U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

55–912 PDF WASHINGTON : 2024

H.R. 6395, H.R. 8446, AND H.R. 8450 

LEGISLATIVE HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND 

MINERAL RESOURCES 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

Tuesday, June 4, 2024 

Serial No. 118–126 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Natural Resources 

( 

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

or 

Committee address: http://naturalresources.house.gov 
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES 

BRUCE WESTERMAN, AR, Chairman 

DOUG LAMBORN, CO, Vice Chairman 

RAU ́ L M. GRIJALVA, AZ, Ranking Member 

Doug Lamborn, CO 

Robert J. Wittman, VA 

Tom McClintock, CA 

Paul Gosar, AZ 

Garret Graves, LA 

Aumua Amata C. Radewagen, AS 

Doug LaMalfa, CA 

Daniel Webster, FL 

Jenniffer Gonza ́lez-Colo ́n, PR 

Russ Fulcher, ID 

Pete Stauber, MN 

John R. Curtis, UT 

Tom Tiffany, WI 

Jerry Carl, AL 

Matt Rosendale, MT 

Lauren Boebert, CO 

Cliff Bentz, OR 

Jen Kiggans, VA 

Jim Moylan, GU 

Wesley P. Hunt, TX 

Mike Collins, GA 

Anna Paulina Luna, FL 

John Duarte, CA 

Harriet M. Hageman, WY 

Grace F. Napolitano, CA 

Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan, CNMI 

Jared Huffman, CA 

Ruben Gallego, AZ 

Joe Neguse, CO 

Mike Levin, CA 

Katie Porter, CA 

Teresa Leger Ferna ́ndez, NM 

Melanie A. Stansbury, NM 

Mary Sattler Peltola, AK 

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, NY 

Kevin Mullin, CA 

Val T. Hoyle, OR 

Sydney Kamlager-Dove, CA 

Seth Magaziner, RI 

Nydia M. Vela ́zquez, NY 

Ed Case, HI 

Debbie Dingell, MI 

Susie Lee, NV 

Vivian Moeglein, Staff Director 

Tom Connally, Chief Counsel 

Lora Snyder, Democratic Staff Director 

http://naturalresources.house.gov 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES 

PETE STAUBER, MN, Chairman 

WESLEY P. HUNT, TX, Vice Chair 

ALEXANDRIA OCASIO-CORTEZ, NY, Ranking Member 

Doug Lamborn, CO 

Robert J. Wittman, VA 

Paul Gosar, AZ 

Garret Graves, LA 

Daniel Webster, FL 

Russ Fulcher, ID 

John R. Curtis, UT 

Tom Tiffany, WI 

Matt Rosendale, MT 

Lauren Boebert, CO 

Wesley P. Hunt, TX 

Mike Collins, GA 

John Duarte, CA 

Bruce Westerman, AR, ex officio 

Jared Huffman, CA 

Kevin Mullin, CA 

Sydney Kamlager-Dove, CA 

Seth Magaziner, RI 

Nydia M. Vela ́zquez, NY 

Debbie Dingell, MI 

Rau ́l M. Grijalva, AZ 

Grace F. Napolitano, CA 

Susie Lee, NV 

Vacancy 

Vacancy 
(III) 

CONTENTS 

Page 

Hearing held on Tuesday, June 4, 2024 ................................................................ 1 

Statement of Members: 

Stauber, Hon. Pete, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

Minnesota ...................................................................................................... 2 

Huffman, Hon. Jared, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

California ....................................................................................................... 3 

Panel I: 

Ciscomani, Juan, a Representative in Congress from the State of Arizona 5 

Statement of Witnesses: 

Panel II: 

Williams, Colin, Ph.D., U.S. Geological Survey, Mineral Resources 

Program, Program Coordinator, Moffett Field, California ........................ 6 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 8 

Questions submitted for the record ......................................................... 10 

Cabrera, Misael, Director, School of Mining and Mineral Resources, 

University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona ...................................................... 10 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 12 

Questions submitted for the record ......................................................... 13 

