features of 22 nanometers (nm), and the industry is engaged 

in ongoing development at the scale of 10 nm (i.e., 22 billionths of a meter, or roughly a 4,000th 

the width of a human hair). See ‘‘Moore’s Law: The rule that really matters in tech (Oct. 15, 

2012) (available at http://news.cnet.com/8301-11386—3-57526581-76/moores-law-the-rule-thatreally-matters-in-tech/). 

I. Semiconductor Manufacturing and Critical Materials 

Contrary to the popular perception that most high-tech manufacturing has been 

offshored to Asia, advanced semiconductor manufacturing remains strong and growing in the U.S.4 The process of manufacturing semiconductors is incredibly complex, 

employing sophisticated equipment and techniques developed by the world’s leading 

scientists and engineers5 and the precise and controlled use of specific materials, 

chemicals, and gases that possess unique chemical and physical attributes. The 

semiconductor industry is innovating at the atomic level and each material used in 

our manufacturing is carefully selected to meet our technology needs and integrated 

together with high precision manufacturing tools to produce high performance semiconductors. As circuit features reach the nanoscale level,6 the semiconductor industry’s use of materials with unique properties becomes even more critical. 

The building blocks of advanced semiconductors include a range of elements, including arsenic, cerium, cobalt, copper, fluorine, gallium, germanium, indium, phosphorus, silicon tantalum, tungsten, tin, titanium, and others. Our industry also relies on a number of specific chemicals and industrial gases in our production process. The materials utilized in the semiconductor manufacturing process are selected 

because they possess unique chemical and physical properties. In many instances, 

there are no known alternatives to these materials that satisfy our functional needs. 

The semiconductor industry relies on a complex global supply chain that consists 

of numerous suppliers of materials, chemicals, and gases. Many of these materials 

are subject to multiple processing steps and pass through multiple hands prior to 

shipment to a semiconductor manufacturing facility (a ‘‘fab’’) for use in our manufacturing process. As a downstream user of these materials, SIA member companies 

are typically several steps removed from the extraction of the basic material, and 

therefore we believe it is important to adopt a holistic approach and look at the entire supply chain when assessing potential vulnerabilities in supply of these critical 

materials. 

Because of our reliance on key materials—and the potential vulnerabilities in the 

supply of these materials—we believe that the Critical Minerals Policy Act is an important bill that warrants prompt consideration. We support the goal of the bill, 

which is to identify minerals that are critical to the American economy and may 

be subject to potential supply disruptions, and to develop a framework for policies 

to prevent potential disruptions to the supply of these minerals. Our industry has 

experienced shortages, price spikes, or other disruptions of key materials in the 

past, and we believe that it should be a national priority to take reasonable steps 

to improve the security of supply of critical materials. The implications of a supply 

disruption in the semiconductor industry reach far beyond our industry because so 

many sectors of our economy are dependent on the electronics that are enabled by 

semiconductors. Consequently, the ripple effects of a supply disruption can adversely impact major elements of the U.S. and global economy. 

Our industry’s recent experience with supply shortages in the supply of helium 

illustrates the potential adverse implications that may result in the disruption in 

the supply of critical materials for the semiconductor industry. Helium is an essential gas in the semiconductor manufacturing process, and because helium has 

unique functional attributes, there are no known alternatives to this gas for many 

of processes in our manufacturing processes. Last year our industry faced significant 

shortages in the supply of helium, as well as substantial price increases, as a result 

39 

7 Another example was the result of Hurricane Katrina, which caused extensive damage to 

a major liquid hydrogen facility in New Orleans. Coupled with a previously planned closure of 

another plant in Canada, the damage to this plant caused a shortage of supplies of liquid hydrogen. More recently, the industry is concerned by actions such as the recent announcement by 

China to reduce the export quota for rare earth minerals. See http://www.bloomberg.com/news/ 

2013-12-13/china-cuts-first-batch-rare-earth-export-quota-for-second-year.html. 8See http://www.sematech.org/. 

9See http://www.itrs.net/. 

10See, e.g., U.S. Department of Energy, Critical Materials Strategy (December 2011) (available at http://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/DOEllCMS2011llFINALllFull.pdf); U.S. Geological Survey Minerals Information (available at http://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/). 

of several factors, including the pending closure of the Federal Helium Reserve. Our 

suppliers were shipping a reduced allocation at dramatically increased cost to semiconductor fabs, and despite efforts to conserve and recycle this gas or find alternatives in some processes, our industry was facing the risk of having insufficient 

quantities to operate. This created a very significant risk for our industry and the 

economy as a whole. 

Fortunately, this Committee recognized the need to resolve this problem and 

Chairman Wyden and Ranking Member Murkowski led the successful efforts in enactment into law of the Helium Stewardship Act (PL 113-40). We greatly appreciate 

the leadership of this Committee in enacting this essential legislation in a timely 

manner. But this experience demonstrates the need to work proactively to develop 

the appropriate policies to avoid future disruptions to the supply of critical materials. 

Our industry has also faced other disruptions in the supply of processed materials 

that are essential to semiconductor production. To cite one prominent example, in 

July 1993, an explosion at a Sumitomo Chemical plant in Japan shut down a factory 

that supplied over half of the world supply of a high purity resin used in semiconductor packages. The value of the resin was estimated to be only 0.26 of a penny 

per integrated circuit, but without the resin semiconductor production would come 

to a halt, a disruption that the U.S. government recognized would soon be felt in 

the computer, automobile, telecommunications equipment, and other manufacturing 

industries. Spot prices for one type of chip, dynamic random-access memory 

(‘‘DRAM’’) memory chip nearly doubled, and DRAM buyers who did not have long 

term contracts were paying in excess of $300 million a week for several weeks after 

the explosion. Since 95 percent of world production of the high purity resin was located in Japan, there was a concerted effort by the U.S. industry and government 

to press Sumitomo Chemical and other Japanese suppliers to allocate remaining inventory and production transparently and fairly. In part due to long supply chains 

using sea freight, there was sufficient inventory to overcome the crisis until the 

Sumitomo Chemical resumed operations in November of 1993. This example illustrates the need for policies that adopt a holistic approach to assessing the supply 

chain of critical materials. 

These are just a sampling of instances that illustrate the potential vulnerability 

of the supply chain.7 In order to avoid future supply disruptions, SIA is pleased that 

this Committee is taking action to secure the supply of critical materials for the future. 

II. Actions by the Semiconductor Industry to Secure Supply of Key Materials 

In light of our recent experience with the shortage of helium, SIA looks forward 

to working with the Congress and the Administration to identify critical materials 

and develop the appropriate policies to secure the supply of key materials. Our industry is engaged in ongoing efforts to identify critical materials used in our processes and avoid harmful disruptions to the supply of these materials. 

1. An industry consortium, SEMATECH,8 has a Critical Materials Council 

that works to analyze risks to the critical materials supply chain and develop 

contingency plans for dealing with possible disruptions. 

2. The industry’s technology roadmap, the International Technology Roadmap 

for Semiconductors (ITRS),9 includes a chapter on emerging materials that will 

be needed for future innovations in our industry. 

SIA is leveraging these ongoing efforts, as well as studies and reports from government and other experts,10 to evaluate the materials critical to the semiconductor 

manufacturing process. Our assessment will consider of a broad range of factors, including the following: 

• The nature, type, and amount of usage in the semiconductor industry 

40 

• The availability of alternatives to the material to satisfy the industry’s functional requirements • The degree of reliance on imports of the material • The geographic concentration and location of sources of the material • The nature of the supply chain and potential vulnerabilities in supply • Known worldwide reserves and anticipated future supplies • Current consumption and expected future demand • Percentage of U.S. consumption of the material, and the usage in the semiconductor industry as compared with other uses • Price and price trends • Past incidents of supply disruptions or price spikes 

As we continue with this process and identify critical materials and potential 

vulnerabilities in the supply of these materials, we hope that our recommendations 

will be considered for inclusion in the lists compiled by the Secretary under this bill. 

III. SIA Suggestions on the Critical Minerals Policy Act 

SIA offers the following suggestions for the consideration of the Committee as you 

continue work on S. 1600. 

1. Definition of ‘‘critical mineral’’ 

The bill defines a ‘‘critical mineral’’ as ‘‘any mineral or element’’ designated as 

critical, with exclusions for materials that are fuels or water. While this definition 

is broad, we believe that it is important to ensure that this definition is sufficiently 

broad to encompass the full range of materials that are critical to the semiconductor 

industry. The semiconductor industry relies on a range of chemicals, gases, and 

other materials that may fall outside the definition of a ‘‘mineral’’ or ‘‘element.’’ For 

example, drawing on the recent experience with helium, it is possible that this gas 

might fall outside the definition of ‘‘mineral.’’ Alternatively, even if it was captured 

by the term ‘‘element,’’ it is possible that it may be excluded as a ‘‘fuel,’’ since it 

is typically co-located with natural gas and extracted as a byproduct of the natural 

gas extraction process. There may be other materials or compounds that are essential to the semiconductor manufacturing process that might inadvertently fall outside the definition of this term. Accordingly, we request that the definition of ‘‘critical mineral’’ (or ‘‘critical material′′) is broad enough to capture the full range of materials that are critical to semiconductor manufacturing and the U.S. economy as 

a whole. 

2. Definition of ‘‘critical mineral manufacturing’’ 

Section 101(a)(2) defines ‘‘critical mineral manufacturing’’ specifically cites a number of important sectors of the economy, including ‘‘consumer electronics.’’ Semiconductors play a pivotal role in all the listed sectors, including consumer electronics. Nonetheless, we believe that this term should be broadened to encompass 

the full range of electronics that are critical to our economy, not only consumer electronics. For example, the bill omits transportation and information technology, two 

important sectors that are reliant on innovations enabled by semiconductors. Some 

of these sectors may not be consumer focused but still have semiconductors as an 

essential component. 

We further note that Section 101(a)(2), regarding the draft methodology for designating critical minerals, employs the same reference to ‘‘consumer electronics’’ regarding ‘‘important uses’’ of these minerals. This list should also be expanded to include a broader range of sectors that rely on semiconductors, information technology, and electronics. 

3. Criteria for Designation as ‘‘Critical’’ 

Section 101(a) sets forth the factors to be considered in the methodology for designation as ‘‘critical,’’ with a focus on minerals that may be subject to supply restrictions and are used in important economic sectors. SIA agrees with this general approach, and suggests that these criteria should be made more detailed to encompass 

a broader range of factors that could warrant a designation as a critical mineral. 

Pages 3-4 of our testimony lists a number of factors that we believe should be considered. We also urge the Committee to take a holistic approach to evaluating the 

supply chain that supplies critical materials to the semiconductor industry and 

other sectors, because vulnerabilities in the supply may occur far beyond the extraction of the material. 

4. Policy Changes to Address Critical Minerals 

Section 102 enumerates certain policy changes in response to the designation of 

a mineral as critical, such as changes to the National Materials and Minerals Policy, 

41 

Research and Development Act of 1980. Similarly, Section 106 calls for a study by 

the National Academies of Science to update its report on ‘‘Hardrock Mining on Federal Lands.’’ We agree that these measures may be appropriate, but the bill should 

address the full range of policies that could impact critical materials, whether or not 

they pertain to minerals and minerals extraction. Once again, drawing on the helium example, we suggest that the bill should be broad enough and flexible enough 

to trigger appropriate revisions to policies relating to helium, such as the Helium 

Stewardship Act. 

5. Recycling, Efficiency, and Supply 

Section 106 calls for the Secretary of Energy to conduct a research and development program ‘‘to promote the efficient production, use, and recycling of critical 

minerals throughout the supply chain.’’ We agree that such a study could be beneficial to improving the efficiency in the use of critical materials. Among other things, 

reforming the rules governing the import and export of used electronics for recycling 

could facilitate the recovery of valuable materials contained in these products. We 

should exercise caution, however, before imposing new or ill-advised mandates on 

the use, labeling, reuse, or recycling of these materials. 

6. Alternatives 

Section 107 calls for the Department of Energy to conduct a study on potential 

alternatives to critical minerals. We strongly support research to evaluate alternatives to certain critical materials. Because our industry selects materials because 

of their unique physical and chemical properties, there may not be suitable alternatives in the semiconductor industry. Nonetheless, we support additional research 

in this area. 

We note that the study called for in Section 107 appears to be limited solely to 

critical minerals in energy technologies. This is certainly one essential area for 

study, but the bill should call for an assessment of potential alternatives in the full 

range of critical mineral manufacturing. 

Thank you for the opportunity to offer this testimony on behalf of the U.S. semiconductor industry, and we look forward to working with the Committee as it works 

on this important bill. 

Senator MANCHIN. Thank you Mr. Isaacs. 

STATEMENT OF GREGORY CONRAD, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR 

INTERSTATE MINING COMPACT COMMISSION, AND ON BEHALF OF ALASKA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES, 

ANCHORAGE, AK 

Mr. CONRAD. Good morning Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member 

Murkowski. 

My name is Gregory Conrad and I serve as executive director of 

the Interstate Mining Compact Commission which is a multiple— 

multi-governmental organization representing the natural resource 

and environmental protection interest of our 26 member States. 

I’m pinch hitting today for Robert Swenson, the Deputy Commissioner of the Alaska Department of Natural Resources who was 

supposed to appear before you but due to weather in Juneau had 

several flights canceled and was unable to be here and he sends his 

apologies. 

On behalf of Governor Sean Parnell the State of Alaska and the 

26 member States of the IMCC we appreciate this opportunity to 

testify in strong support of S. 1600. As State governments we have 

a significant stake in this debate and we applaud this bipartisan 

effort to revitalize the United States critical minerals supply chain 

and reduce the Nation’s dependence on foreign supply. In the face 

of growing resource nationalism abroad, it is crucial that the 

United States take steps to account for, protect and further bolster 

domestic sources of critical minerals. 

42 

Developing our Nation’s mineral wealth in a manner that maximizes access to minerals while maintaining environmental responsibility must be a fundamental component of our efforts to sure up 

national mineral resource security. 

My testimony today will address why this legislation is necessary 

and timely. In particular I will outline complimentary efforts the 

State of Alaska is undertaking through its strategic minerals initiative launched by Governor Parnell in 2011. 

Some of these same efforts are also being pursued in similar 

ways by other IMCC member States. Recognizing the Nation’s need 

for domestic production of strategic and critical minerals and the 

significant minerals potential in Alaska, Governor Parnell announced a 5 part initiative to assess, incentivize, and develop strategic minerals in Alaska. 

This initiative includes undertaking a statewide assessment of 

Alaska’s strategic mineral potential, supporting the development of 

known and highly perspective strategic mineral occurrences 

through infrastructure partnerships and incentives, improving the 

structure and efficiency of the permitting process, deepening partnerships in cooperation with the Federal Government and other 

stakeholders to encourage domestic exploration, development, and 

processing of rare earth elements and other strategic minerals, and 

attracting new investment in markets for Alaska’s abundant mineral resources. 

Our hope is that this committee can use Alaska’s strategic minerals initiative as an example of successful government investment 

in the mineral sector, engage the level of investment needed to address the national effort. 

Our first critical component of Alaska’s strategic minerals initiative was the State’s strategic and critical minerals assessment 

project compiling existing datasets was a first key step in the process, and it allowed the State to focus limited funds on highly perspective State lands that are open to mineral exploration. 

Partnering with Federal agencies was also an important step to ensure that geopolitical boundaries do not hinder the geological analysis. 

The State’s efforts to provide publicly available high quality and 

consistent digital geologic datasets will allow policymakers and 

land managers to make informed decisions, spur minerals exploration, and subsequent mine development, and ultimately reduce 

the Nation’s reliance on foreign supply. 

Since project initiation in 2012 Alaska has spent $3.8 million on 

field investigations and as a result over 3.9 million acres have been 

assessed and more than 1.6 million acres of high resolution air 

borne geophysics has been required for a total of 5.5 million acres 

of mapping. 

To contemplate similar programs for our nationwide effort significantly more funding and boots on the ground will be necessary. 

S. 1600 would move us in this direction in meaningful ways but enhanced funding is a must. 

Turning to another significant aspect of S. 1600 Governor Parnell 

initiated a statewide permitting initiative in 2010 that called on 

State resource agencies to evaluate their permitting process to 

make them more timely, predictable, and efficient. Legislative supVerDate Nov 24 2008 14:20 Apr 14, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00046 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 G:\DOCS\86877.TXT WANDA
43 

port has been essential for Alaska to make these improvements, 

and in Fiscal Year 2012 the Alaska Legislature provided significant 

funding for the State to create efficiencies in the permitting process. 

Since 2011 Department of Natural Resources has been able to reduce its backlog on permits and authorizations by more than 50 

percent. Alaska has also worked with miners and several State and 

Federal agencies to modernize Alaska’s mine permitting forms. 

This change has simplified the process for miners, eliminated or 

simplified duplicative and confusing technical terms, and will improve application processing by reducing areas-errors and increasing readability. We believe that S. 1600 would similarly provide relief in this manner. 

As domestic needs and supply constraints evolve it is imperative 

the government is ready with the data and regulatory environment 

necessary to address the unique challenges and meet the Nations 

need for domestic resources. S. 1600 is a much needed bipartisan 

effort to address this and is an example through Alaska’s efforts on 

how this effort might work on a national scale. 

In closing I would like to submit a statement for the record reflecting the position of IMCC on this important legislation. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify today. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Swenson follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF ROBERT SWENSON, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, ALASKA

DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES, ANCHORAGE, AK 

I. Introduction 

Chairman Wyden, Ranking Member Murkowski, and honorable members of the 

Senate Committee on Energy and Mineral Resources—My name is Robert Swenson 

and I am Deputy Commissioner of the Alaska Department of Natural Resources (AK 

DNR). On behalf of Governor Sean Parnell, thank you for this opportunity to testify 

in strong support of the Critical Minerals Policy Act of 2013. We applaud this bipartisan effort to revitalize the United States’ critical minerals supply chain and reduce 

the nation’s dependence on foreign supply. 

I have also been entrusted by the 26 member and associate-member states of the 

Interstate Mining Compact Commission (IMCC) to convey their views to the Subcommittee today, and to express their gratitude for your leadership in this area, as 

well as their strong support for S. 1600. 

Strategic and critical minerals (SCM) are those minerals determined to be essential for use in the United States but subject to potential supply disruptions. The 

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) maintains a list of critical minerals that is updated 

on the basis of supply risk and changing technologies. The list includes rare-earth 

elements, the platinum-group metals, graphite, and 13 other elements or element 

groups. It is worth noting that these are just a subset of the 36 elements identified 

by the USGS for which the United States imports more than 70 percent of its supply, and that this list will change over time based on supply and the evolution of 

demand. 

II. Overview of Today’s Testimony 

My testimony today will address why this legislation is necessary and timely. I 

will also outline very similar and complementary efforts the State of Alaska is undertaking through its strategic minerals initiative launched by Governor Parnell in 

2011. My primary objective is to share specific examples of how government investment can significantly improve our understanding of resource potential, ensure protection of the environment, and encourage private sector investment to help meet 

our mineral commodity needs. 

Before getting into substantive matters, I would like to briefly mention my professional background as it pertains to this testimony and provide some information 

about the IMCC. 

As the State Geologist and now Deputy Commissioner of AK DNR, a state agency 

employing more than 1,100 resource professionals, I have been in charge of designVerDate Nov 24 2008 14:20 Apr 14, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00047 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 G:\DOCS\86877.TXT WANDA
44 

* All figures have been retained in committee files. 

ing and implementing the State of Alaska’s strategic and critical mineral effort. The 

AK DNR workforce includes scientists with expertise in conducting geological mapping and airborne geophysical studies as well as experts in permitting who work to 

ensure that exploration and development is conducted in a manner that is compatible with Alaska’s unique environment and stringent regulatory standards. 

The IMCC, of which the State of Alaska became a full member last year, is a 

multi-state organization that represents the natural resource and related environmental protection interests of its member states. Twenty-one states have ratified 

their membership in the IMCC through acts of their respective state legislatures, 

and five others participate as associate members while they pursue enactment of 

state legislation ratifying their membership. A primary focus of the IMCC is liaising 

with Congress and the federal government to promote a cooperative effort between 

state and federal agencies in advancing responsible mining development and environmental protection. 

As the primary regulators of mineral production activity within their borders, the 

IMCC member states have a vital interest in the development of all minerals, particularly those of strategic and critical importance to the United States. Even where 

minerals are produced on federal lands, states often work in concert with our various federal agency partners to ensure that these minerals are mined in an efficient 

and effective manner, while also protecting the environment and balancing impacts 

on other resources such as the land, water and air. 

III. Significance of S. 1600 

In its findings, S. 1600 declares that ‘‘the United States lacks a coherent national 

policy to assure the availability of minerals essential to manufacturing, national economic well-being and security, agricultural production, and global economic competitiveness. We strongly agree with this finding. The bill seeks to establish a new critical minerals policy that: 

• Facilitates domestic production; 

• Promotes investment-quality, environmentally-sound domestic mining, processing and minerals recycling; 

• Establishes a national assessment for mineral demand, supply and needs; and 

• Addresses permitting inefficiencies that impact the minerals sector 

Our Nation’s federal agencies (e.g., the USGS, the U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM), and the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) ), will take a lead role in implementing this new policy and, to be successful, they will need to establish strong 

partnerships with the states that have the resource base to support a strategic minerals sector and the regulatory systems and expertise to develop those resources. 

As shown in Figure 1* in the appendix to this testimony, as of 2012, the United 

States relied on imports for most of its strategic and critical minerals. Figure 1 is 

a graph from the U.S. Geological Survey’s 2013 mineral commodity summary of 63 

mineral commodities important to the United States. The figure shows that our nation relies on imports for 100 percent of 17 of the 63 minerals and relies on imports 

for more than 50 percent of 25 additional minerals. Our reliance on imported minerals, however, is not due to an absence of resource potential. 

In fact, while much additional work and investment is needed to develop domestic 

supplies, many U.S. regions contain significant potential for strategic and critical 

minerals. To help understand Alaska’s potential, we have modified Figure 1 to include current, past, and potential production, and highlight the commodities that 

are currently on the USGS list of SCMs. 

IV. Alaska’s Strategic and Critical Minerals Initiative 

The State of Alaska is blessed with vast mineral potential on its lands. Based on 

USGS estimates, if Alaska was a country, it would be in the top 10 for: 

• Coal (17 percent of the world’s coal; 2nd most in the world) 

• Copper (6 percent of the world’s copper; 3rd most in the world) 

• Lead (2 percent of the world’s lead; 6th most in the world) 

• Gold: (3 percent of the world’s gold; 7th most in the world) 

• Zinc: (3 percent of the world’s zinc; 8th most in the world) 

• Silver (2 percent of the world’s silver; 8th most in the world) 

In addition, Alaska has more than 70 known occurrences of rare earth elements 

(REEs) and multiple occurrences of SCM s, as noted on Figure 2. We expect that 

continued exploration will lead to additional discoveries. 

45 

** All tables and exhibits have been retained in committee files. 

Recognizing the nation’s need for domestic production of SCMs and the significant 

minerals potential in Alaska, Governor Parnell directed the Department of Natural 

Resources to hold an inaugural Alaska Strategic and Critical Minerals Summit on 

September 30, 2011. During the summit, the governor announced Secure Alaska’s 

Future: Strategic Minerals, a five-part initiative to assess, incentivize and develop 

strategic minerals in Alaska. This initiative includes: 

• Undertaking a statewide assessment of Alaska’s strategic mineral potential; 

• Supporting the development of known and highly-prospective strategic mineral 

occurrences through infrastructure partnerships and incentives; 

• Improving the structure and efficiency of the permitting process 

• Deepening partnership and cooperation with the federal government and other 

stakeholders to encourage domestic exploration, development, and processing of 

REEs and other strategic minerals. 

• Attracting new investment and markets for Alaska’s abundant mineral resources 

I will now give you a brief summary of these efforts as an example of what can 

be done with proper leadership, cooperation, and funding. My hope is that this Committee can use Alaska’s Strategic Minerals Initiative as an example of successful 

government investment in the minerals sector and gauge the level of investment 

needed to address a national effort. 

Statewide Assessment 

Following Governor Parnell’s 2011 directive, and with funding approved by the 

Alaska Legislature, the Alaska Division of Geological & Geophysical Surveys 

(DGGS) embarked on a program to better characterize Alaska’s SCM endowment. 

The schedule and timetable for completion of the division’s Strategic and Critical 

Minerals Assessment project is shown in Table 1**, and Exhibit A of the appendix 

provides a list of products that will be made available through this project. 

Compiling existing data sets was a key first step in the process and it allowed 

the state to focus limited funds on highly-prospective state lands that are open to 

mineral exploration. Partnering with federal agencies was an important step to ensure that geopolitical boundaries do not hinder the geological analysis. 

High-quality, district-scale geological data is lacking for most areas of Alaska with 

known SCM occurrences. The most basic and useful data—geologic maps—are generally not available at a scale useful for mineral exploration (1:63,360 or 1’’ = 1 

mile). Much of the other available public data occurs in a patchwork of coverage of 

varying quality, vintage, and scale. The state’s efforts to provide publicly available, 

high quality and consistent digital geologic datasets will allow policy makers and 

land managers to make informed decisions; spur mineral exploration and subsequent mine development; and ultimately reduce the nation’s reliance on foreign supply. S. 1600 would greatly enhance and support these types of efforts and initiatives 

on both state and federal lands. 

The Strategic and Critical Minerals Project proposal calls for spending $2.73 million a year for five years (subject to the availability of funding). Since project initiation in 2012, DGGS has spent $3.8 million on field investigations. 

Results of the Assessment Program 

The Strategic and Critical Minerals Project has produced a significant amount of 

data since its initiation in 2011. In geologic mapping at both reconnaissance and detailed scales, over 3.9 million acres have been assessed, and more than 1.6 million 

acres of high resolution airborne geophysics has been acquired, for a total of 5.5 million acres of mapping. To put this into context, the Commonwealth of Virginia contains approximately 27.4 million acres within its boundaries. With the available 

funding over a 3 year period we have been able to cover about 20 percent of the 

area of Virginia. In addition to the mapping effort, the state has performed modern 

geochemical analysis (focused on the full suite of elements) of nearly 10,000 

archived and new samples collected during the mapping effort. Much of this geochemical work has been in cooperation with the USGS, which has significantly 

broadened the aerial coverage and distribution of the information, as shown in Figure 3. 

To contemplate similar programs for a nationwide effort, significantly more funding and ‘boots on the ground’ would be necessary. Certainly, there is a tremendous 

variability in the level of data coverage and data quality across the nation, and, as 

a result, performing comprehensive resource assessments will require a coordinated 

46 

effort and the creation of a robust funding mechanism between states and federal 

agencies. S. 1600 would move us in this direction in meaningful ways. 

Federal funding through Statemap and data preservation 

An excellent example of cooperative funding and leveraging of state and federal 

dollars to acquire geologic information is the National Geologic Cooperative Mapping Program. This national program has been a cornerstone of cooperation between 

State Geologic Surveys and the USGS and has been supported by Alaska and IMCC 

over the years. Another key federal program that helps to archive samples and 

other forms of legacy geologic and geophysical data is the National Geological & 

Geophysical Data Preservation Program. A tremendous amount of valuable information was acquired at a very low cost in Alaska by sampling archived materials from 

both the State and USGS collections. It is imperative that these cost-effective programs are maintained and sufficiently funded to address the evolving geologic needs 

of the nation, including the strategic minerals assessment program. Again, the provision in S. 1600 will facilitate this type of work greatly. 

V. Alaska’s Efforts to Improve Permitting 

Statewide Permitting Reform 

Governor Parnell initiated a statewide permitting initiative in 2010 that called on 

state resource agencies to evaluate their permitting processes to make them more 

timely, predictable and efficient. This effort began in earnest in 2011. 

The Department of Natural Resources has pursued permitting reform in several 

ways: investing in our staff, modernizing our technology, and working with the Alaska Legislature to enact statutory changes. Through our work on this over-arching 

permitting initiative, we are also addressing the governor’s Strategic Minerals initiative, which also called on state officials to make the permitting process more 

structured and efficient. 

Legislative support has been essential for us to make these improvements. In 

FY12, the Alaska Legislature provided approximately $2.7 million in operating 

funds and $2.5 million in capital funding for our Division of Mining, Land & Water 

to create efficiencies in its permitting process. In FY12 and 13, the Legislature approved funding to fill vacant positions focused on permitting. 

What progress have we made? Since 2011, the Department of Natural Resources 

has been able to reduce its backlog of permits and authorizations by more than 50 

percent. Furthermore, the Alaska Legislature has approved several bills introduced 

by Governor Parnell to modernize our statutes. One of those bills, enacted in 2013, 

authorizes state agencies to evaluate the possibility of administering the federal program for permitting dredge and fill projects in surface waters and wetlands. Under 

this program, the state, rather than the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, would administer many Clean Water Act Section 404 permitting responsibilities in cooperation with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. While this would be a major 

undertaking and significant new expense for the state, assuming primacy for this 

federal program may make permitting projects, including mining projects, in Alaska 

more efficient, timely, and certain. 

Specifically related to mining, our Department has worked with miners and several state and federal agencies to modernize Alaska’s mining permit application 

forms. Three previous versions of application packets used for hardrock exploration, 

mechanical placer mining, and suction dredge operations were consolidated into one 

uniform application packet in an updateable Adobe format. These new application 

packets are now available online for use during the 2014 mining season. This 

change has simplified the process for miners, eliminated or simplified duplicative 

and confusing technical terms, and will improve application processing by reducing 

errors and increasing readability. We believe that S. 1600 would similarly provide 

relief in this same manner. 

Large Project Coordination 

Alaska employs an interagency Large Mine Permitting Team (LMPT) approach to 

the review of permits and authorizations for mining projects. This team-based approach, to our knowledge, is unique in the nation. It is a voluntary process, at the 

applicant’s expense, whereby the applicant enters into an agreement with DNR’s Office of Project Management and Permitting (OPMP) to provide a Large Project Coordinator (LPC), who acts as the State’s primary point on contact for the project. The 

LPC coordinates the participation of the technical LMPT members from the different state regulatory agencies, who are also funded by the applicant via the funding agreement with OPMP. When a federal Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) 

is required under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), OPMP typically 

signs on as a Cooperating Agency on behalf of all of the state agencies and coordiVerDate Nov 24 2008 14:20 Apr 14, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00050 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 G:\DOCS\86877.TXT WANDA
47 

nates their participation in the NEPA environmental review. The LPC works to 

minimize duplication of effort by the agency representatives and to coordinate, to 

the degree possible, the permitting requirements and timelines of the different state 

and federal agencies. The State of Alaska has long felt that a federal coordinator 

similar to the State’s LPC could help to coordinate federal permitting. 

Alaska’s coordinated team approach helps to increase permitting efficiencies and 

to ensure that permitting requirements are not overlooked. The funding agreement 

with OPMP also provides a means for hiring 3rd party contractors, if the state agencies lack the in-house technical expertise for reviewing and evaluating project proposals and supporting documents. A recent addition to Alaska’s approach to mine 

permitting has been the requirement for Health Impact Assessments (HIA) which 

objectively evaluate the potential impacts to human health, both negative and positive, from mine development. The HIA program is housed in the Alaska Department 

of Health and Social Services and is staffed by public health professionals. 

Because resource development projects and environmental protection are equally 

important to Alaska, we have invested a lot of attention to our permitting processes 

and feel we have a system that is thorough, balanced and efficient. In recent years, 

the LMPT has participated in the EIS for the Greens Creek Tailings Expansion, the 

re-issuance of authorizations and financial assurances for the Kensington Gold 

Mine, and modifications to the Fort Knox Gold Mine’s Plan of Operations and Waste 

Management Permit. S. 1600 seems to embrace this same type of approach for federal projects and should also facilitate the permitting of projects on federal lands. 

VI. Working with Federal Agencies and Industry 

One of the most cost-effective ways to gather new data in remote areas with high 

costs of data acquisition is through partnerships and grant programs that leverage 

the limited funding of all interested parties. Methods for leveraging can include data 

sharing, direct contribution to expand programs, cost sharing through competitive 

grant programs, and the cooperative use of archived samples and data sets where 

results are shared by all parties. 

In Fall 2013, DGGS leveraged its Wrangellia airborne survey by coordinating with 

a mineral exploration company, allowing the company to fly an airborne survey that 

overlapped a portion of the survey area. DGGS has obtained the results from the 

company’s survey, at no cost, and will incorporate it in our analyses and make it 

available to the public. DGGS made a similar arrangement with CIRI, an Alaska 

Native regional corporation, for a 100-square-mile area adjacent to the state’s Farewell survey area. DGGS will remain flexible and work cooperatively with other private, industry and government partners to leverage limited funding. This is an example of the multi-stakeholder approach that S. 1600 means to utilize. 

DGGS maintains close working relationships with the USGS and the U.S. Bureau 

of Land Management (BLM) as part of the state’s SCM project. Specifically, DGGS 

and the USGS signed two memoranda of understanding (MOU). The first is a cooperative agreement to evaluate Alaska’s Strategic & Critical Minerals potential. 

Work includes: 1) statistically identifying SCM-related elements with high values in 

statewide geochemical data in order to identify areas with high SCM potential; 2) 

identifying areas in Alaska with geology favorable for finding SCM-related mineral 

deposits, and; 3) re-analyzing historic USGS samples and obtaining modern geochemical analyses to facilitate mineral exploration for SCM. 

The second MOU with the USGS is a cooperative agreement to enhance DGGS 

geophysical surveys. The agreement formalizes a cooperative program for the USGS 

and DGGS to 1) collaborate on new processing of existing and any future DGGS airborne geophysical survey data, 2) collaborate on development of new interpretative 

products (appropriate to both agencies), and 3) provide for the ability to share appropriate confidential geophysical data and information between the geophysical 

personnel of both agencies. 

DGGS also has an informal cooperative agreement with the BLM to document, 

archive, and make publically available (on DGGS’s web site) all of the historic US 

Bureau of Mines Strategic & Critical Minerals data and publications in Alaska. 

S. 1600 appears to encourage this same type of cooperation among state and federal agencies to stimulate mineral production on both state and federal lands. We 

are particularly supportive of those provisions in S. 1600 that would require enhanced coordination between federal government agencies such as BLM and USFS 

and state government agencies that have similar responsibilities for the development of mineral resources. We believe that renewed and revitalized efforts in this 

regard would avoid duplicative reviews, minimize paperwork and result in timelier 

processing of permit applications. The bill also recognizes and gives credence to the 

critical role played by the states with jurisdiction over mining projects. 

48 

VII. Summary 

As domestic needs and supply constraints evolve, it is imperative that government 

is ready with the data and regulatory environment necessary to address the unique 

challenges and meet the nation’s needs for domestic resources. For its part, the 

State of Alaska has invested in the assessment of its resources for many years. Historically, the federal government has made significant investments in these critical 

activities as well. However, to the recent failure to prioritize the USGS minerals 

program have created a situation where these assessments are difficult or nearly 

impossible to implement at a national scale. 

The Critical Minerals Policy Act of 2013 is a much needed bipartisan effort to address this situation. The bill before you speaks to unique risks concerning the supply chain of critical and strategic minerals that are important for national security, 

protection of the environment, and economic well-being of the nation. By addressing 

the data requirements for resource assessments and examining the permitting process for inefficiencies that may unnecessarily hinder responsible development, this 

legislation will help remove some of the barriers to environmentally sound domestic 

production, and provide the raw materials for new technologies that will provide a 

host of benefits to the nation. 

As stated in the bill, the federal government cannot accomplish these tasks alone. 

It is critical that state and federal agencies work in close cooperation, leveraging 

their expertise and funding to maximize efficiency. Providing sufficient federal funding and matching grant opportunities would be a crucial part of the legislation and 

should be contemplated for all sections of the bill, including Section 103; Resource 

Assessment. 

Alaska’s strategic minerals initiative is a good example of how this effort might 

work on a national scale. While Alaska’s work isn’t finished yet, it has: gathered 

the data needed to assess the mineral potential of more than 5 million acres of highly-prospective State land; addressed inefficiencies in the regulatory framework; coordinated permitting; and increased the domestic exploration and production of a 

host of mineral commodities, including strategic and critical minerals. The investment history depicted in Figure 4 shows that these efforts have been successful. In 

Alaska, exploration expenditures—the front-end risk money that leads to the next 

discovery and potential development—have exceeded $100 million dollars for each 

of the last eight consecutive years, and exceeded $300 million per year for three of 

those years. 

The experience in many of the IMCC member states, particularly in the West, has 

been similar and highlights the importance of a coordinated approach for mineral 

development and related environmental protection. The efforts and investment contemplated by the Critical Minerals Policy Act of 2013 will help the Nation achieve 

similar results. 

Thank you again for the opportunity to testify before this committee. 

Senator MANCHIN. Thank you sir. 

Ms. THOMAS. 

STATEMENT OF JENNIFER THOMAS, DIRECTOR, FEDERAL 

GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS, THE ALLIANCE OF AUTOMOBILE 

MANUFACTURERS 

Ms. THOMAS. Thank you Chairman Manchin and Ranking Member Murkowski. 

My name is Jennifer Thomas and I am director of Federal Government Affairs to the Alliance of Automobile manufacturers, 

which is the trade association that represents 12 auto makers that 

make roughly 3 out of every 4 new vehicles sold in the U.S. every 

year. 

On behalf of the alliance I appreciate the opportunity to offer our 

views on S. 1600, the Critical Minerals Policy Act of 2013 and the 

need for reliable and affordable access to the minerals that are 

vital to automobile production. 