Macaluso, Sally, Chief Procurement Officer, GE Healthcare, Waukesha, 

Wisconsin ....................................................................................................... 15 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 16 

Rosenbusch, Corey, President and CEO, The Fertilizer Institute, 

Arlington, Virginia ........................................................................................ 17 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 19 

Phadke, Roopali, Ph.D., Professor of Environmental Studies, Macalester 

College, Saint Paul, Minnesota .................................................................... 23 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 25 

Additional Materials Submitted for the Record: 

Submissions for the Record by Representative Huffman 

Rodale Institute—Farming Systems Trial 40-Year Report .................... 40 

(1) 

LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON H.R. 6395, TO 

AMEND THE ENERGY ACT OF 2020 TO 

REQUIRE THE SECRETARY OF THE 

INTERIOR TO INCLUDE THE SECRETARY OF 

HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES IN CONSULTATIONS REGARDING DESIGNATIONS 

OF CRITICAL MINERALS, ELEMENTS, SUBSTANCES, AND MATERIALS, ‘‘RECOGNIZING 

THE IMPORTANCE OF CRITICAL MINERALS 

IN HEALTHCARE ACT OF 2023’’; H.R. 8446, TO 

AMEND THE ENERGY ACT OF 2020 TO 

INCLUDE CRITICAL MATERIALS IN THE 

DEFINITION OF CRITICAL MINERAL, AND 

FOR OTHER PURPOSES; AND H.R. 8450, TO 

DIRECT THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR 

TO EVALUATE CERTAIN MINERALS FOR 

DESIGNATION AS CRITICAL MINERALS, 

‘‘PHOSPHATE AND POTASH PROTECTION 

ACT OF 2024’’ 

Tuesday, June 4, 2024 

U.S. House of Representatives 

Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources 

Committee on Natural Resources 

Washington, DC 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 11:21 a.m. in 

Room 1334, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Pete Stauber 

[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding. 

Present: Representatives Stauber, Gosar, Webster, Fulcher, 

Curtis; Huffman, and Kamlager-Dove. 

Also present: Representatives Cammack and Ciscomani. 

Mr. STAUBER. The Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral 

Resources will come to order. 

Without objection, the Chair is authorized to declare a recess of 

the Subcommittee at any time. 

Under Committee Rule 4(f), any oral opening statements at 

hearings are limited to the Chairman and the Ranking Minority 

Member. 

I ask unanimous consent that the gentlewoman from Florida, 

Mrs. Cammack, and the gentleman from Arizona, Mr. Ciscomani, 

be allowed to participate in today’s hearing. 

Without objection, so ordered. 
2 

I now recognize myself for an opening statement. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. PETE STAUBER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MINNESOTA 

Mr. STAUBER. Today, the Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral 

Resources will consider three bills that aim to make the U.S. 

mineral supply chain as secure as possible. 

As projected, global mineral demand is estimated to outstrip 

global supply in the very near future. We must ensure the United 

States has ample access to the numerous minerals we rely on every 

day. 

The Energy Act of 2020 defines ‘‘critical minerals’’ as those that 

are non-fuel mineral or mineral material essential to the economic 

and national security of the United States, produced from a supply 

chain that is vulnerable to disruption, and serve an essential function in the manufacturing of a product, the absence of which would 

have substantial consequences for the U.S. economy or our national 

security. Every 3 years, the U.S. Geological Survey, or USGS, 

reviews minerals for eligibility under these parameters, and 

publishes their determinations on the Critical Minerals List. 

The Energy Act of 2020 also directs the Department of Energy 

to develop a similar list, called the Critical Materials List. Unlike 

USGS, DOE’s methodology is forward-looking, accounting for international demand scenarios and growth trajectories of energy technologies. Independent of USGS, DOE’s list includes minerals like 

copper, electrical, steel, and silicon. Additionally, every mineral on 

USGS’s Critical Minerals list automatically goes on DOE’s Critical 

Materials list. 