To meet the aggressive 54.5 miles per gallon fuel economy standards by model year 2025 auto makers are fully engaged in developing more advanced technology vehicles, more efficient power 

trains and lighter vehicle bodies. This new generation of sophistiVerDate Nov 24 2008 14:20 Apr 14, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00052 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 G:\DOCS\86877.TXT WANDA
49 

cated and fuel efficient vehicles will be increasingly reliant on a variety of commodities, many of which appear to meet the bills definition of a critical mineral. 

For example various lighter weight high strength steel alloys 

contain a variety of minerals including chromium, nickel, and manganese, and are utilized to reduce the vehicle’s weight while maintaining the integrity of a vehicle. Platinum group metals are essential components of a vehicles catalytic converter, significant reducing carbon monoxide, hydrocarbon, and nitrogen oxide emissions. 

Small quantities of rare earth elements have been used in conventional vehicles for many years, but hybrids, plug-institutions, 

and EV’s use larger quantities of rare earth elements in their electric motors and their more complicated hybrid battery systems. 

Simply put minerals are the building blocks of richly every automobile on the road today. Ensuring affordable and reliable access 

to them is key to the continued success of the automotive sector. 

We commend Senators Murkowski, Wyden, and Udall for 

crafting comprehensive and bipartisan legislation that will help 

create a more secure and domestic supply chain for critical minerals. 

According to the U.S. Geological Survey, U.S. manufacturers and 

diverse industries are more than 50 percent reliant on imports for 

than 3 dozen minerals commodities. This dependency leaves the 

U.S. industries susceptible to potential supply disruption in producing countries, as a result of political instabilities or a significant 

growth in internal demand. 

The Critical Minerals Policy Act promotes policies to help ensure 

robust and secure supply chain of domestically produced critical 

minerals. The Alliance supports the requirements outlined in Title 

1 to establish a list of minerals critical to the U.S. economy and 

create analytical and forecasting capabilities to provide accurate 

and timely mineral information to avoid supply shortages, mitigate 

price volatility, and prepare for increased demand. 

Every auto maker maintains a process to manage risks throughout its vast global supplier network and the existence of impartial 

analysis and forecasting for critical minerals similar to what EIA 

produces for a variety of energy sources will help industry identify 

risks early and ultimately manage them. 

Automakers also support the DOE research programs established 

in Sections 106 and 107 that would facilitate the efficient production, reuse, and recycling of critical minerals as well as programs 

that would identify and develop suitable alternatives and thereby 

reducing the demand of—for critical minerals. Given the diversity 

of sources impacted by the availability of minerals, DOE is the 

right agency to coordinate with stakeholders in developing best 

practices and innovative approaches for using existing minerals efficiently and for introducing viable and affordable alternatives 

when necessary. 

We greatly appreciate the opportunity to offer our views on the 

Critical Minerals Policy Act and the need for a robust and stable 

critical minerals market. Whether it’s the aluminum in automotive 

frames, the platinum in catalytic converters, or the lithium in electric vehicle batteries minerals are essential components in every 

vehicle on the road today. 

50 

1 Jaruzelski, B., Loehr, J., and Holman, R. The Global Innovation 1000: Navigating the Digital 

Future. Booz & Co. Issue 73. Winter 2013. 

This sensible bipartisan legislation will help ensure reliable, affordable domestic access to critical minerals, while promoting recycling, reuse and the development of viable alternatives to help reduce their demand. 

Thank you again and I’ll be happy to answer any of your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Thomas follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JENNIFER THOMAS, DIRECTOR, FEDERAL GOVERNMENT

AFFAIRS, THE ALLIANCE OF AUTOMOBILE MANUFACTURES

Thank you, Chairman Wyden, Ranking Member Murkowski and members of the 

Committee. The Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers (Alliance) is a trade association of twelve car and light truck manufacturers comprised of BMW Group, Chrysler 

Group LLC, Ford Motor Company, General Motors Company, Jaguar Land Rover, 

Mazda, Mercedes-Benz USA, Mitsubishi Motors, Porsche Cars, Toyota, Volkswagen 

Group and Volvo Cars. Together, Alliance members account for roughly three out 

of every four new vehicles sold in the U.S. each year. Auto manufacturing is a cornerstone of the U.S. economy, supporting eight million private-sector jobs, $500 billion in annual compensation, and $70 billion in personal income-tax revenues. On 

behalf of the Alliance, I appreciate the opportunity to offer our views on S. 1600, 

the Critical Minerals Policy Act of 2013, and the need for reliable and affordable 

access to the minerals that are vital to automobile production. We applaud the Committee for the thoughtful and bipartisan approach it has taken to address this important policy issue. 

Today’s automobile is among the most sophisticated technology owned by consumers. Not only is it advanced from electronics, computer and connectivity standpoints, but it must also be durable and reliable. An automobile must function consistently and well in the harshest climate conditions from freezing cold to desert 

heat, running on the roughest roads from urban potholes to unpaved country and 

off-road conditions, performing at highway speeds and in congested city streets for 

as much as a 150,000-mile lifetime, all while meeting thousands of regulatory requirements. Virtually every aspect of the modern automobile is now high-tech, uses 

advanced materials and is developed through cutting-edge processes. To keep pace 

with ever-growing consumer demands for sophisticated new technologies, Booz & 

Co. found auto industry R&D spending climbed from $7.4 billion to $102 billion in 

2013. By comparison, the entire global aerospace and defense industry spent roughly $25.5 billion in the same year.1

To meet the aggressive 54.5 miles per gallon (mpg) fleet fuel economy standards 

by model year (MY) 2025, automakers are fully engaged in further refining the production of vehicles and the implementation of advanced technologies—developing 

more hybrids, plug-in hybrids, battery electrics, fuel cell vehicles, more efficient 

power trains, and lighter vehicle bodies. This new generation of sophisticated, hightech and fuel-efficient vehicles will be increasingly reliant on a variety of commodities, many of which appear to meet the bill’s definition of a critical mineral. For 

example, various lighter-weight, high-strength steel alloys contain a variety of minerals, including molybdenum, chromium, nickel, and manganese, and are utilized to 

reduce vehicle weight while still maintaining the integrity of a vehicle. Platinum 

group metals (PGMs) are essential components of a vehicle’s catalytic converter, significantly reducing carbon monoxide (CO), hydrocarbon (HC), and nitrogen oxide 

(NOX) emissions. Finally, rare earth magnets are used in the electric motors found 

in most hybrid and electric vehicles and in the nickel metal hydride batteries utilized in current generation hybrid electric vehicles. Some current and many future 

hybrid and electric vehicles are expected to utilize lithium ion batteries and while 

they do not contain rare earth elements (REEs), lithium ion batteries do contain 

minerals such as cobalt and manganese, in addition to lithium. Simply put, minerals are the building blocks of virtually every automobile on the road today. Ensuring affordable and reliable access to them is key to the continued success of the 

automotive sector. 

Automobile manufacturing is among the most capital-intensive industries. Automakers and suppliers must make substantial investments at the front end on research, design, development, testing and certification before a vehicle enters production. New technologies carry significantly higher costs, at least initially, as they are 

51 

developed and refined for use on the various types of vehicles needed by American 

consumers. Additionally, production cycles in the auto industry are five years or 

longer and not all vehicles are reengineered at the same time. This need for longer 

lead times requires increased transparency and certainty throughout the global supply chain. Any unexpected disruptions have the potential to result in significant economic harm. 

We commend Senators Wyden and Murkowski for crafting comprehensive legislation that will help create a more secure domestic supply chain for critical minerals. 

According to the U.S. Geological Survey, U.S. manufacturers and others are more 

than 50 percent reliant on imports for more than three-dozen mineral commodities, 

including REEs, titanium, and cobalt. This dependency leaves U.S. industries susceptible to potential supply disruptions in producing countries as a result of natural 

disasters, political instability or market manipulation. The Critical Minerals Policy 

Act promotes policies to help ensure a robust and stable supply chain of domestically produced critical minerals and, thus, provides industries reliable and affordable access to critical minerals. 

The Alliance supports the requirements outlined in Title I of the Critical Minerals 

Policy Act to establish a list of minerals critical to the U.S. economy. Following this 

designation, the legislation calls for an analytical and forecasting capability to be 

established to identify critical mineral supply and demand to ensure ‘‘informed actions be taken to avoid supply shortages, mitigate price volatility, and prepare for 

demand growth and other market shifts.’’ Every automaker maintains a process to 

manage risk throughout its vast global supplier network. The existence of impartial 

analysis and forecasting for critical minerals, similar to what the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) produces for various energy sources, will help industry 

identify risks early and ultimately manage them. 

Mineral-dependent industries must manage and mitigate risks of shortages or 

price spikes through a variety of means, including diversifying suppliers to the maximum extent possible, using minerals efficiently throughout the production process 

and establishing aggressive recycling programs to recapture supplies when vehicles 

are taken off the road. Automakers support the Department of Energy (DOE) R&D 

programs established in Sections 106 and 107 of Title I that would facilitate the efficient production, use, and recycling of critical minerals and identify and develop alternative materials that can be used to reduce the demand for critical minerals. 

Given the diversity of sectors potentially impacted by the availability of certain minerals, DOE is the right agency to coordinate with stakeholders in developing best 

practices and innovative approaches for using existing critical minerals efficiently 

and for introducing viable and affordable alternatives when necessary. 

We appreciate the opportunity to offer our views on the Critical Minerals Policy 

Act and the need for a robust and stable critical minerals market. Whether it’s the 

aluminum in automotive frames, the platinum in catalytic converters, or the lithium 

and nickel in electric vehicle batteries, minerals are vital components in every automobile on the road today. This sensible, bipartisan legislation will help to ensure 

reliable and affordable domestic access to critical minerals, promote recycling, and 

identify and develop viable alternatives to reduce the demand for critical minerals. 

The Alliance stands ready to work with the Committee on this important energy 

and natural resources policy. Thank you again and I will be happy to answer any 

of your questions. 

Senator MANCHIN. Thank you. 

STATEMENT OF RODERICK G. EGGERT, PROFESSOR OF ECONOMICS AND BUSINESS, COLORADO SCHOOL OF MINES, AND 

DEPUTY DIRECTOR, CRITICAL MATERIALS INSTITUTE, AN 

ENERGY INNOVATION HUB OF THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

Mr. EGGERT. Thank you Ms.—thank you Mr. Chairman and 

Ranking Member Murkowski. 

My name is Rod Eggert I’m a professor of Economics and Business at Colorado School of Mines. I also am deputy director of the 

Critical Materials Institute, the DOE Energy Innovation Hub that 

Mr. Danielson discussed in Panel 1. I also chair the National Research Council Committee that prepared the 2008 study, ‘‘Minerals, 

Critical Minerals and the U.S. Economy’’. 

52 

Let me begin with my summary thoughts and then provide an 

explanation, my summary thoughts. S. 1600 aligns well with the 

recommendations of the 2008 National Research Council Study on 

critical materials. Also the recommendations on the 2011 expert review panel report on energy critical elements prepared by a panel 

of the American Physical Society and the Materials Research Society. 

S. 1600 also aligns well with my previous testimony and published statements on policy in this area. Especially noteworthy I 

think are its wholistic and comprehensive nature and its focus on 

the entire supply chain. 

Now for my explanation, as an economist I believe in the power 

and effectiveness of markets and so my inclination is to favor market solutions rather than government interventions. But markets 

are not panaceas, governments have the responsibility to facilitate 

market activities, especially in situations when markets are not or 

do not work well. 

In the case of critical minerals and materials there are 4 areas 

in which I think government activities can play an important even 

essential role: first in the area of international trade, policy and 

government activities should promote undistorted trade when trade 

distortions distort markets. This is an important issue in a number 

of mineral markets, but as I realize this is outside the scope or the 

purview of this committee’s activities, I won’t say anything further 

on this issue. 

Second, policy and government activities should strive for more 

efficient processes for the regulatory review of potential new mineral development activities. Foreign sources are not necessarily 

more risky than domestic sources but when they are, domestic 

sources of mineral resources can help offset risky foreign sources. 

Sections 104 & 105 of the proposed legislation would be an important step in this regard. 

Third, policies and government activities are essential in facilitating collection and dissemination in analysis of information. 

There’s a long tradition of government providing basic information 

on which sound private and public decisions are made and Sections 

101, 103, and 108 address information and analysis. 

Fourth and finally policy and government activities should facilitate research and education. Research and education are traditional public goods, that is investments that the private sector acting alone is likely to undersupply because the benefits of these investments are diffuse, difficult to capture, often easy to copy, risky, 

and far in the future. Over the longer term R&D is perhaps the key 

to eliminating the supply risks associated with critical minerals 

and materials. 

Sections 106 and 107 would help focus R&D attention on a critical minerals and materials. Section 109 would help reinvigorate— 

Section 109 which focuses on education and work force would help 

reinvent—reinvigorate our intellectual on academic infrastructure 

in mineral resources and materials which has to some degree withered in the recent past. 

So overall and to repeat my evaluation I support S. 1600, it 

aligns well with a number of recent expert review studies on this 

53 

1See Eggert (2010) and Eggert (2011), as well as two expert-panel reports in which I participated (APS/MRS 2011, NRC 2008). My testimony today overlaps considerably with views I expressed in previous testimony before (a) the Subcommittee on Energy, Committee on Energy 

and Natural Resources, September 30, 2010, (b) the Committee on Industry, Research, and Energy of the European Parliament, January 26, 2011, and (c) the Subcommittee on Energy and 

Mineral Resources, Committee on Natural Resources, U.S. House of Representatives, May 24, 

2011. 

issue as well as my own previous published statements on critical 

minerals and materials. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify today, I’d be happy to 

answer any questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Eggert follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF RODERICK G. EGGERT, PROFESSOR OF ECONOMICS AND

BUSINESS, COLORADO SCHOOL OF MINES, AND DEPUTY DIRECTOR, CRITICAL MATERIALS INSTITUTE, AN ENERGY INNOVATION HUB OF THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Good morning, Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee, ladies and gentlemen. 

My name is Rod Eggert. I am a professor of economics and business at Colorado 

School of Mines, as well as deputy director of the Critical Materials Institute, an 

energy innovation hub of the U.S. Department of Energy. My area of expertise is 

the economics of mineral resources. In addition to my current activities related to 

critical minerals and materials, several years ago I participated in two review panels relevant for today’s hearing. I chaired the committee of the U.S. National Research Council that prepared the 2008 report Minerals, Critical Minerals, and the 

U.S. Economy. I served as a member of the committee of the American Physical Society and the Materials Research Society that prepared the 2011 report Energy Critical Elements: Securing Materials for Emerging Technologies. I also testified previously on critical minerals and materials before a Subcommittee of this Committee 

(2010), a House Committee (2011), and a committee of the European Parliament 

(2011). 

I organize my remarks into three sections. First, I describe the context for current 

concerns about critical minerals. Second, I present my views on appropriate roles 

for government in light of these concerns, which reflect my previous testimony and 

published papers. Third, I comment on S. 1600 itself. 

Context 

Mineral-based materials and products are becoming increasingly complex. Early 

cell phones in the 1980s consisted of materials that used approximately 30 elements 

from the periodic table; today’s smart phones contain 60-70 mineral-derived elements. General Electric uses more than 70 of the first 83 elements of the periodic 

table in its products or processes used to make these products. In contrast, as recently as three decades ago, a typical household owned products containing perhaps 

only 30 or so of these elements. 

New technologies and engineered materials create the potential for rapid increases in demand for some elements used previously and even now in small quantities. The most prominent-although by no means only-examples are neodymium 

and dysprosium in permanent magnets for electronics and high-efficiency motors; 

europium, terbium and yttrium in advanced lighting systems; lithium in batteries; 

and gallium, indium, and tellurium in thin-film photovoltaic materials. 

These technological developments raise two concerns. The first is that supply will 

not keep up with demand growth due to the time lags involved in bringing new production capacity online or more fundamentally the basic geologic scarcity of certain 

elements. The second concern is that supply is insecure or risky because of fragile 

supply chains. The causes of fragility are several and vary from case to case: industry concentration; reliance on imports from politically risky countries, some of which 

impose export restrictions on primary raw materials; and reliance on by-product 

production. In both cases, mineral availability-or more precisely, unavailability-is a 

potential constraint on the development and deployment of emerging and important 

technologies, especially in the energy, electronics, transportation and defense sectors. 

Roles for Government1

As an economist, I believe in the power and effectiveness of markets. Markets provide strong incentives for private investments that re-invigorate supply and reduce 

54 

supply risks. Markets encourage users of critical materials to obtain ‘‘insurance′′: for 

example, in the short term, users can maintain stockpiles, diversify sources of supply, develop jointsharing arrangements with other users, or develop tighter relations 

with producers. Over the longer term, users can undertake research and development to develop alternative materials that use less of, or no, elements subject to 

significant supply risks. Scarcity and supply risk encourage investments in mineral 

exploration and mine development (potentially funded by users seeking secure supplies), improved manufacturing efficiency, and recycling of manufacturing wastes 

and end-of-life products. 

But markets are not panaceas. Government plays essential roles in facilitating 

market activities. For mineral resources, government can play four important roles 

that facilitate well-functioning markets and help ensure reliability of material supplies in the short term and availability of mineral resources in the long term: 

1. Encourage undistorted international trade.—The governments of rawmaterialimporting nations should fight policies of exporting countries that restrict rawmaterial exports to the detriment of users of these materials. The 

U.S., European, and Japanese filings with the World Trade Organization 

against China and its restrictions on rare-earth, molybdenum, and tungsten exports are examples. 

2. Improve regulatory-approval processes for domestic resource development.—Foreign sources of supply are not necessarily more risky than domestic 

sources. But when foreign sources are risky, domestic production can help offset 

the risks associated with unreliable foreign supplies. Developing a new mine in 

the United States appropriately requires an approval process that allows for 

public participation and consideration of the potential environmental and social 

effects of proposed mining. This process is costly and time consuming—arguably 

excessively so, not just for mines but for developments in all sectors of the economy. I do not suggest that mines receive preferential treatment, rather that attention be focused on developing better ways to assess and make decisions 

about the various commercial, environmental, and social considerations of 

project development. 

3. Facilitate provision of information and analysis.—I support enhancing the 

types of data and information the federal government collects, disseminates and 

analyzes. Sound decision-making requires good information. Government plays 

an important role in ensuring that sufficient information exists. The Department of Commerce and Department of Labor collect and publish information on 

the state of the national economy that informs public and private decision making, as does the Energy Information Administration in the realm of energy. 

With respect to mineral resources and material supply chains, I recommend (a) 

enhanced focus on those parts of the mineral and material life cycle that are 

under-represented at present including reserves and subeconomic resources, byproduct and co-product primary production, stocks and flows of materials available for recycling, in-use stocks, material flows, and materials embedded in 

internationally traded goods and (b) periodic analysis of mineral criticality over 

a range of minerals. At present, the markets for most critical minerals are lessthan-completely transparent, in large part because the markets are small and 

often involve a relatively small number of producers and users, many of which 

find it to their competitive advantage to keep information confidential. 

4. Facilitate research and education.—I recommend that the federal government develop and fund pre-commercial activities that are likely to be underfunded by the private sector acting alone because the benefits of these activities 

are diffuse, difficult to capture (easy to copy), risky, and far in the future. Over 

the longer term, science and technology are keys to responding to concerns 

about the adequacy and reliability of mineral resources and mineral-based materials, to improving our ability to recycle essential yet scarce elements, and to 

developing alternatives to these elements. 

Education and research go hand in hand. Educational programs, especially 

those at the graduate level, educate and train the next generation of scientists 

and engineers, who in the future will respond to concerns about newly emerging 

critical minerals. Education and research in the geosciences, mining, mineral 

processing and extractive metallurgy, environmental science and engineering, 

manufacturing, and recycling can mitigate supply risks and increase material 

availability. Improvements in materials design-fostered by education and research in materials science and engineering-can ease the pressures imposed by 

those elements and materials subject to supply risks or limited availability. 

Government, in addition to simply funding education and research, can play an 

55 

important role in facilitating collaborations among universities, government research laboratories, and industry. 

These views on appropriate roles for government are not mine alone. A common 

conclusion of essentially all recent studies on critical minerals and materials is to 

urge governments to improve and expand activities related to information and analysis, education, and research (for example, APS/MRS 2011, European Commission 

2010, NRC 2008). 

S. 1600, The Critical Minerals Policy Act of 2013 

My views above form the conceptual lens through which I consider S. 1600, the 

Critical Minerals Policy Act of 2013. My specific comments: 

1. Overall.—S. 1600 covers three of the four areas I discuss above. The fourth 

area, promoting undistorted international trade in mineral resources and materials, is outside this Committee’s purview. 

2. Section 101 Designations.—This section is consistent with my third role for 

government. I support efforts to identify minerals that are most critical in the 

sense that they are both (a) subject to potential supply restrictions and (b) important in use. NRC (2008) recommends this sort of evaluation and periodic reevaluation. Japan and the European Union already carry out this type of evaluation from the perspective of the Japanese and European economies (see European Commission 2010). Periodic re-evaluation is essential, as what is ‘‘critical’’ 

changes over time as materials, products, and market conditions evolve and 

change. 

3. Section 102 Policy.—The amendments to the National Materials and Minerals Policy, Research and Development Act of 1980 are appropriate and consistent with my views on the role of government. 

4. Section 103 Resource Assessment, Section 108 Analysis and Forecasting.— 

These sections represent actions that are important parts of information and 

analysis, my third role for government. 

5. Section 104 Study, Section 105 Agency Review and Reports.— The actions 

these sections require would be an important start to improving the efficiency 

of the process of regulatory approval for domestic mineral development (my second area of government action). 

6. Section 106 Recycling, Efficiency and Supply, Section 107 Alternatives.— 

These sections are consistent with my fourth role of government. They would 

require the Secretary of Energy to conduct programs of research and development. The Department of Energy already funds programs in the areas identified 

in Section 106 and 107. Passage of S. 1600 would provide greater justification 

for, and allow for possible expansion of, these activities. 

7. Section 109 Education and Workforce.—This section is consistent with my 

fourth role of government in the area of critical minerals. Over the last several 

decades, 8 the Unites States has lost a significant amount of its intellectual infrastructure in the area of mineral resources. 

8. Section 110 International Cooperation.—Although international cooperation 

is not part of my conceptual framework for government involvement in critical 

minerals, I support it. The United States is not the only nation facing 

supplychain risks for mineral resources and downstream materials. No nation 

can expect to be, nor should strive to be, self-sufficient. Japan, the European 

Union, and several individual European countries, in particular, have ongoing 

activities in this area. There is much to learn from their efforts, and we have 

a responsibility to work together with our allies on mutually beneficial activities 

that help ensure supply chains of critical raw materials 

Senator MANCHIN. Thank you, and what we’ll do is I’ll start out 

with a few questions if I may and then Senator Murkowski will fill 

right in. 

General Latiff, I know you spent over 30 years on active duty 

with the Air Force and spent most of it working on research and 

development weapons systems acquisitions. So you truly understand how critical these minerals are. In your opinion is there adequate domestic supply right now or do we have to rely on the 

world’s supply? 

Mr. LATIFF. To answer your first question Senator, I do understand how critical they are having made several large programs, 

which had material shortages, I do know. I also maintain a workVerDate Nov 24 2008 14:20 Apr 14, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00059 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 G:\DOCS\86877.TXT WANDA
56 

ing relationship with a number of people who are still in the acquisition business. 

In terms of domestic supply the answer is clearly no. Most of 

what we get somewhere along the line in the supply chain is 

touched by foreign countries. 

Senator MANCHIN. If I may interrupt, for domestic supply is it 

we don’t have the resources in our country or we can’t extract the 

resources because of our laws, rules, regulations, things of this 

sort? 

Mr. LATIFF. I think it’s both, there are many cases in where 

we’re dependent for the basic materials, but there are many cases 

where we also have supplies or reserves in this country. But to the 

problem you point out, we can’t extract them or process them in 

many cases. Then in making the final products we also again then 

have to send them overseas. 

Senator MANCHIN. Can I ask you another question then? 

Mr. LATIFF. Yes sir. 

Senator MANCHIN. What prohibition does the United States— 

what prohibition do we have against foreign countries owning U.S. 

critical minerals coming and buying our reserves and controlling 

those reserves? If we’ve identified that as a critical mineral for our 

Nation, the consumption of our Nation, and the—and wellness of 

our Nation and yet we have laws and rules that prohibit us from 

extracting it for whatever reason, and we can’t find the balance between the environment and the need of our Nation. 

Then we allow foreign countries to come in and control that supply if you will, is there any laws that you know of that we prohibit 

them from buying critical minerals deposits? 

Mr. LATIFF. Senator I would defer, I do not have the knowledge 

of the laws. 

Senator MANCHIN. Would anybody on the committee know that, 

Mr. Sims? 

Mr. SIMS. Senator there is a process in Federal law that’s governed by a government entity called The Committee on Foreign Investment in the U.S. We know it as CFIUS. I’m not an expert on 

CFIUS, but I do know that that committee, that process has purview when there are proposed to be significant foreign investments 

in U.S. assets that are considered critical of some—at some level. 

So there is a process and know the CFIUS committee looks at a 

lot of potential investments. The history shows that sometimes 

they let those investments happen and other times they don’t. 

Senator MANCHIN. The reason I know that much, Virginia we 

have law for some of the world’s best coking coal to make steel. 

Most of that has been purchased by foreign countries, and I don’t— 

I didn’t know there was any interference whatsoever with that, it 

was just a matter of transaction, as if they were dealing with a 

neighbor next door. 

Mr. SIMS. Yes. 

Senator MANCHIN. It didn’t make any sense to me whatsoever to 

set here and watch that happen, but—and you—Senator Wyden 

asked you the question I think you answered it you know why— 

the reasons and everything. You’re probably in a better position to 

evaluate these minerals I mean the deposits that we have they are 

so critical to our economy and to the everyday use of Americans. 

57 

You find it extremely hard to get through the permitting process 

and the review and the EPA process. 

Are they working with you or do you feel like you’re fighting 

them continuously? Don’t be afraid because I—we fight them every 

minute of every day. 

Mr. SIMS. No I appreciate that Senator, I appreciate that. I have 

to say that it took us 15 years to get Mountain Pass, California 

back up and running in making rare earth prior to that Mountain 

pass—— 

Senator MANCHIN. What—you know what were you producing, 

what are you extracting? 

Mr. SIMS. Rare earth elements. 

Senator MANCHIN. OK. 

Mr. SIMS. In virtually all deposits of rare earths all of the naturally occurring rare earths are all combined together, so you make 

one you’ve got to make most of the others—— 

Senator MANCHIN. Sure. 

Mr. SIMS [continuing]. If not all of them. I experienced— 

Senator MANCHIN. The things your products—things that your 

raw material is used for give me an example of some of— 

Mr. SIMS. Advanced wind turbines, automobiles, the little ear 

buds that my kids put in so they can claim that they’re not hearing 

me. 

Senator MANCHIN. Everything that we depend for quality of life 

we have today. 

Mr. SIMS. Absolutely, absolutely. 

Senator MANCHIN. It almost took you 15 years to get through the 

permitting process. 

Mr. SIMS. It is, but I would say Senator, it’s fair to say that part 

of that was our fault as well. 

Senator MANCHIN. Sure. 

Mr. SIMS. We actually worked very cooperatively, we tried to and 

I think successfully with a lot of local stakeholders and we changed 

our permit application as we went forward in response to request 

by stakeholders. That helped us get to the end result. We also 

changed our technology and advanced it as we went forward so we 

had to apply for different permits. It was a give and take, it took 

a little longer than we would have liked, but we did get through 

the end of the process. 

Senator MANCHIN. My time is up and I’ll go for the second round, 

I want to turn it over to Senator Murkowski who I’m a proud cosponsor on this bill with her and I appreciate she bringing it back 

to our attention. 

Senator. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Thank you. 

It’s encouraging to hear from each of you, your support for the 

legislation. As I mentioned in my opening comments I think we— 

there’s been a lot of give and take and going back and forth and 

trying to build a bill that is reasonable, rational, and has support 

and gagging from the various industries and academia that you 

represent, it’s clear that we’ve struck the right cord. Now we need 

to work a little bit with the administration here so that we can get 

a positive yes answer from DOE, but we’ll work on that. 

58 

Mr. Isaacs I want to specifically note your comments and how 

the issue with the helium bill and how we were really on the edge 

of something bad happening if we were not to have dealt with that 

situation in a timely manner and how that kind of feeds into not 

only this debate about how we proceed with our critical minerals, 

but hopefully making sure that we’re connecting the dots. 

Again, whether we’re talking about the auto industry or semiconductors the acknowledgement that these critical minerals which 

I think the only thing that a lot of us used to know about them 

was that they were difficult to pronounce and all seemed to end an 

um. But beyond that what are they, what do they do and I think 

that there’s clearly a growing awareness, but we have more to do 

in helping people understand the significance and the importance 

of these critical elements, so the connect with what we did with helium I think is particularly important. 

Mr. Sims relating the situation with Molycorp I think is helpful 

to us here on the committee, 500 permits, 15 years to kind of work 

everything through should tell us something, but I also appreciate 

you saying look that not all of this was government inaction in fairness there were other factors in play here. I am assuming that you 

have read our 40 page bill and I would be curious to know what 

your reaction is to the permitting section of the bill, do you think 

we hit the right note here? 

Mr. SIMS. Senator Murkowski I think you did, I mean I think 

when Congress looks at any of these issues related to reforms or 

permitting processes you have to look through that—you have to 

look through the lens of what’s politically possible as well. This bill 

does not seek to make any major changes in underlying law like 

NEPA Etcetera. But there are a lot of things that can be done 

without those changes being made, it would be highly controversial, but a lot of things could be done in the process itself and I 

think the bill points to those. 

I think at the end of the day whatever the law says about permitting it really comes down as we found to whether you can build 

a level of trust between the permit applicant, the regulator, and 

other stakeholders at the table. Having said that to have as your 

bill does call for performance metrics of how the process is working 

is very important. To have—it points to—it encourages folks to look 

creatively—I think within the confines of current law as to how to 

make this process better. One thing that could be done now is for 

example to have the various considerations by Federal agencies of 

NEPA applications to be done concurrently as opposed to consecutively. 

Now there are cases when that doesn’t work, but most cases 

where it does that would make a very big difference. I’m sure most 

folks in my situation would say it’d make a huge difference that 

doesn’t require any change in fundamental underlying law. So I 

think your bill is encouraging folks to be creative on both sides of 

the table as to how to make that go faster. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Let me ask you Mr. Conrad for the Alaska 

perspective and I appreciate you pinch hitting here for Mr. 

Swenson. This is the time of year that Juneau is sucked in, maybe 

it’s because the legislature is in session but that’s neither here nor 

there. 

59 

You hit on several initiatives that the Governor has advanced in 

terms of statewide assessment which I think is critically important, 

I’m curious to know if you think that when it comes to the data 

that is so important in making sure that we have collected sufficient amounts of geologic data to really form out the actions moving forward when it comes to accessing our critical minerals, also 

if you could speak to the permitting issue that Mr. Sims has just 

addressed. 

When we think about the hurdles to accessing our—any or our 

minerals in the state of Alaska, there are hurdles that are out 

there but I think the most significant that I hear from people about 

is the permitting process. If you can speak to not only the data collection and whether or not we’re doing a good job there and also 

from a permitting perspective if we are moving ourselves up from 

that dead last position that I mentioned in my opening comments 

in terms of getting responses on our mineral opportunities. 

Mr. CONRAD. Thank you Senator. 

The States have also been—often been we refer to is the laboratories of democracy, the laboratories of invention and I think Alaska is a perfect example of the State that has taken great strides 

to address both of those issues. To first identify the importance of 

the need for modern data and how we are able to access that data, 

which is sometimes a matter of resources and sometimes a matter 

of technology. Often a matter of working cooperatively with other 

stakeholders and particularly our Federal partners to achieve the 

type, and the level, and the quality of data that we need. 

Alaska has made great strides in that area has identified not 

only the need, but how to go about finding this data, addressing 

this data and the innovative approaches that are necessary to 

make that happen. 

On the permitting side, again Alaska has had great success in 

using a cooperative approach within its—within the State itself in 

developing an interagency approach to how permitting should be 

handled within the States to coordinate among all the agencies 

that are critical to the development and the permitting of a mine, 

especially a large scale mine. 

Again I think has demonstrated that that kind of an approach 

at the Federal level would be very helpful in achieving the type of 

coordination that we need to move that process forward and more 

effectively. We believe that S. 1600 addresses both of those matters 

in significant ways. If we can couple that with some additional 

funding to assist with some of this work that we need to do particularly in the data area, we’ll be well on our way to making, we 

believe— 

Senator MANCHIN. Right. 

Mr. CONRAD [continuing]. Some significant strides here. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Good, good, thank you. 

I—we’ll have another question—— 

Senator MANCHIN. Sure, sure. 

Senator MURKOWSKI [continuing]. But I’ll defer it to you. 

Senator MANCHIN. Just very quickly, so you’re saying that basically the Mining Compact Commission endorses the legislation as 

written? 

60 

Mr. CONRAD. Yes in our statement that I’ve supplied for the 

record. 

Senator MANCHIN. Thank you very much. 

Also, to Mr. Isaacs this—maybe you and Ms. Thomas might want 

to chime in on this one, but changing, you know we hear so much 

about changing the cooperate tax laws and it’ll bring industry, and 

bring jobs back, and bring manufacturing back. But we’re finding 

out now if we don’t have the critical minerals here to provide we 

can do all we might and you can’t come unless you have the resources here to do what you need to do. 

Do you think it’s adequate, I mean we have adequate supplies to 

be able to bring you back if we have balance in our corporate laws 

too our corporate tax laws that would give you the incentives to 

bring those jobs back to America? 

Mr. ISAACS. Senator first of all semiconductor manufacturing is 

alive and well in the U.S. We are the world and either the number, 

No. 2, or number 3 exporter of the United States, so—and the industry continues to grow and particularly at the leading edge of advanced semiconductor manufacturing. But having said that, there’s 

obviously a host of policies including—— 

Senator MANCHIN. Are you concerned about supply? 

Mr. ISAACS. Yes, absolutely and we employ a global supply chain 

that’s highly complex, and therefore, domestic supply is critical, but 

it’s only part of the holistic approach that needs to be taken, which 

you know we really need to be taking a global look at this and 

making sure that the supply chain is secure around the world. 

Senator MANCHIN. What would—where is the—where’s your 

largest suppliers? Where do you buy most of your raw materials? 

We’ll just say the industry itself, what country does it depend on, 

next to us? 

Mr. ISAACS. I’m not sure I can fully answer that question, but 

you know—— 

Senator MANCHIN. We hear—— 

Mr. ISAACS [continuing]. One thing to keep in mind—— 

Senator MANCHIN [continuing]. So much about China. 

Mr. ISAACS. One thing to keep in mind is that we are typically 

several steps removed from the extraction of the raw material from 

the ground. I think the helium situation was a rare instance where 

we were maybe one or 2 steps removed from the extraction from 

the ground. But in most cases we depend on various steps of extraction, processing, refining to get the type of material that we 

need. So where it’s originally—the original source of the material 

we’d have to do some more research into that. 

Senator MANCHIN. If you could do that for us it would help because I’m sure you’re falling and in case we have for our trade 

agreements or any type of relationships we have with some of these 

countries that we depend on heavily, it doesn’t go quite right. 

What position does that put our country in, our government 

we’ve seen what we’ve done with energy, with oil hasn’t been too 

good when we needed it, so we hope we don’t get in a situation 

with rare earth minerals too and we would hope you would advise 

us on that where your dependency is and what critical factor it 

would have if you couldn’t get it. 

61 

Mr. ISAACS. Yes, thank you and as I mentioned before we are 

working with our industry technical consortion to look at the materials in our supply chain and look at the sources of those materials 

and we hope to feed that into this process. 

Senator MANCHIN. Ms. Thomas do you want to comment on supply, what you believe it should have on your supply chain as far 

as the manufacturing and volume goes? 

Ms. THOMAS. I would just add that we are also very concerned 

about supply shortages and you know we also have a very complex 

global network of suppliers and you know greater transparency in 

sharing of real time information is very valuable to—throughout 

the supply chain, so I think the information that would be generated through a lot of the programs and this legislation would provide you know valuable. 

Senator MANCHIN. Can you give us a little bit of an inventory, 

maybe you can check with your suppliers basically on what—I 

mean on your manufacturers where their supply chain comes from. 

Most of the minerals are in—— 

Ms. THOMAS. Sure I mean—— 

Senator MANCHIN [continuing]. Much of the material they use. 

Ms. THOMAS. Yes, that’s a question more for our suppliers and 

I’d certainly be happy—— 

Senator MANCHIN [continuing]. I hope you would. 

Ms. THOMAS [continuing]. To get back to you with that. 

Senator MANCHIN. That would help us along as we proceed. 

Dr. Eggert, I know that legislation expands academic programs 

related to critical minerals including the traditional academic programs and also our work force training which is so needed. How 

do you see the investment education impacting the development of 

our critical minerals? How would you see that happening? 

Mr. EGGERT. I think an investment in education is essential. It 

takes a number of complimentary ingredients to develop a mine to 

create a successful mineral processing or manufacturing activity. 

It’s not just the raw material, but it’s an educated and trained 

work force and in many of the minerals and materials disciplines 

we’ve allowed the academic infrastructure to some degree to wither 

over the last several decades. So I think a trained and educated 

work force is an essential ingredient in mining and manufacturing. 

Senator MANCHIN. An investment that pays off right? 

Mr. EGGERT. Yes. 

Senator MANCHIN. Thank you. 

Thank all of you for your testimony. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Dr. Eggert let me continue with you I’m assuming coming from School of Mines that you have to a certain extent, tracked historical levels of mining activity throughout the 

country? Is that fair? 