H.R. 8446, introduced by Mr. Ciscomani, would amend the 

Energy Act of 2020 to have the list designations work the other 

way, as well, so DOE’s deemed materials automatically go on to 

USGS’s list. While each agency would still be responsible for 

reviewing elements under their unique purviews, this method could 

streamline interagency coordination to determine which elements 

and minerals are most necessary for U.S. national security and 

economic security. 

H.R. 6395, the Recognizing the Importance of Critical Minerals 

in Health Care Act of 2023, introduced by Mr. Curtis, would add 

the Department of Health and Homeland Security as a consulting 

agency for determining the Critical Minerals List. 

Minerals are used in a wide range of healthcare applications. For 

example, radioisotopes from uranium derivatives are used for over 

40,000 medical imaging procedures in the United States daily, and 

liquid helium has no known alternatives for its coolant properties 

in MRI machines. Copper, gold, lithium, titanium, silver, and platinum are key components for medical technologies, equipment, and 

treatments, including heart stents, pacemakers, surgical tools, antibiotics, and chemotherapy. By requiring USGS to coordinate with 

HHS, this bill will ensure that medical uses of these minerals and 

the ramifications that any supply disruption could have on the 

healthcare economy are adequately considered when evaluating 

CML designations. 

Our third bill is H.R. 8450, the Phosphate and Potash Protection 

Act of 2024, sponsored by Mrs. Cammack. In the last few years, 
3 

global supply shocks for minerals like potash and phosphate have 

created uncertainty in the agricultural industry, contributing to 

rising fertilizer prices. In March 2023, some fertilizer prices spiked 

to 3.5 times higher than they were just 2 years before. While 

farmers must initially bear the brunt of cost hikes, price volatility 

in the fertilizer market can lead to decreased crop production, 

increased food prices, and greater overall food insecurity, all of 

which lead to higher prices for American consumers. 

H.R. 8450 would direct the Secretary of the Interior, in consultation with the Secretary of Agriculture, to re-evaluate potash, 

phosphate, and materials necessary for fertilizer for designation as 

critical minerals. 

This bill also requires DOI to publish a report to Congress 

explaining why these minerals do or do not meet the necessary 

CML requirements, and to update the CML within 60 days, should 

USGS find that any mineral meets the criteria. 

Just as a periodic table would not be complete without every 

element in its place, supply shortages, even a single mineral, can 

jeopardize the well-being of the interconnected global economy and 

the products and services necessary to make it work. 

I look forward to hearing more on the merits of these bills from 

our witnesses. 

I now yield to my good friend, Mr. Huffman for his opening 

statement. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. JARED HUFFMAN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

Mr. HUFFMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am pinch hitting for 

Ranking Member Ocasio-Cortez this morning, but I want to thank 

you and our witnesses for being here. 

Today, we are discussing three bills, all relating to the Critical 

Minerals List maintained by USGS. 

Congress created the Critical Minerals List to help us better 

understand which minerals are both critical to the economy and 

national security, and at risk of supply chain disruption. That is 

the purpose. This list is a tool that helps decisionmakers prioritize 

government actions and investments, and other agencies maintain 

their own lists for their own reasons. And today, we will discuss 

the Department of Energy’s Critical Materials List, for example, 

which focuses on materials and minerals critical to the energy 

sector specifically. 

USGS’s Critical Minerals List and DOE’s Critical Materials List 

may sound similar, and even many of the same minerals could be 

on both lists, but they were designed for different purposes and 

should not be used interchangeably. Unfortunately, one of the bills 

we are here to discuss, H.R. 8446, would do just that. This bill 

would add DOE’s list of energy-specific critical materials to the 

definition of critical minerals in the Energy Act of 2020, and this 

may sound innocuous. 

This definition, however, drives billions of dollars in Federal 

investment. Democrats last Congress secured billions of dollars in 

major bills to invest in securing critical mineral supply chains. 

These investments target the whole supply chain, from research, to 

production, to refining, to recycling, to reuse, so any change to the 
4 

definition can have cascading effects on our economy, on our 

environment, and on natural resources. 