Mr. EGGERT. To some degree yes. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Can—then to the degree that you’re able, 

can you give the committee any assessment in terms of what you 

have seen over a period of time, how mining activity in the industry within the country has changed and the reasons that we’ve 

seen decline or increase in certain areas, and I don’t expect you to 

give me more than 45 seconds here, so if you can distill it, what 

changes we’re seeing and why? 

62 

Mr. EGGERT. OK, first the level of investment in the mining industry tends to be very selectable to the United States and elsewhere and the United States in that regard has not been much different than other countries around the world. Having said that the 

U.S. share of total worldwide mineral investment has as a general 

rule been declining, part of that I think can be attributed to the 

more stringent environmental and other social permitting requirements necessary for mineral development. 

But also to be fair over the last several decades a number of 

other countries have opened up their borders to mineral investment. Areas that had been underexplored in the past, a past when 

Canada, the United States, Australia, South Africa were the major 

destinations of investments. So part of the declined in the U.S. 

share of investment I think has to be attributed to good opportunities elsewhere. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Let me ask you Mr. Conrad from the Alaska perspective just some of the trends that we’re seeing within the 

state in terms of the private investment that we recognize is key, 

you cannot make any of this happen unless you’ve got the investment side. What has helped to either bring new companies, new investment to this state, what has hurt investment opportunities 

within the mining industry? 

Mr. CONRAD. Thank you Senator Murkowski. 

Let me just give you an overview perspective that Bob Swenson 

provided to me in preparation for the hearing and where he noted 

that the mining investment in Alaska right now is primarily on 

state and private land as opposed to Federal land. If you look at 

some of the figures that are provided in his testimony you would 

note that the total area of state mining claims and prospecting 

sites for 2012 was about 4,500,000 acres, whereas the total area on 

Federal lands for 2012 was about 168 thousand acres. 

That’s attributable primarily from his perspective, and I think in 

general from Alaska’s perspective to the need for governmental 

support in supplying the kind of modern data that we need and do 

not yet have, land access, and then permitting efficiencies in terms 

of attracting investment. When those things don’t line up well, it 

has a negative impact on that investment activity. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. One question and this will be my last, I put 

it out to all of you it’s what I asked both on the first panel and 

this was the issue of forecasting and better—trying to better understand what we might need in terms of these critical minerals. 

Again recognizing that we’re doing a lot of work to find substitutes, 

a lot of work to reuse, recycle, but the issue of being better able 

to forecast. 

Again we’ve got different industries that are represented at the 

table here, but how can we do a better job of forward thinking in 

terms of being able to anticipate what it is that we will need so 

that we avoid the threat of an imminent crisis like we almost had 

with helium? I’ll throw it out to whoever wants to start. 

Mr. Isaacs, I’ll pick on you. 

Mr. ISAACS. We very much rely on the USGS and other expert 

sources of information and again we as I mentioned earlier we 

have an exercise called the International Technology Roadmap for 

Semiconductors which includes a chapter that looks at emerging 

63 

materials that will be critical to the next generation of semiconductors, so that’s our attempt to forecast to the future and what we’d 

like to do is integrate that effort with the exercise under this bill 

to identify the materials that are most critical for our industry and 

develop the appropriate policies to avoid vulnerabilities going forward. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. So Mr. Sims from the producer side you 

know you’re getting push from industry that says we need it, we 

need it, how do we get more folks like Molycorp engaged? 

Mr. SIMS. I think it’s fair to say that at least in our little world 

of rare earths that virtually all independent forecast show significantly increasing demand for most of those, so the signals is out 

to us as producers to try to produce more and to try to do more 

recycling which we’re involved with and some other technologies. 

Getting the capital, the private capital necessary to bring some of 

these projects online is difficult. 

We went through a several year process of raising about over 

$1.5 billion all in the private capital markets, that is not easy to 

do. But there are companies that are out there trying to do it right 

now and a lot of it depends on the value and the perceived quality 

of the resource. But in terms of downstream forecasting of demand 

anything the government can do that would help us in the private 

sector understand the broader perspective that would be very helpful. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. General Latiff from the defense side, the 

security side. 

Mr. LATIFF. Senator the number of DOD Weapons Systems is 

small enough, but it’s not going to drive demand significantly for 

a lot of these minerals, so I’ll answer a different question and that 

is that some of the weapons systems that we have are so critically 

dependent on some of these materials for their performance, and 

so it is important to the DOD to know what future availability of 

these materials is going to be as they plan their weapons systems 

which go out as you know for many years. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Right. 

Anybody else want to weigh in? 

Ms. Thomas. 

Ms. THOMAS. Yes I’ll just add that it would be extremely helpful 

to the automakers and our suppliers in providing you know information on availability and allow us to identify risks early on and 

ultimately manage them properly. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. OK, good. 

Dr. Eggert you can wrap it up. 

Mr. EGGERT. A supplementary point, I think many of the markets for the minerals and materials that we’re talking about are 

not very transparent. The supply chain risks are often hiding because the final purchaser is 5 or 6 steps removed from the initial 

mining and to some degree, and I don’t want to overstate the point, 

but to some degree it’s like what happened with—during the financial crises the risks were buried and not obvious to all involved and 

through forecasting and scenario building one can help make these 

supply chains more transparent and allow all participants to better 

manage their risks. 

64 

Senator MURKOWSKI. That’s an excellent point. It’s a good way 

to end this conversation. 

The awareness of the significance of critical minerals in all aspects of our life I think that that is growing, but I do think that 

the legislation that we have presented before the committee here 

is one that will help us build on that. But the whole aspect of 

transparency and just how far removed throughout this chain you 

have the actual minerals themselves versus the application. 

I think this goes exactly to what you were speaking of Senator 

Manchin when you asked you know from semiconductor perspective 

or from the perspective of the auto industry where you’re getting 

your stuff from. Most of it is just so far removed that we just don’t 

make that connection. We need to figure out how we better make 

that connection so that that risk is fully informed and with that I 

thank you and thank all the members of the panel here. 

Senator MANCHIN. Now I will just follow up and say thank you 

all for attending and your insight and hopefully you can get us 

some information and find out exactly the effect this going to have 

because I truly believe with the policies we have in this country allowing foreign countries to own these vital resources that we need, 

and we’re going to be dependent on many generations to come and 

basically what would effect—if we shutdown what would it effect 

the economics of this country. 

That would be vital for us to know that if you could help us with 

that we’d appreciate it. I do appreciate all of your input. Does anybody have any final comments they want to make before we close 

this out? 

If not, meetings adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 12:10 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.] 

(65) 

APPENDIXES 

APPENDIX I 

Responses to Additional Questions 

RESPONSE OF DAVID ISAACS TO QUESTION FROM SENATOR WYDEN

Question 1. As the Committee learned from the helium situation, the supply of 

raw materials to manufacturing industries like yours doesn’t get a lot of national 

attention until suddenly you don’t have them. Like helium, there really aren’t a lot 

of substitutes for some of these critical minerals in the manufacturing process; but 

unlike helium, the specific minerals that are critical vary from industry to industry. 

What’s the best approach to make sure that Federal Government is working closely 

with industries like yours to make sure that our efforts are focused on the right 

minerals and processing and manufacturing processes? 

Answer. We believe that close consultation between government and industry will 

be essential in identifying the right critical minerals and the appropriate policies 

needed to avoid future supply disruptions. We recommend that the government 

should actively engage with a wide range of industry sectors and solicit the views 

of industry experts in materials and supply chain management on these matters. 

As stated in our testimony, the semiconductor industry would welcome the opportunity to engage with the appropriate government officials on this issue. Accordingly, the government should establish a forum for a structured dialogue with industry experts, perhaps in the form of an advisory committee or similar entity. 

In addition, it will be critical to ensure that the list of critical minerals remains 

current and is adjusted in response to changing circumstances, so the consultation 

between government and industry must happen on an ongoing basis. In this regard, 

we note that Section 101(e)(1) of the Critical Minerals Policy Act (S.1600) provides 

that the list of critical minerals should be reviewed and updated every 5 years. The 

dialogue between government and industry should be integrated as part of this process. 

RESPONSE OF DAVID ISAACS TO QUESTION FROM SENATOR BARRASSO

Question 1. In your testimony, you discuss the importance of helium to semiconductor manufacturers. You explain that S. 1600’s definition of ‘‘critical mineral’’ 

might not include helium. You note that helium is a byproduct of natural gas and 

that the bill’s definition of ‘‘critical mineral’’ excludes: ‘‘fuel minerals, 

including... natural gas.’’ You go on to say that: ‘‘the bill should be broad enough 

and flexible enough to trigger appropriate revisions to policies relating to helium. 

Would you please elaborate on why it is essential that the bill address helium and 

policies associated with helium production? 

Answer. SIA believes that the enactment into law of the Helium Stewardship Act 

was critical in ensuring a continued supply of this critical gas to the semiconductor 

industry and other users of helium throughout the economy. Passage of the helium 

law last year successfully addressed concerns about the supply of helium, at least 

for the next several years. The SIA testimony did not intend to focus solely on helium or suggest that this bill should address policies related to helium. Instead, our 

intent was to use helium as an example and urge the Committee to ensure that the 

bill would cover the full range of materials that are critical to semiconductor manufacturing, in order to avoid future supply disruptions and price with regard to other 

materials. The SIA testimony raised the potential for helium and other similar materials to fall outside the definition of ‘‘critical mineral,’’ and stated: 

66 

There may be other materials or compounds that are essential to the semiconductor manufacturing process that might inadvertently fall outside the definition of 

this term. Accordingly, we request that the definition of ‘‘critical mineral’’ (or ‘‘critical material’’) is broad enough to capture the full range of materials that are critical to semiconductor manufacturing and the U.S. economy as a whole. 

Similarly, our testimony stated that the designation of a material as critical 

should result in consideration of a broad range of policy changes to avoid potential 

disruptions to the supply of this material, not simply policies relating to mining. 

Our reference to the Helium Stewardship Act was intended as an example of one 

such policy change that should be contemplated in the future once a material is designated as critical. We did not intend to suggest that the Critical Minerals Policy 

Act needed to revisit the Helium Stewardship Act at this time. 

RESPONSES OF ROBERT H. LATIFF TO QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR WYDEN

Question 1. Although the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources doesn’t 

have jurisdiction over the defense agencies, Sen. Murkowski and I recognize the 

need to make sure that national security is part of a national program to address 

critical minerals. What are your recommendations to ensure that defense agencies 

are working closely with civilian agencies like the Department of Energy and the 

Department of Interior on this problem? 

Answer. I know that in developing the annual stockpile reports to Congress, DLA 

(DOD) coordinates with Dept. of Commerce on usage rates of various materials. I 

think that research portfolios, while not necessarily de-conflicted, are at least 

shared, say between DOD and DOE, on these topics. I think there is evidence of 

coordination at many levels and on many topics. The Defense Production Act Committee is an example. Such high level committees have numerous working level 

groups below them. However, in my experience, agencies, lacking any higher level 

of guidance, while willing to coordinate, will tend to protect organizational equities. 

There really needs to be active and sustained involvement by the Executive Office 

of the President and OMB. While not precisely associated with this question, I think 

the President’s Initiatives for Advanced Manufacturing and for the Materials Genome Initiative are related, and are steps in the right direction. These are emphasized from the top of the Executive Branch to all appropriate agencies. A similar 

Presidential priority placed on materials security, in the form of a ‘‘Critical Materials Availability Initiative’’ would be a welcome counterpart to S. 1600. Also, perhaps, an annual report to Congress by the Director of the Office of Science and 

Technology Policy (OSTP) might spur more sustained efforts by all agencies. 

Question 2. Although there is obviously a strong connection between critical minerals and national security, the use of those minerals is generally known. Do you 

see any reason why the list of critical minerals should be classified and not available to the public? 

Answer. As you know, the DOD conducts scenario planning in its effort to determine what materials may be critical and in short supply under certain conflict conditions. Based on those analyses, DOD reports to Congress what it believes might 

need to be stockpiled in the event of future wartime scenarios. While unlikely, the 

DOD, so as not to reveal strategic thinking on particular conflict scenarios, may 

have good reasons to classify such a report to Congress. However, the overall determination on an ongoing basis for those materials important to us and for which the 

nation needs to take action to insure their availability, should be widely known. I 

see absolutely no reason for such a list of critical materials to be classified. On the 

contrary, it needs to be open and available and act as a guiding document. 

Question 3. One of the key tenants of a strong military has always been to stay 

ahead of the opposition technologically. As you point out in your testimony, critical 

minerals are literally critical to national security since so many of our weapons systems rely on them. Recently, the Defense Authorization Bill called on the Pentagon 

to increase its stockpiles of critical minerals. That might be a short-term solution 

to the problem, but wouldn’t you agree that in the long-term, the U.S. has to have 

a more comprehensive strategy toward dealing with this problem? 

Answer. I absolutely agree with this sentiment. In general, I think the DOD has 

made significant progress in the last several years in thinking about and trying to 

deal with these issues. There have been substantial improvements in DLA’s methodologies to address the stockpile needs, there has been the creation of the Strategic 

Materials Protection Board (albeit off to a slow start), and I think there have been 

a lot of dedicated materials experts at lower levels within the Department who have 

recognized problems of resource dependency and have worked steadily to mitigate 

them. However, I think DOD leadership has been slow to react and it is still not 

67 

clear to me that DOD has coherent plans beyond stockpiling a few key materials 

and supporting Defense Production Act projects for some key suppliers. Stockpiling 

is a short-term fix and is subject to many variables. It doesn’t solve the problem 

of having to depend on others for either raw materials, materials processing, or component manufacturing for which we may not have the domestic capability. I would 

like to see a more coherent approach to working with other government agencies 

to insure domestic supplies and processing capabilities for the most important materials. 

RESPONSE OF JENNIFER THOMAS TO QUESTION FROM SENATOR WYDEN

Question 1. As the Committee learned from the helium situation, the supply of 

raw materials to manufacturing industries like yours doesn’t get a lot of national 

attention until suddenly you don’t have them. Like helium, there really aren’t a lot 

of substitutes for some of these critical minerals in the manufacturing process; but 

unlike helium, the specific minerals that are critical vary from industry to industry. 

What’s the best way to make sure that Federal Government is working closely with 

industries like yours to make sure that our efforts are focused on the right minerals 

and processing and manufacturing processes? 

Answer. The Alliance appreciates the opportunity to provide input on ways the 

Federal Government and industry can work together on the very important issue 

of critical mineral availability. Automakers design and build vehicles to synthesize 

a variety of systems and individual parts to meet an array of individual customer 

needs and demands and to comply with thousands of pages of international, federal 

and state regulations. The average automobile has 30,000 unique components and 

each individual component is comprised of multiple chemicals, minerals and mixtures. Each automaker works with a global network of more than 1,000 suppliers, 

spanning multiple sectors from electronics to textiles. Many automotive components 

are obtained from suppliers as finished products, which are then integrated into the 

vehicle. As such, it is essential that any coordination on the issue of critical mineral 

availability and processing begin at the supplier level, where component composition 

decisions are made. 

Many policies outlined in S.1600, the Critical Minerals Policy Act will help spur 

much-needed cooperation between government and industry on this important issue. 

For example, this legislation will establish analytical and forecasting capabilities to 

better identify critical mineral supply and demand. This will help mitigate supply 

shortages, price volatility, and unexpected demand growth. Such analysis and forecasting for minerals, similar to what the U.S. Energy Information Administration 

(EIA) produces for various energy sources, will help industry identify potential risks 

early and ultimately manage them. Additionally, the Department of Energy (DOE) 

research programs created in S.1600 would facilitate the efficient production, use 

and recycling of critical minerals. These programs would also identify and develop 

alternative materials that can be used to reduce the demand of critical minerals. 

To effectively implement such programs, the Alliance recommends that DOE coordinate closely with the diverse stakeholders in order to develop best practices and innovative approaches for using existing minerals more efficiently and for introducing 

viable and affordable alternatives when necessary. 

The Alliance commends the Committee for the thoughtful and bipartisan approach it has taken to address this important policy issue. Minerals have long been 

vital to automobile production and the more sophisticated, high-tech and fuel-efficient automobiles of tomorrow will be increasingly reliant on critical minerals. We 

stand ready to work with the Committee to ensure a reliable and affordable critical 

minerals market. 

RESPONSE OF JIM SIMS TO QUESTION FROM SENATOR BARRASSO

Question 1a. In your testimony, you state that Molycorp: ‘‘walked a regulatory 

pathway that took 15 years and more than 500 permits to restart rare earth production in California.’’ You explain that: ‘‘[i]ncreased regulatory certainty is a must if 

the U.S. is to encourage greater private sector investment in domestic mineral exploration.’’ You note that S. 1600: ‘‘recognizes that much can be done to make permitting processes more efficient.’’ Finally, you say that the bill: ‘‘should spark new 

thinking and innovative ideas for reasonable reforms.’’ What are the additional 

steps Congress should take to expedite the permitting process for critical minerals 

projects? 

Answer. There are a variety of pathways that the U.S. Government can take to 

make these processes more efficient. Perhaps one of the most important would be 

68 

to require/encourage/incentivize applicants and federal agencies to work together on 

concurrent permit reviews under NEPA, rather than the consecutive reviews that 

are generally done now. That would save all parties a great deal of time and resources. Requiring publicly available performance metrics of federal agency actions and review of permits would be a very significant reform. This would allow officials from 

both political parties to look dispassionately at the relative efficiency of these government processes. It also is likely to identify areas where improvements can and 

should be made. 

Also, thought should be given to requiring disclosure of the various economic and 

societal costs of inaction, or delay, in permitting processes. This might be a contentious proposal, but it would provide policymakers and the public with additional information to consider in the debate that often surrounds individual critical materials projects. 

Question 1b. Should Congress take steps to expedite the review process under the 

National Environmental Policy Act? 

Answer. NEPA processes can undoubtedly be improved, as can virtually all federal statutes of this complexity and impact on the economy and the environment. 

However, any such reforms should be the result of a legislative process that includes 

buy-in from both political parties. While this is very difficult, attempts to push 

through NEPA reforms without some level of bipartisan cooperation are doomed to 

failure, in my view, and can actually set back the overall thrust to greater efficiency. 

This is why I believe that S. 1600 is a good step forward, given that it may shed 

important light on data and trends that would better inform future debates on the 

larger permitting regime. 

RESPONSE OF RODERICK EGGERT TO QUESTION FROM SENATOR WYDEN

Question 1. Colorado School of Mines is one of the few schools in the country with 

academic classes and programs focused on critical minerals, and you’ve been teaching there for over 25 years. General Latiff’s testimony says essentially that the 

number of technical papers and the number of people being trained in these disciplines are dropping compared to the rest of the world. The U.S. isn’t keeping up. 

What are the training and education needs that must be met in order to have a 

workforce that is prepared to operate within a more robust critical material industry? 

Answer. The primary needs are in the following areas: economic geology, mining 

engineering, mineral processing and extractive metallurgy, and materials science 

and engineering. Perhaps just as important are (funded) research opportunities that 

attract faculty members and students in more traditional disciplines to research on 

critical materials (for example, chemistry, chemical engineering, and physics). 

RESPONSES OF RODERICK EGGERT TO QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR BARRASSO

Question 1A. In your testimony, you say that we should ‘‘[i]mprove [the] regulatory-approval processes for domestic resource development.’’ You explain that the 

approval process: ‘‘is costly and time consuming-arguably excessively so, not just for 

mines but for developments in all sectors of the economy.’’ Finally, you state that 

S. 1600 would be ‘‘an important start to improving the efficiency’’ of the regulatory 

approval process. Would you please elaborate on how the regulatory approval process is far too costly and time-consuming to mineral producers? 

Answer. A major issue, perhaps the most important issue, is the number of permits and approvals required and the lack of an orderly process to coordinate applications and reviews of applications. Other countries, such as Australia and Canada, 

are able to achieve comparable or better results, in terms of allowing for public participation and incorporating public views into regulatory reviews, with simpler and 

less-cumbersome processes. 

Question 1B. To what extent does the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) 

contribute to these excessive costs and delays? 

Answer. I do not feel qualified to comment specifically on NEPA. 

Question 1C. Should Congress take steps to expedite the review process under 

NEPA? 

Answer. Again, I do not feel qualified to suggest specific modifications to NEPA. 

Question 2. In your testimony, you argue that the United States should: 

‘‘[e]ncourage undistorted international trade.’’ You explain that: ‘‘raw material-importing nations should fight policies of exporting countries that restrict raw material 

exports.’’ You note that the U.S., Europe, and Japan have fought China’s export restrictions on critical minerals at the World Trade Organization. 

69 

Over the last year, this Committee has debated the costs and benefits of exporting 

liquefied natural gas (LNG). The Committee will soon debate the costs and benefits 

of exporting crude oil. 

Isn’t it fair to say that our nation’s own restrictions on LNG and crude oil exports 

undermine our credibility when advocating for free trade of other raw materialssuch as critical minerals? 

Answer. I do not support restrictions on LNG and crude oil exports. 

RESPONSE OF RODERICK EGGERT TO QUESTION FROM SENATOR FRANKEN

Question 1. Critical minerals are essential for a wide range of technologies today. 

But technology, as you know, is changing rapidly. My concern is that figuring out 

which minerals will be critical in the future is difficult, particularly for rapidly 

evolving high-tech applications. How can we ensure that the process for designating 

minerals as ‘‘critical minerals’’ is flexible enough to take into account the potential 

for future changes to which minerals are actually critical? 

Answer. (1) I agree that figuring out which materials may become critical in the 

future is difficult and will not become an exact science. The process of monitoring 

potentially critical materials inevitably will require judgment, as well as attention 

to technological developments that may dramatically influence demand for specific 

elements and materials. What I suggest is a continuing monitoring capability to reduce the likelihood of being surprised, which is what happened with rare-earth elements. 

(2) More specifically, establishing an external advisory or review board with rotating membership, responsible for reviewing and vetting draft lists of critical minerals, would help ensure that new viewpoints are considered by whomever in the 

federal government is responsible for undertaking identification of critical minerals. 

RESPONSES OF DAVID DANIELSON TO QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR MURKOWSKI

Question 1. Many of us look to the Department of Energy to be an advocate for 

our energy supply within the councils of our government. There’s a corollary concern 

present here, however: because so many new energy technologies rely so heavy on 

critical minerals, we also need your Department to be an advocate for our domestic 

mineral supply. Can you make that commitment to us? In the interagency process, 

are you willing to highlight the importance of, and push for actions that would facilitate, a steady, affordable, and domestic supply of minerals? 

Answer. The Department is committed to ensuring a sustainable domestic supply 

chain for the clean energy economy, including the foundational materials supporting 

clean energy technologies. The Department’s Critical Materials Strategy reports 

make clear that diversified global supply chains are essential for a sustainable clean 

energy economy. 

The Critical Materials Institute (CMI) at Ames National Laboratory is a lead contributor to the Department’s research and development on critical materials issues. 

CMI addresses materials criticality problems by developing technologies spanning 

the supply chain and across the lifecycle of materials. 

DOE takes an active role in interagency coordination, collaboration, and planning 

in the critical materials space to help the U.S. government make better strategic 

decisions, and will continue interagency leadership as co-chair of the National 

Science and Technology Council Subcommittee on Critical and Strategic Mineral 

Supply Chains. This Subcommittee facilitates a strong, coordinated effort across federal agencies to identify and address important policy implications arising from 

strategic minerals supply issues. Areas of focus for the Subcommittee include identifying emerging critical materials, improving depth ofinformation, and identifying 

R&D priorities. The Subcommittee also informally reviews and examines domestic 

and global policies that affect the supply of critical materials, such as permitting, 

export restrictions, recycling, and stockpiling. 

Question 2. Is the Department working on any follow-up reports to supplement 

its 2010 and 2011 Critical Mineral Strategy documents? If so, please describe the 

expected timing of their release and the expected scope of their content. 

Answer. By the end of2014, the Department of Energy plans to assess whether 

an update to the 2011 Critical Materials Strategy is needed, given the related research and development and coordination work underway. 

In addition to the Critical Materials Strategy reports, the Department of the Interior, through the USGS Mineral Resources Program, provides annual collection, 

analysis, and the dissemination of data that document production and consumption 

for about 100 mineral commodities, both domestically and internationally for 180 

countries (http://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals). This full spectrum of mineral resource 

70 

science allows for a comprehensive understanding of the complete life cycle of 

nonfuel mineral resources-resource formation, discovery, production, consumption, 

use, recycling and reuse. 

Question 3. The Department has allocated hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars to develop high-density energy storage devices that utilize lithium metal. Yet 

global demand for lithium is rising, particularly in China, and the United States 

is already heavily dependent on imports. Has the Department analyzed any potential supply chain impacts that we could face with regard to lithium? Could we see 

a situation similar to what has happened with rare earth elements? How could that 

impact our ability to commercialize new technologies that rely upon this metal? 

Answer. In 2010 and 2011, the Department released Critical Materials Strategy 

reports which, in addition to identifying critical materials, identified lithium as a 

‘‘near critical’’ material. The reports identified lithium because of its important role 

in batteries for hybrid and electric vehicles. While lithium does not face the same 

magnitude of risk to supply chain disruption as rare earth elements, the Department is still applying the three pillars of the Critical Materials Strategy to lithium 

research and development. 

The Department is currently addressing this issue by reducing criticality risks for 

lithium. Because of the projected importance of lithium supply for clean energy applications, the Department will continue R&D in this important area to mitigate potential supply chain constraints. For example, within the Office of Energy Efficiency 

and Renewable Energy the Geothermal Technologies Office has funded the development of technologies to cost effectively extract minerals such as lithium, manganese 

and zinc from geothermal brines- to improve domestic production at reduced costs 

and to increase the overall value of geothermal electricity generation. The Vehicle 

Technologies Office has supported a project to expand lithium carbonate and lithium 

hydroxide production to supply the domestic battery industry as well as a project 

to recycle lithium batteries for resale of lithium carbonate. 

Question 4. Given the range of new technologies that are expected to account for 

larger and larger shares of lithium consumption, does the Department believe we 

could face constraints or even a shortage in the supply of lithium available for more 

traditional applications such as batteries? Has the Department done anything to 

help mitigate such a scenario? What steps, if any, does the Department believe are 

warranted to prevent that from happening? 

Answer. As mentioned above, the Department is addressing potential supply constraints with regard to lithium. Currently, the Department’s research efforts focus 

on diversifying supply, developing substitutes, and driving recycling of lithium. Because there are significant additional low cost potential sources of lithium from 

desert brines, lithium has a lower risk of supply disruption than certain rare earth 

elements, even under high global electric vehicle deployment scenarios. However, 

because dramatic increase in global lithium battery production could lead to 

asupply-demand mismatch in the next five years, the Department is applying the 

three pillars of the Critical Materials Strategy to lithium research and development. 

The Critical Materials Institute at Ames National Laboratory conducts research 

and development (R&D) addressing supply diversity, substitutes, and recycling for 

lithium. Other national laboratories also contribute to lithium R&D. For example, 

the Joint Center for Energy Storage Research (JCESR), the Energy Innovation Hub 

for Battery and Energy Storage, is addressing lithium substitutes. Launched in December 2012, JCESR is managed by the Department’s Office of Science and is led 

by Argonne National Laboratory. The mission of JCESR is to develop new battery 

chemistries beyond lithium-ion and to deliver electrical energy storage with five 

times the energy density and one-fifth the cost oftoday’s commercial batteries within 

five years. 

Within the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, the Vehicles Technology Office has supported a project to expand lithium carbonate and lithium hydroxide production to supply the domestic battery industry, and the Geothermal 

Technologies Office has funded the development of technologies to cost effectively 

extract minerals such as lithium from geothermal brines to improve domestic production at reduced costs and to increase the overall value of geothermal electricity 

generation. 

Finally, the Department’s Advanced Research Projects Agency- Energy also supports R&D on a broad array of novel battery technologies that do not use the lithium-ion platform. 

71 

RESPONSES OF DAVID DANIELSON TO QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR FRANKEN

Question 1. Rare earths are critical to the high-tech sector and the energy sector. 

But in many cases, we are dependent on imports from China. In recent years, we’ve 

seen large price increases for these rare earth elements, and we need to make sure 

that our dependency doesn’t harm our manufacturing sector. This is one of the reasons why I am a cosponsor of S. 1600, the Critical Minerals Policy Act of 2013. Can 

you talk about which particular clean energy technologies are most dependent on 

rare earth elements? 

Answer. The Department’s 2010 and 2011 Critical Materials Strategy reports 

identified five rare earth materials-neodymium, europium, terbium, dysprosium, and 

yttrium- as critical materials currently essential for America’s transition to costcompetitive clean energy technologies and subject to supply risk. Neodymium and 

dysprosium are used for magnets, which are found in electric vehicle motors and 

wind turbine generators. Europium, terbium, and yttrium are used in phosphors for 

efficient lighting. In addition, another rare earth element, lanthanum, is used in 

nickel metal hydride batteries. However, as lanthanum is relatively abundant, DOE 

did not identify it as critical in its Critical Materials Strategy reports. 

Question 2. How does our dependence on China impact these sectors of the clean 

energy economy? 

Answer. While China has been and continues to be a dominant source for critical 

materials, the on-going challenge is developing a secure domestic supply chain or 

substitutes for these critical materials so that as clean energy technologies are developed and deployed in the United States they can also be manufactured in the 

United States. The vulnerability associated with global dependence on critical materials underscores the importance of the Department’s research and development activities in this area. The Department’s Critical Materials Strategy and coordinated 

R&D efforts address supply chain disruption risks by diversifying supply, developing 

substitutes, and driving recycling of critical materials. 

Question 3. What have been the major barriers that have prevented us from mining, separating, and refining rare earth elements for use here in the United States? 

Answer. One of the primary barriers to upstream domestic critical materials development has been the high capital requirements associated with overcoming the 

technical challenges at this stage in the supply chain. This barrier to entry has led 

to a natural monopoly of processing operations concentrated in certain countries. 

The Department addresses processing innovations through research and development (R&D) to help reduce processing capital requirements. For example, the Critical Materials Institute is considering new, lower cost ways to extract, separate, and 

process rare earth metals from ores and recycled materials, such as neodymium for 

permanent magnets and europium for lighting. 

(73) 

APPENDIX II 

Additional Material Submitted for the Record 

STATEMENT OF DR. JOHN G. PARRISH, CHAIR (AASG), CALIFORNIA GEOLOGICAL

SURVEY, DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION, SACRAMENTO, CA 

Thank you for the opportunity to submit written testimony for the record on S. 

1600, the Critical Minerals Policy Act of 2013. This testimony is presented on behalf 

of the Association of American State Geologists (AASG). Our organization represents the State Geologists of the 50 United States and Puerto Rico. Founded in 

1908, AASG seeks to advance the science and practical application of geology and 

related earth sciences in the United States and its territories, commonwealths, and 

possessions. AASG strives to optimize the role that State Geological Survey agencies 

play in delivering benefits to the people of the United States in relation to developing economic prosperity, understanding and mitigating natural hazards, protecting the public’s property and lives, as well as appreciation and preservation of 

our natural environmental heritage. 

AASG recognizes the hard work of Chairman Wyden, Ranking Member Murkowski, the cosponsors of the Critical Minerals Act of 2013, and the members of this 

Committee. We commend your efforts to strengthen our nation’s capacity to address 

the challenges associated with critical minerals and we would like to emphasize the 

role that State Geological Surveys can play in tackling this important issue. 

AASG POSITION STATEMENT ON MINERAL RESOURCES 

AASG strongly supports adequate funding of mineral resources programs within 

relevant Federal agencies, including the Departments of Agriculture, Defense, Energy, Health and Human Services, Interior, and Labor. Further, AASG advocates 

that, as appropriate, these programs be implemented through Federal-State partnerships to achieve mutually beneficial goals relative to mineral resources. 

BACKGROUND 

Minerals and mineral materials provide the fundamental components for manufactured goods, agricultural fertilizers, and construction. The U.S. economy, defense 

systems, and our lifestyle depend on stable supplies of minerals. Mineral resources 

are commercially quarried or mined in every state in the United States. Crushed 

stone, sand and gravel, needed for concrete and asphalt, are widely distributed, but 

many other commodities have been concentrated by geological processes and occur 

only in certain locations. With its large land area and diverse geological settings, 

the United States has many key mineral resources necessary for society to function. 

The locations of mineral resources are not all known. 

Recent discoveries of world-class deposits of gold, copper, and zinc in the United 

States and continued exploration by mining companies illustrate that the U.S. remains a prime target for new mineral resource discovery. 

Two studies by the National Research Council, Minerals, Critical Minerals, and 

the U.S. Economy, and Managing Materials for a 21st Century Military, and a 2011 

report by the American Physical Society on Energy Critical Elements, find that the 

United States lacks sufficient information about its mineral needs and supplies. Upto-date, accurate, geological mapping is critical to fulfilling State and Federal responsibilities for stewardship of our natural resources. Geologic maps and investigations are essential to an understanding of natural processes responsible for the formation of mineral deposits and the hydrological-chemical consequences of mining 

and land reclamation. 

State Geological Surveys are uniquely positioned to help address the need for geological maps and studies, and to collect, preserve, and disseminate the geological information that is needed to ensure adequate domestic supplies of critical minerals. 

74 

S. 1600, THE CRITICAL MINERALS ACT OF 2013 

AASG strongly supports adequately funded mineral resources programs within 

the relevant Federal agencies and we support the aims and actions outlined in Sections 101 (methodology for identifying critical minerals), 103 (resource assessment), 

108 (analysis and forecasting), and 109 (education and workforce) of S. 1600. 

We urge you to recognize the specific expertise of State Geological Surveys and 

to consider the following items: 

Establish a grant program in strategic and critical mineral resources similar to 

the National Cooperative Geologic Mapping Program (NCGMP). The NCGMP, which 

was established under the National Geologic Mapping Act of 1992, is the primary 

source of funds for the production of geological maps in the United States. For over 

two decades, funds from the NCGMP have supported cooperation between Federal, 

State, and university partners to deliver modern geological maps. The maps produced under this program are one of the most valuable tools for assessing the mineral wealth and mineral potential of the nation. We urge you to consider creating 

a parallel program to enable effective cooperation between Federal, State, and university experts on understanding strategic and critical mineral resources. 

Amend the National Geological and Geophysical Data Preservation Program Act 

of 2005 (42 USC 15908) to specifically mention and authorize funding for maintaining information on critical minerals. State Geological Surveys and other organizations, including Federal agencies, already hold information, such as written records, 

maps, drill core, rock samples, and exploration and mining records, that relate to 

critical minerals. These collections reflect substantial investments by industry and 

government over more than 150 years, yet these irreplaceable records are currently 

at risk of disposal or ruin because more than 25 percent of the nation’s geological 

data repositories are currently at or near their storage capacity. Dedicating funds 

to preserving and providing access to existing information on critical minerals would 

be highly cost effective and would provide on-demand access to a trove of valuable 

information. 

Thank you for the opportunity to present this testimony to the Committee. 

STATEMENT OF INTERSTATE MINING COMPACT COMMISSION, ON S. 1600 

The Interstate Mining Compact Commission (IMCC) submits this statement in 

support of S. 1600, The Critical Minerals Act of 2013. IMCC is a multi-state governmental agency representing the natural resource and related environmental protection interest of its 26 member states. The Commission is comprised of duly appointed representatives of the Governors of their respective departments of Natural 

Resources or Environmental Protection. As such, the member states ofiMCC have 

a vital interest in the development of minerals, particularly those of strategic and 

critical importance to the United States. Furthermore, one of IMCC’s primary functions is to support effective communication and collaboration between our member 

state regulators and their counterparts in the federal agencies, especially where it 

pertains to permitting for mineral extraction and related activities. In pursuit of 

both these goals, IMCC believes that this bill will have a significant benefit and 

therefore lends its full support. 

In the face of growing ‘‘resource nationalism’’ abroad, it is crucial that the US 

take steps to account for, protect, and further bolster domestic sources of critical 

minerals. Developing our Nation’s mineral wealth in a manner that maximizes access while maintaining environmental responsibility must be a fundamental component of efforts to shore up national mineral resource security. One of the strategies 

employed by S. 1600 in pursuit of that goal is the streamlining of supply chains 

through elimination of unnecessary permitting requirements. Parallel permitting requirements convolute these supply chains, reducing our Nation’s access to domestic 

sources of vitally important natural resources to the ultimate detriment of national 

resource security. The US should endeavor to realize the immense benefits potentially derived from intentional, conscientious development of our Nation’s rich supply of mineral resources, both on state and federal lands. IMCC believes S. 1600 

to be a significant step in the right direction. 

In addition to the interest in enhancing our states’ and thus our Nation’s mineral 

wealth, IMCC member states have a more specific interest in supporting S. 1600. 

As primary regulators of mineral production activity within their borders, designing 

efficient but responsible permitting processes is a top priority. Even where minerals 

are produced on federal lands, the states often work in concert with various federal 

agencies in regulating minerals under applicable federal laws. Arriving at the optimal design for these often interrelated permitting processes is contingent on real 

and frequent collaboration among state and federal agencies. IMCC is therefore parVerDate Nov 24 2008 14:20 Apr 14, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00078 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 G:\DOCS\86877.TXT WANDA
75 

ticularly supportive of provisions in S. 1600 designed to enhance this vitally important coordination. Through these collaborative efforts, state and federal agencies 

will hopefully be able to eliminate some of the redundant permitting and processing 

mechanisms currently in place in certain arenas. As Sections 102(a)(9) and 

105(a)(3)(C) of the bill indicate, parallel permitting requirements lead to duplicative 

efforts on the part of our member state regulators and our federal colleagues. Expediting these permitting processes by minimizing unnecessary delays, preventing unnecessary paperwork, and avoiding duplication of effort, will allow all those involved 

to work smarter rather than harder. This in turn contributes to the ultimate goal 

of mineral regulation: to ensure that these resources are mined in an efficient and 

effective manner while also protecting the environment. 