The Biden administration is investing historic amounts of money 

in recycling and reuse, investigating alternative minerals and 

systems, and enhancing mineral efficiency. All of this will help us 

secure our critical minerals supply chains. But corporate mining 

interests have their own agenda. And along with their allies in 

Congress, they are focusing exclusively on a single solution that 

conveniently lines their pockets: a new domestic mining rush. 

The mining industry says we need to rapidly open new mines in 

the United States to secure our critical minerals supply chains and 

provide the minerals needed for the clean energy transition. Now, 

this urgency is used to dismiss the very real concerns of communities across the country who have to live with the reality of mines 

in their backyards, toxic radioactive dust, polluted lands and 

waters, and, increasingly, groundwater sucked dry for mining 

operations. 

The climate crisis and trade tensions are used to justify opening 

new mines while ignoring tribal sovereignty, though most known 

critical mineral deposits are on or near tribal lands and Indigenous 

communities have historically borne some of the worst harms of 

mining. 

We should not trade one environmental injustice for another. As 

policymakers, we must look beyond industry talking points and 

consider the big picture. As we face a new era of domestic mining, 

we must overhaul the seriously outdated and inadequate Mining 

Law of 1872. But stepping back even further, we must consider if 

each new mine is the best solution to meet our needs. In a world 

of rapidly changing technologies, what is critical today may not be 

critical tomorrow. Mines cannot change what minerals they 

produce to meet market changes, and we can’t change our geology 

to mine materials that we don’t have. 

So, USGS is important. They have found that the United States 

does not have known reserves of most of the critical minerals currently on the list, but we can invest in recycling and a circular 

economy, solutions that could give us much more adaptable, resilient supplies of minerals while causing less environmental harm 

than new mining. I look forward to hearing from Dr. Phadke about 

pragmatic alternatives to new mining from her decades of research 

experience in this field. 

Debating whether to invest Federal dollars in new mining or 

recycling should not affect decisions about which minerals should 

be considered critical. However, in practice, many of our taxpayer 

dollars invested in critical mineral supply chains go straight to subsidizing new, primary production. And this is why mining industry 

lobbyists want their specific minerals added to the list. Designation 

as a critical mineral means access to that money and other incentives like streamlined permitting for critical mineral projects. 

So, one of the bills before us would add DOE’s critical materials 

to the critical minerals list. As I have said, this is a thinly veiled 

effort to add copper to the critical minerals list, despite USGS’s 

repeated explanations that it doesn’t currently fit the peerreviewed scientific criteria for that list. 
5 

H.R. 8540 takes a less prescriptive approach, but still aims to 

add fertilizer ingredients to the critical minerals list, and boost 

domestic mining. Copper, phosphate, and potash are undeniably 

important to our economy, but given incredibly strong domestic 

production and imports from close allies like Canada, their supply 

chains are not currently at risk. Legislating and declaring them 

critical minerals risks siphoning support for more urgent priorities. 

With that, I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. STAUBER. Thank you very much. I will now begin our 

Members panel who will speak on their specific legislation. I now 

recognize Mr. Ciscomani from Arizona’s 6th Congressional District 

for his testimony on his bill. 

STATEMENT OF JUAN CISCOMANI, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ARIZONA 

Mr. CISCOMANI. Thank you, Chairman Stauber, Mr. Huffman, 

and Subcommittee members, for having me here today to testify on 

this bill. 

I know Director Cabrera will be in the next panel, and I encourage you all to listen closely to his testimony and his expertise on 

the environmental and critical mineral issues. And his expertise 

there cannot be overstated. I have worked with Mr. Cabrera for 

almost a decade, and I have a lot of respect for his work. 

And I am excited to see your testimony today as well. 

My bill, H.R. 8446, the Critical Mineral Consistency Act, 

addresses major disparities in our critical mineral supply chain by 

requiring that the DOI include all DOE critical minerals on their 

critical minerals list. DOE critical materials are disadvantaged by 

not being eligible for more extensive benefits targeted to DOI 

critical minerals. 