For all of these reasons, IMCC urges the Subcommittee to move forward with 

markup and passage of S. 1600, the Critical Minerals Policy Act of 2013. We welcome the opportunity to work with the Subcommittee and contribute to this legislative initiative and thank you for the opportunity to submit this statement. We would 

be happy to answer any questions or provide additional information. 

STATEMENT OF MATERIOR CORPORATION, MAYFIELD HEIGHTS, OH, ON S. 1600 

The Materion Corporation (Materion), headquartered in Mayfield Heights, Ohio, 

respectfully submits the following comments to the United States Senate Committee 

on Energy and Natural Resources regarding S. 1600, the Critical Minerals Policy 

Act of 2013. 

Materion supplies highly engineered advanced enabling materials to leading and 

dynamic technology companies across the globe. Our product offerings include precious and non-precious specialty metals, precision optical filters, inorganic chemicals 

and powders, specialty coatings and engineered clad and plated metal systems. 

Our products, services and expertise help enable our customers’ technologies. We 

supply sophisticated thin film coatings for hard disk drives, specialty inorganic 

chemicals for solar energy panels, bio-compatible materials for implantable medical 

devices, specialty alloys for miniature consumer electronics components, optical filters for thermal imaging, critical components for infrared sensing technology, special 

materials for LEDs and much more. 

Materion is the free-world’s only integrated ‘‘mine-to-mill’’ supplier of berylliumbased products. Materion owns and operates its beryllium mine in Delta, Utah, and 

has characterized a 70+year supply of beryllium ore. Small deposits of beryllium ore 

are found in Kazakhstan and China, but Materion mines in excess of 70 percent of 

the world’s supply. Currently, China does not export its supply of beryllium. 

Beryllium is a metallic element that has extremely unique properties. To name 

just a few, it is onethird lighter than aluminum, has six times the specific stiffness 

of steel and is transparent to X-rays. Adding up to 2 percent beryllium to copper 

imparts springiness comparable to steel and corrosion resistance like stainless steel, 

yet retaining the electrical and thermal conductivity properties of copper. For these 

and other reasons, beryllium is the only material to be defined by the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) as both strategic and critical to the United States. Beryllium 

is also defined as a critical material by the European Commission. 

Beryllium materials are used in research and industrial applications where reliability and superior performance are required. The final seal capping the leaking 

oil well in the Gulf of Mexico was a large ring of copper beryllium. The James Webb 

Space Telescope, launching this decade, has 16 beryllium mirrors to capture the images from space. The 2012 Nobel Peace prize for physics used atoms of beryllium 

to create a computer chip with the computing capacity of every computer on earth 

today. In short, beryllium can do things that no other element on earth can do. 

Materion offers the following comments on S. 1600, the Critical Minerals Policy 

Act of 2013. 

1. Materion strongly supports developing a critical minerals policy as US 

leadership in innovation and technology is inextricably linked to reliable access 

to and use of critical minerals. 

As stated, the intent of S. 1600 is, ‘‘To facilitate the reestablishment of 

domestic, critical mineral designation, assessment, production, manufacturing, recycling, analysis, forecasting, workforce, education, research, and 

international capabilities in the United States, and for other purposes.’’ 

As a producer and key supplier of critical materials, Materion sees great 

value in US policies that would strengthen both domestic capabilities and 

international trade to ensure adequate supply of these materials. Materion 

supports these goals. 

76 

2. Beryllium should be designated as a critical mineral under the provisions 

of the Critical Minerals Policy Act of 2013. 

According to the text of S. 1600, the Secretary of Interior is directed to 

develop a draft methodology for assessing and determining a list of not 

more than 20 critical minerals. The methodology would be published in the 

Federal Register for notice and comment. The assessment would be based 

on potential international supply restrictions and the importance of use, including energy technologies, defense, agriculture, consumer electronics and 

health carerelated applications. 

This limited interpretation of what would constitute a critical mineral 

under the bill and in the implementing regulations may disqualify beryllium even though it is of critical importance for use and innovation in the 

energy, defense, consumer electronics and health care marketplace. Beryllium should not be penalized by a designation protocol because Materion 

has worked hard to ensure an adequate long-term supply. 

Unnecessary over-regulation of beryllium is the greatest threat to the key 

markets for beryllium and the future sustainability of a US supply. Worldwide supply of beryllium to the free world comes primarily from a single 

source in the US—Materion. Small deposits of beryllium ore are found in 

Kazakhstan and China, but Materion mines in excess of 70 percent of the 

world’s supply. China does not export its supply of beryllium. The company 

estimates a 70+year supply of beryllium ore. 

Since beryllium ore is mined and processed domestically, the primary 

current threat to US supply is not due to foreign trading partners restricting imports of this critical mineral into the US. Rather, unnecessary overregulation of beryllium is the greatest threat to the key markets for beryllium and the future sustainability of a US supply. Regulatory overreach has 

the potential to disrupt the beryllium business balance that enables 

Materion to supply strategic and critical applications of this mineral for defense and commercial customers. If US production becomes infeasible due 

to US or foreign regulatory policies, the US could be held hostage by China 

or Kazakhstan who would not be able to meet world demands. A constrained supply of beryllium for the US would very likely follow the pattern 

that has occurred with other critical minerals; e.g., rare earths and China 

domination. 

3. Notwithstanding the potential definitional restriction of a critical mineral 

under S. 1600, the US Department of Defense (DoD) has determined beryllium 

to be the only strategic and critical material for US national security. 

See: (Report required by Section 843 of Public Law 109-364: Report of 

Meeting, Department of Defense, Strategic Materials Protection Board, December 12, 2008). DoD’s determination is based on the fact that: 

High purity beryllium is both a strategic and critical material. 

High purity beryllium is essential for important defense systems, and it 

is unique in the function it performs. High purity beryllium possesses 

unique properties that make it indispensable in many of today’s critical 

U.S. defense systems, including sensors, missiles and satellites, avionics, 

and nuclear weapons. 

There is significant risk of supply disruption. Without DoD involvement 

and support, U.S. industry would not be able to provide the materials for 

defense applications. There are no reliable foreign suppliers that could provide high purity beryllium to the Department. 

DoD stated, ‘‘... beryllium meets all the conditions for being a critical material,’’ and concluded, ‘‘the Department should continue to take those special actions 

necessary to maintain a long term domestic supply of high purity beryllium.’’ (emphasis added) Those special actions included the U.S. government investing $80+ 

million in a Title III Defense Production Act project with Materion to ensure a reliable supply of beryllium in the US. 

A 2013 Rand Corporation report, Critical Materials, Present Danger to U.S. Manufacturing, identified beryllium as a highly concentrated critical material although 

primary production is in the US. 

The Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources should include provisions in S. 1600 specifically designating materials deemed strategic and critical to 

DoD as a critical mineral to align with US national security interests. 

77 

4. The European Union (EU) has also designated beryllium as a critical material and has publically expressed concerns on the impacts of over regulation of 

beryllium, in key emerging technologies in the electronics industry. 

The European Commission (EC) listed beryllium as one of fourteen critical materials (European Commission Critical Raw Materials for the EU— 

Report of the Ad-hoc Working Group on defining critical raw materials, 

2010). Raw materials are designated as being ‘‘critical’’ when the risks for 

supply shortage and their impacts on the economy are higher compared to 

other raw materials. 

According to the EC paper, 

The most significant threats originate from perceived risks associated 

with the use of beryllium in electronic products. EU regulatory fears and 

NGO-propagated ‘‘banning’’ of the use of materials containing beryllium 

lead to unwarranted attempts to find substitutes that do not offer the same 

qualities with respect to performance, sustainability and environmental 

protection. The data that authorities rely on is not current and does not reflect the most recent scientific studies. In general, authorities are reluctant 

to break from the past and are not open to new scientific studies even if 

they are conducted in accord with OECD guidelines or originate from proven workplace strategies. Because the cost of beryllium is high compared 

with that of other materials, it is used in applications in which its properties are crucial. In some applications, certain metal matrix or organic 

composites, high-strength grades of aluminum, pyrolytic graphite, silicon 

carbide, steel, or titanium may be substituted for beryllium metal or beryllium composites. Copper alloys containing nickel and silicon, tin, titanium, 

or other alloying elements or phosphor bronze alloys (copper-tin-phosphorus) may be substituted for beryllium-copper alloys, but these substitutions can result in substantially reduced performance. 

5. Materion offers the following recommendations to revise S. 1600 for the 

Committee’s consideration. 

Materion urges the Committee to carefully craft the criteria for designation of a critical mineral in S. 1600 by giving greater weight to the criticality of a mineral versus its current supply limitations. Supply limitations 

come and go with market demands and, therefore, there is no basis for 

over-weighting supply in the designation criteria. Minerals deemed both 

strategic and critical to US national security interests should be mandated 

for inclusion in the designation process developed by the Department of Interior. Consistency among Cabinetlevel departments regarding a concise 

regulatory policy for beryllium as a critical mineral is absolutely necessary. 

Its strategic importance to national defense and its contribution to enhanced public safety, energy independence, innovation, and unique applications that foster economic growth and job preservation warrant beryllium 

being designated as critical. 

We recommend the following. 

(a) S. 1600 should be amended to allow beryllium to be designated as a 

critical mineral. For any material DoD designates as strategic and critical, 

the Secretary of the Interior should automatically designate it as critical as 

well, and it should be included in the initial list of 20 substances. US national security interests should take precedence. Keep in mind that beryllium is a key material in every atomic weapon and is critical to our armed 

forces in its use in fighter aircraft, tanks, weapons guidance systems, night 

vision systems, spacecraft, and satellites. The use of beryllium not only protects those who serve our country, but also gives them a tactical advantage. 

For example, a third provision could be added to Section 101 stating: 

‘‘Notwithstanding the methodology to be developed by the Secretary of the 

Interior, any mineral deemed strategic and critical to US defense or national security is automatically designated as a critical mineral and should 

be included as part of the Department of the Interior’s published list.’’ 

(b) For the reasons stated above, the legislation should include a provision that specifically requires the Department of the Interior to consult 

with the Department of Defense. 

(c) Alternatively, at a minimum, the two criteria for a substance to qualify as a critical mineral in the Department of Interior methodology should 

be amended from an AND to an OR. [Section 101(a)(1) and (2)]. 

78 

While this option may open the criteria for consideration of a much 

broader group of minerals, it would allow for the consideration of those 

minerals strategic and critical to national security that are not threatened 

by traditional international supply restrictions. 

6. Beryllium uses are hallmarks of innovation that are only possible through 

critical minerals that give the US technological advantages over other countries. 

Beryllium is a very unique critical mineral that provides functionality in 

a number of high-tech applications on which both commercial and defense 

customers rely. The following discussion describes many of the leading edge 

technology applications of the strategic and critical mineral beryllium. 

Approximately 80 percent of the beryllium used goes into copper beryllium alloys, that are used to exploit an unmatched combination of physical 

properties to produce highly reliable components of systems that protect 

lives and where failure could be either life-threatening or would provide 

lower performance and reduced quality of life. 

Copper beryllium alloys are used for the manufacture of high performance, electrically conductive terminals such as: 

—Extremely reliable automobile connectors for air bag crash sensor and deployment systems, anti-lock brake systems, and new drive-by-wire technologies. 

—Life-saving medical applications such as the connections in medical operating 

rooms and monitoring equipment. 

—Critical connections and relays in electrical, electronic and telecommunications equipment where failure would disrupt the communications of emergency services like firefighters and police. 

—No-fail aircraft and spacecraft electrical and electronic connectors, which enable, for example, fly-by-wire commercial airliners to achieve previously impossible fuel efficiencies. 

—Household appliance temperature and other function controls that provide reliability and safety to consumers while minimizing energy and water use. 

—Relays used for telephone exchanges and controlling industrial, domestic and 

automobile electrical equipment. 

Copper beryllium alloys are used for the manufacture of mechanical components such as: 

—Critical aircraft components such as altimeter diaphragms. 

—Extremely long service life fire sprinkler water control valve springs that 

must react to fires after decades of inactivity to save lives and control fire 

damage. 

—Non-magnetic equipment components used in oil & gas exploration, production and directional drilling equipment to improve extraction efficiencies and 

reduce land despoliation at drill sites by reducing the number and footprint 

of drill sites. 

—Coal and mineral mining equipment bearings that operate longer underground. 

—Mine detection and minesweeping systems that keep the global forces safe. 

—Undersea fiber optic cable signal amplification ‘‘repeater’’ housings that carry 

more simultaneous transmissions than ever conceived of in the original cable 

systems. 

—Low-friction, high-strength aircraft landing gear bearings, control rod ends 

and wing aileron/flap bearing bushings that allow significant weight loss to 

reportedly lower global fuel consumption and reduced associated carbon dioxide emissions. 

—High thermal efficiency, reduced icing, aircraft components such as pitot 

tubes to provide enhanced aircraft safety for passengers. 

—Electrode holders and components of welding robots for automated automobile 

and appliance welding allowing better working environments for factory 

workers. 

—Property modifier for aluminum and magnesium castings with enhanced 

properties that reduce weight to achieve fuel and pollution reduction in automobiles and trucks. 

—Plastic and metal casting molds with enhanced thermal efficiency. 

Approximately 20 percent of the beryllium used is in the form of pure 

metal, as a metal matrix composite containing over 50 percent beryllium or 

as a beryllium oxide ceramic. 

—X-ray transparent windows used to control and focus X-ray beams in all medical, scientific and analytical devices incorporating X-ray sources, providing 

79 

finer resolution thereby allowing earlier cancer detection in mammography 

and other medical interventions. 

—Gyroscope gimbals and yokes for use in guidance, navigational and targeting 

systems used on aircraft, armored vehicle and marine missile systems providing levels of precision that give our forces tactical advantages and minimize collateral damage. 

—Satellite-mounted directional control devices for astronomical and other telescopes and instruments to provide accurate GPS locations signals and a 

wealth of scientific, agricultural and climatic data. 

—Satellite structural components that reduce weight, provide unmatchable rigidity at deep space low temperatures and enable longer, more capable space 

missions. 

—Mirrors for terrestrial and space-mounted astronomical telescopes that expand our knowledge of the universe, including the mirrors on the James 

Webb Telescope. Beryllium mirrors were not originally used on the Hubble 

telescope, but NASA eventually had to use small beryllium mirrors to clear 

up Hubble’s blurred vision during a Hubble repair space mission. 

—Beryllium is critical for the success of the multi-national ITER fusion energy 

project located in Cadaraches, France that offers the opportunity to provide 

sustainable energy sourced from non-radioactive nuclear fusion. Beryllium is 

the only material that can withstand the heat to control the fireball-like plasma inside the chamber. 

—Medical isotope production nuclear reactors produce critical isotopes for treatment of many types of cancer as a result of the unique neutron beam reflective capabilities of beryllium. 

—Substrates for mounting high-powered civil aviation radar systems and power 

amplifiers that need cooling to prevent self destruction. 

—Mobile telephone infrastructure equipment. 

—Medical excimer laser beam focusing and control components, allowing surgeons unprecedented fine control of the high-energy laser beam during surgery. 

Preserving beryllium and other critical minerals for today’s leading and life-saving 

technologies along with tomorrow’s innovations must be a top priority to distinguish 

us from international competitors. 

Materion thanks the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee for considering these comments in crafting its Critical Minerals legislation and looks forward 

to a continuing dialogue on this important issue. We would be pleased to meet with 

the Committee, and we are always available to respond to any and all questions. 

STATEMENT OF DR. P. PATRICK LEAHY, CHAIR, THE MINERALS SCIENCE & 

INFORMATION COALITION, ON S. 1600 

Thank you for the opportunity to submit written testimony on S. 1600, the Critical Minerals Policy Act of 2013, and on the importance of the federal government’s 

mineral science and information functions. 

This testimony is presented on behalf of the Minerals Science & Information Coalition (MSIC), a newly formed group of minerals and materials interests united to 

advocate for reinvigorated minerals science and information functions in the federal 

government. Initial members include the Geological Society of America, Industrial 

Minerals Association—North America, National Stone, Sand and Gravel Association, 

Society for Mining, Metallurgy, and Exploration, Inc., Portland Cement Association, 

National Electrical Manufacturers Association, National Mining Association, Society 

of Economic Geologists, and the American Geosciences Institute. Other organizations are in the process of joining the Coalition. The Coalition represents trade associations, scientific and professional societies, groups representing the extractive industries, processors, manufacturers, other mineral and material supply-chain users, 

and other consumers of federal minerals science and information. 

MSIC commends Chairman Wyden, Ranking Member Murkowski, the cosponsors 

of the Critical Minerals Act of 2013, and the members of this Committee for recognizing the national importance of critical minerals and for your efforts to address 

this complex issue. 

BACKGROUND 

Minerals and mineral materials are the starting point for many supply chains 

that are vital to the nation’s economy and national defense. Supply chains can be 

long, complex, and vulnerable to disruption for many reasons. This vulnerability is 

highlighted by recent crises in the global supply of just two commodities—rare earth 

80 

* All figures have been retained in committee files. 

elements, caused by Chinese export restrictions, and helium, caused by uncertainty 

surrounding the Federal Helium Reserve in Texas. Restrictions in the supply of rare 

earths threatened the production of components that are essential for U.S. defense 

and weapons systems, in addition to a vast array of communications, clean energy, 

electronics, automotive, and medical products. A shortage of helium threatened 

high-tech manufacturing, including the semiconductor industry; it also had impacts 

in the medical, aerospace, welding, and weather forecasting sectors. The nation’s experiences with rare earth elements and helium are a wake-up call to us all. 

Both the private and the public sector realize that we must reduce risk to our 

supply chains. But we cannot do this without accurate, timely information on the 

nature, location, and characteristics of our domestic mineral resources, and on the 

worldwide supply of, demand for, and flow of minerals and materials. This information is the foundation for identifying and forecasting existing and emerging 

vulnerabilities, and for sound decision making by business leaders and policy makers. 

Given the vital national importance of minerals science and information, MSIC 

notes with alarm the consistent, severe decline in funding for the Mineral Resources 

Program at the U.S. Geological Survey (Fig.1)* This program is the sole federal 

source of scientific information and statistics on mineral resources, production, consumption, and environmental effects. The program’s products are used extensively 

by industry, academia, policy makers, and the public, yet its funding has been cut 

by 30 percent, in constant dollar terms, over the past decade. 

The Coalition sees a significant need for national minerals forecasting capabilities. 

Forecasts based on reliable information would help industry and the government to 

forestall and mitigate possible disruptions to the flow of essential raw materials and 

components and would strengthen our national resilience. 

MSIC asserts that investment in minerals science, information, and forecasting is 

in the national interest. 

S. 1600, THE CRITICAL MINERALS ACT OF 2013 

We support the aims of S. 1600 to strengthen and improve our understanding of 

critical minerals and to develop a robust scientific and statistical information and 

forecasting system to identify and anticipate threats to supply chains. 

In particular, the Mineral Science & Information Coalition endorses the actions 

proposed in Sec. 101, to develop a methodology for identifying critical minerals, Sec. 

103, on resource assessments, Sec. 108, on analysis and forecasting, and Sec. 109, 

on education and workforce. 

We urge you to continue your efforts to reinvigorate our national capacity to characterize, quantify, and forecast the sources, nature, and flow of minerals and mineral materials in support of national defense, a robust, resilient manufacturing sector, and a thriving economy. 

Thank you for the opportunity to present this testimony to the Committee. 

NATIONAL ELECTRICAL MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION, 

January 31, 2014. 

Hon. RON WYDEN, 

Chairman, Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, Washington, DC. 

Hon. LISA MURKOWSKI, 

Ranking Member, Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, Washington, DC. 

Re: Committee on Energy and Natural Resources Hearing on Critical Minerals Policy Act (S. 1600) 

DEAR CHAIRMAN WYDEN AND RANKING MEMBER MURKOWSKI, 

Thank you for the opportunity to provide the following brief remarks on behalf 

of the National Electrical Manufacturers Association (NEMA) on the legislation considered today by the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources: The Critical 

Minerals Policy Act (S. 1600). 

NEMA is the association of electrical equipment and medical imaging manufacturers. Founded in 1926 and headquartered in Rosslyn, Virginia, its 400-plus member companies manufacture a diverse set of products used in the generation, transmission, distribution, and end use of electricity as well as medical diagnostic imaging. Worldwide annual sales of products in the NEMA scope exceed $140 billion. 

81 

According to the U.S Geological Survey, the U.S. was 100 percent dependent on 

foreign sources for 17 mineral commodities in 2012 and more than 50 percent dependent on foreign sources for some 24 more. 

Challenging supply conditions and volatile prices of basic mineral inputs can be 

a significant threat to U.S. electroindustry companies, including in sectors such as 

lighting, electric motors, energy storage, superconducting materials, and medical imaging, as well as closely related industries including wind and solar electricity generation and hybrid and electric vehicles. The full scale of the threats remains uncertain, since these materials are used in various parts of product supply chains. However, while in many cases only small amounts of a specific mineral or mineral derivative may be present in a piece of manufactured equipment, its presence can be critical to performance of that equipment. 

In general, NEMA supports U.S. policies that provide greater assurance to 

electroindustry companies of stable, continuous and affordable supplies of critical 

minerals. More specifically, NEMA welcomes and supports the Critical Minerals 

Policy Act as a multifaceted strategy to modernize U.S. federal policy on mineral 

resources, information, research and know-how. 

The approach taken in S. 1600 is necessary to address this threat to U.S. 

electroindustry companies and jobs. 

First, the legislation would direct the Department of the Interior to establish a 

methodology for determining, on an ongoing basis, the mineral resources that are 

most critical to the U.S. economy, including manufacturers. The methodology will 

be created through a public process informed by input from businesses, associations 

and other stakeholder organizations and will be reviewed periodically. It is our understanding that a White House chartered interagency working group has already 

developed a draft methodology but it has not yet been made public. 

Although each company that uses minerals may have their own methods and information, the federal government plays an important role by providing objective information and guidance to policy-makers, market-makers, and other interested parties. 

Second, the Act provides a set of policies across multiple federal agencies to address issues associated with the discovery, production, processing, use and re-use of 

critical minerals. For example, the White House is directed to establish a forecasting 

capability that will enable mineral policies to keep up with mineral markets and 

federal agencies to take steps to support economic competitiveness while maintaining environmental protections. In addition, the Interior and Agriculture Departments are tasked to ensure that federal permitting and review processes for proposed mining activities are even-handed and not stacked against well-designed and 

wellmanaged extraction and processing activities. 

Thirdly, the legislation addresses the challenges our country faces to make better 

use of the mineral and human resources already at hand. Specifically, the legislation directs the Department of Energy to continue and deepen its information, research, and development activities on alternative materials and reclamation and recycling of critical minerals that have already moved through the manufacturing supply chain and have reached the end of the consumer value chain. This is of particular interest to NEMA manufacturers of fluorescent lighting products as well as 

equipment that employs permanent magnets. It is also important that the legislation tasks that State Department with integrating critical minerals supply chain 

issues into international dialogues and cooperation activities. 

In addition, the legislation directs the Department of Labor to assess the portion 

of the U.S. workforce trained in mineral-related skills and identify present and future gaps in U.S. know-how. It also directs the Departments of Labor and Interior 

to collaborate in developing approaches that will enable more U.S. workers to become part of a vital U.S. minerals supply chain. 

In summary, we believe the Critical Minerals Policy Act provides a comprehensive 

and balanced approach to updating U.S. law and policy related to minerals that are 

most critical for NEMA manufacturers. NEMA commends yon both for introducing 

this legislation and for holding the NEMA Testimony for Record of January 28, 2014 

Hearing on S. 1600 Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources hearing 

of the full Committee to begin the process of moving it forward. We look forward 

to working with you to achieve passage by the Committee and the full Senate as 

soon as possible. 

Thank you again for the opportunity to provide these brief remarks. 

Respectfully, 

KYLE PITSOR, 

Vice President, Government Relations, National Electrical Manufacturers 

Association (NEMA). 

82 

STATEMENT OF RANDALL J. SCOTT, PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, RARE

ELEMENT, LAKEWOOD, CO 

Rare Element Resources Inc. appreciates the opportunity to comment on S. 1600, 

‘‘The Critical Minerals Policy Act,’’ a bill our company strongly supports. We wish 

to briefly describe reasons for supporting S. 1600 and then detail why our advanced 

Bear Lodge Critical Rare Earths Project is poised to become America’s next source 

of Critical Rare Earths (CREEs) by 2016. 

S. 1600—We welcome the funding that S.1600 provides to improve the mineral 

project permitting process in the United States. Unfortunately, over the past two 

decades, the U.S. has become wellknown globally for imposing increasing levels of 

delay and uncertainty on companies that wish to create new sources of strategic and 

critical minerals as well as high-tech and family-wage jobs and tax revenues on 

American soil. In our experience, agencies such as the Forest Service, which manages the lands where our Bear Lodge Project is located, lack important resources 

including personnel. S. 1600 gives assurance that regulatory agencies have sufficient in-house technical staff plus sufficient funding to access competent outside experts to bolster agency talent and move permits through the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process in a timely fashion. 

Private capital, talent and time are precious and critical commodities in their own 

right. Unnecessary delays and stranded capital do nothing constructive to advance 

a critical rare earths project such as the Bull Hill Mine at our Bear Lodge Project 

toward its goal of becoming the next domestic critical rare earths producer, one that 

will be a strong American answer to Chinese global dominance in this sector. 

Today there is a likelihood of inexplicable permitting delay that has unfortunately 

become the norm from federal agencies. By bringing accountability and resources to 

agencies doing the permitting, S. 1600 gives a greater assurance of certainty to companies such as ours that are working to meet the national goal of reestablishing a 

secure domestic rare earths supply chain. 

In short, Rare Element Resources believes S. 1600 is a valuable and overdue step 

toward assurance of renewed domestic critical minerals production. Its prompt enactment will be a key factor in keeping the US competitive with our partners and 

a step ahead of those unfriendly to us around the world. 

The Bear lodge Project—We are working to bring into production the Bear Lodge 

Critical Rare Earths Project in the Black Hills National Forest in northeastern Wyoming, with a goal of project commissioning in late 2016. Our focused exploration 

work over the past eight years has given America a growing, longlife rare earth district, with competitive grades of heavy and critical rare earths. With timely permitting and advancement of the Forest Service’s ongoing Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), we believe the Bear Lodge Project can be America’s primary source of 

critical rare earths beginning in 2016, making it a significant, valuable and secure 

domestic complement to the production from Molycorp’s Mountain Pass Mine that 

is more weighted in the lighter rare earth elements. 

Mine commissioning at the Bear Lodge Project by 2016, while possible, is not assured. The EIS process has begun, and the Bear Lodge Project deserves a high level 

of urgency on the part of the Forest Service to complete the NEPA process in an 

accelerated and streamlined fashion. 

The Department of Energy has expressed the need to ‘‘accelerate and streamline’’ 

the federal permitting process through the entire critical minerals supply chain, beginning with mining. In his Global Threat Assessment to the Senate Intelligence 

Committee in March 2013, the Director of National Intelligence specifically cited 

‘‘regulatory hurdles’’ as a factor limiting the United States’ ability to counter China’s 

monopoly on rare earth elements. 

We call for no shortcuts. Rather, focused attention, accelerated and streamlined 

urgency will allow the Forest Service to provide a Record of Decision by early 2016, 

leading to construction, commissioning and first production. This Committee is 

urged to stress to the Forest Service the importance of meeting this 2016 goal. 

Why the Bear Lodge Project has become a Critical National Resource 

• The Bull Hill Mine near Sundance, WY and the hydrometallurgy plant at nearby Upton, WY combine to be North America’s most advanced rare earths development project. 

• The mine has a small footprint of less than 900 acres in an excellent location 

with adjacent infrastructure, power, transportation, skilled labor and strong 

local and statewide support. • It is poised to begin production of 5,000 -10,000 tons of rare earths annually 

by late 2016. 

83 

• The Bear Lodge Project will be a viable, secure domestic source of such critical 

rare earths as Neodymium, Dysprosium, Europium, Yttrium and Terbium for 

at least 25 years. • The Forest Service has chosen the EIS Project Manager and third-party EIS 

contractor, and expects to produce a Draft EIS in 4Q 2014 and a final Record 

of Decision in 1Q 2016. • Growth potential in the Bear Lodge Rare Earths district is excellent, with adjacent exploration targets indicating further heavy rare earth enrichment. • Multiple economic and strategic benefits can come from the Company’s patentpending metallurgical processing technology that produces a 97 percent purebulk rare-earths concentrate that is free of uranium and thorium. • The process technology also enables process chemical recycling and regeneration, giving lower capital and operating expenses as well as a zero-discharge 

hydrometallurgy facility and small tailings footprint. • Evaluation of rare earth elemental separation from the concentrate has begun. • Rare Element Resources has entered into a non-disclosure agreement with the 

DOE’s Ames and Idaho National Laboratories under the auspices of DOE’s Critical Materials Institute for rare earths separation research. • The detailed design and economic analysis portions of the Feasibility Study 

have begun. 

Innovative American mining companies such as Rare Element Resources need a 

timely ‘‘Yes’’ or ‘‘No’’ after we have invested private capital, talent and innovation 

to identify domestic resources and technologies that can help answer America’s critical minerals needs. S. 1600 is a bold step toward ensuring that federal agencies 

can have the financial and personnel resources they need, and for these reasons 

Rare Element Resources strongly supports S.1600 and urges its prompt passage. 

Rare Element Resources Ltd. is a publicly traded mineral resource company focused on exploration and development of rare earth deposits, specifically those with 

significant distribution of critical rare earths. Headquartered in Lakewood, CO, the 

company was incorporated in 1999. Its common shares are traded on the New York 

Stock Exchange Market (the ‘‘NYSE MKT’’) under the symbo ‘‘EE’’ and on the Toronto Stock Exchange (the ‘‘TSX’’) under the symbol ‘‘RES.’’ 

STATEMENT OF KEN COLLISON, CHIEF OPERATING OFFICER, UCORE RARE METALS, 

This is written testimony submitted for the hearing record on S.1600, the Critical 

Minerals Policy Act. My name is Ken Collison, Chief Operating Officer for Ucore 

Rare Metals, Inc. (Ucore). Ucore is actively developing the Bokan- Dotson Ridge 

Rare Earth Project (project) located on Prince of Wales Island in Southeast Alaska. 

The project is in the final stages of evaluation and design and is anticipating initiating the NEPA permitting review process early in 2014. The Bokan- Dotson Ridge 

project is particularly enriched with heavy rare earth elements, including the critical elements Dysprosium, Terbium and Yttrium. Approximately 40 percent (by 

weight) of the rare earth elements contained on the Dotson Ridge property are 

heavy rare earths elements, as disclosed in the Company’s Nl43-101 compliant Preliminary Economic Assessment, released in January 2013. 

Ucore sincerely appreciates the recent initiatives in Washington to address the increasing lack of availability of rare earth products and magnet-making materials for 

domestic military and defense applications. Concerns regarding the withdrawal of 

ongoing supplies of Critical Rare Earth Oxides produced almost exclusively in China 

and consumed by US military contractors, has attracted significant legislative initiatives. 

The Critical Minerals Policy Act, submitted by Senators Lisa Murkowski (R- AK), 

Ron Wyden (D- Ore), Mark Udall (D- Col.), Dean Heller (R- Nev.) and 13 others, 

if fully enacted, will prevent supply shortages of critical materials and reduce US 

dependence on foreign sources through the revitalization of a domestic supply chain, 

including domestic production from near term facilities such as the BokanDotson 

Ridge project in Alaska. The bipartisan bill outlines mineral-specific actions for several elements, including yttrium and scandium, materials scheduled to commence 

production at the Bokan project by as early as 2017. 

Dotson Ridge is the richest domestic source of three heavy rare earth elementsdysprosium, terbium, and yttrium-which are critical to several advanced weapon 

systems, such as stealth helicopters and precision-guided weapons. Both dysprosium 

and yttrium are critical to multiple US defense systems. Dysprosium is a crucial ingredient in neodymium-iron-boron magnets as a means of increasing coercivity, applications of which include aircraft actuator motors in flight control systems, landing 

gear, and munitions. Yttrium is critical to the defense industry applications such 

84 

as the manufacture of various ceramic and glass materials required in jet engines. 

The Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) development program relies on both Dy andY as critical input components. 

Currently, all of the world’s commercially-available heavy rare earth elements are 

produced in China. Ongoing production and export quotas have limited the availability of these materials to global markets. According to a March 2012 report from 

DOD, yttrium, terbium, and dysprosium are all considered to be ‘‘critical to the production, sustainment, or operation of significant United States military equipment,’’ 

as well as ‘‘subject to interruption of supply, based on actions or events outside the 

control of the government of the United States.’’ Yttrium, in particular, was shown 

to be in deficit when considering projected future domestic supply. 

Thank you for the opportunity to submit testimony on this important bill. 

STATEMENT OF DENNIS WATSON, MAYOR, CITY OF CRAIG, ALASKA

This is written testimony submitted for the hearing record on S.1600, the Critical 

Minerals Policy Act. My name is Dennis Watson, Mayor of Craig, Alaska located on 

Prince of Wales Island in Southeast Alaska. Craig has a population of 1200 and is 

the largest community on America’s third largest island which has a total population of 4,000. There are total of ten communities on the island, many of which 

are connected by road to one another as a result of the road system built during 

the better days of timber harvest. 

I mention these roads because my testimony on this bill is about the need to 

evaluate surface transportation access to American sites that can supply critical 

minerals including rare earth minerals. As the Committee knows, Alaska is blessed 

with an abundance of minerals which it has supplied to the Nation since it was acquired from Russia in the 19th century. Southeast Alaska and Prince of Wales have 

historically been part of this tradition, and a number of successful mines have been 

developed on the Island. 

Now, there is a great prospect for development of new mines on Prince of Wales 

Island. One of these is a potential rare earth mineral mine which could provide a 

lot of rare earth minerals to our nation’s economy and security. That mine is called 

the Bokan-Dotson Ridge project. 

‘‘The Bokan property is particularly enriched with heavy rare earth elements, including the critical elements Dysprosium, Terbium and Yttrium. 

Approximately 40 percent(by weight) of the rare earth elements contained 

on the Dotson Ridge property are heavy rare earths elements, as disclosed 

in the Company’s NI43-101 compliant resource estimate, released in March 

of 2011.’’ See http://ucore.com/projects/bokan-mountain-alaska/projectoverviewSo and attachment 

So, the development of this property has great potential for the nation and is just 

what Sen. Murkowski and the cosponsors of this bill intend that the study authorized by this bill evaluate. The City of Craig strongly supports the Bokan—Dotson 

Ridge project and has requested the Alaska Congressional delegation to sponsor a 

bill, S.181, to allow surface transportation access to the mine site. As I said above, 

Prince of Wales has an extensive road system, more than most places in rural Alaska. However, even though the Bokan-Dotson Ridge project is located on Prince of 

Wales Island, there is no road connecting the project site with the rest of the POW 

road system. Even more frustrating is the fact that the current state of federal land 

management most likely prevents construction of a road without specific legislation 

action by this Committee because much of the area on which a road could be sited 

is now located in a Roadless area since over 90 percent of Southeast Alaska has 

been declared’’ roadless’’ by an ill-advised federal court decision which voided a long 

standing out of court settlement that had exempted Southeast Alaska from the rest 

of the nation’s roadless issues. 

We urge this committee to do two things: 

1. Please include a study of transportation issues for critical minerals , particularly rare-earth minerals in this bill. This bill is intended to identify how the United 

States may find and develop a secure, domestic supply of these critical minerals. 

However, if the minerals exist but federal land management policy prevents or substantially retards the ability to develop and transport these mineral to a logical production site, then this policy needs to be identified in this report and needs to be 

adjusted to accommodate these needs. 

85 

The Study should identify these access problems and recommend specific changes 

to allow these critical/rare earth minerals to be developed with logical and economic 

access. 

2. Please schedule a hearing on S.181 which provides a solution for this specific 

surface transportation problem for the critical rare earth minerals at Bokan-Dotson 

Ridge. That bill is a bipartisan bill which was introduced by Ranking Member Murkowski and Sen. Begich almost a year ago, January 30, 2013, Yet, there has been 

no hearing on this bill. There has been a hearing on the companion bill, HR. 587 

in the House Natural Resources Committee and we are hoping that the bill will be 

marked up soon. 

The bills are identical and are very simple-they provide an exception to the 

Roadless Rule To permit construction of a road between the Bokan- Dotson Ridge 

project and another precious metals mine. The bill does not authorize and funding 

for construction. The bill seeks only to solve the Roadless problem. It is not an earmark for road construction. The mine’s sponsors understand and support this bill. 

They are not looking for federal subsidy but the mine needs this surface access to 

make its transportation more viable and to allow Prince of Wales Island residents 

to work as employees. 

Additionally, this would allow local residents of the island to obtain year round 

employment at the mine. Right now the only access is by boat which is just not very 

practical for daily commuting from communities on the Island which has an annual 

unemployment rate of 12.8 percent through November 2013.. 

Attached for the record are many letters and resolutions of support from all over 

the State and region. This project is supported by local communities which form the 

Prince of Wales Community Advisory Council and encompass most of the communities on the Island as well as the Southeast Conference and Ketchikan and Alaska 

State Chambers of Commerce. In summary, the Bokan-Dotson Ridge mineral prospect has a real chance to make a difference in America’s rare earth mineral supply. 

But the Committee and the Congress need to look directly at the surface transportation issues affecting this and other mineral properties. 

Thank you for the opportunity to submit testimony on this important bill. I hope 

that I will have the opportunity soon to testify at a similar hearing on S.181, and 

hopefully in person. 

Æ