This legislation will add copper, electrical steel, silicon, and 

silicon carbide to the USGS Critical Mineral List. As a result, these 

materials, which are essential to nearly every American industry, 

will be afforded several benefits, such as eligibility for additional 

Clean Energy Tax Credits, research grants, and the FAST-41 

permitting dashboard. 

This critical legislation will improve interagency coordination, 

help to secure our domestic supply chain, and improve American 

energy and national security outcomes. 

I truly believe this legislation is a common-sense solution that 

should have bipartisan support, and I appreciate this Committee’s 

consideration of it. 

Thank you, Mr. Chair, I yield back. 

Mr. STAUBER. Thank you very much for your testimony. We will 

now move to introduce our second panel of witnesses. 

Let me remind the witnesses that under Committee Rules, they 

must limit their oral statements to 5 minutes, but their entire 

statement will appear in the hearing record. 

To begin your testimony, please press the ‘‘talk’’ button on your 

microphone. 

As you can see, we use timing lights. When you begin, the light 

will turn green. When you have 1 minute remaining, the light will 

turn yellow. And at the end of the 5 minutes, the light will turn 
6 

red, and I will ask you to please complete your statement at that 

time. 

I will also allow all witnesses to testify before Member 

questioning. 

Our first witness is Dr. Colin Williams. He is the Mineral 

Resources Program Coordinator for the U.S. Geological Survey in 

the Department of the Interior, and he is stationed in Moffett 

Field, California. 

Dr. Williams, you are now recognized for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF COLIN WILLIAMS, PH.D., U.S. GEOLOGICAL 

SURVEY, MINERAL RESOURCES PROGRAM, PROGRAM COORDINATOR, MOFFETT FIELD, CALIFORNIA 

Dr. WILLIAMS. Thank you, Chairman Stauber and Ranking 

Member Huffman, for inviting me here today to discuss legislation 

pending before the Subcommittee. My name is Colin Williams, and 

I lead the U.S. Geological Survey’s mineral resources program. 

The USGS is the science arm of the Department of the Interior, 

and provides impartial, actionable science and data on the energy 

and mineral resources that underpin the nation’s national and economic security. We provide statistics on the domestic and global 

supply of mineral commodities, map the nation’s mineral resources, 

and provide supply chain analyses informing both policy decisions 

and Federal and private-sector investment. We also co-chair the 

National Science and Technology Council’s Critical Minerals 

Subcommittee. 

An early accomplishment of the Critical Minerals Subcommittee 

was to bring together Federal agencies and develop a whole-ofgovernment approach to mineral criticality. The USGS role was to 

provide the data and supply chain analysis to quantify and model 

criticality, and the USGS implemented this interagency approach 

to develop the 2018 list of critical minerals. 

The Energy Act of 2020 directed the USGS to update both the 

methodology and the resulting list of critical minerals every 3 

years, beginning with the 2022 list. The Energy Act provided a 

process for the update that includes interagency consultation and 

public comment. It defined critical minerals as non-fuel minerals 

essential to the U.S. economy or national security, with a supply 

chain that is vulnerable to disruption, and serving an essential 

function in the manufacturing of a product the absence of which 

would have significant consequences for economic and national 

security. 

Following the Energy Act cycle, the USGS will next deliver a list 

in 2025. The updated methodology will incorporate supply disruption scenarios to better represent future risks to supply chains, and 

to estimate the potential effects of such disruptions to the U.S. 

GDP. 

The USGS is developing other forward-looking approaches to 

supply chain analysis. We provide additional recycling data in our 

annual mineral commodity summaries, and we are developing the 

National Mine Waste Inventory to characterize mineral resources 

and mining energy waste. We are developing 5-year projections of 

production capacity as part of our global minerals outlook. And in 

addition, we have analyzed specific supply chain disruption 
7 

scenarios and events, ranging from earthquakes and tsunamis to 

wars and trade restrictions. 

We are also partnering to improve the nation’s ability to forecast 

mineral supply chain disruptions. The USGS and the Energy 

Information Administration have launched a collaboration in which 

EIA technology outlooks incorporate USGS supply chain analyses 

and mineral requirements and market analysis. The USGS is also 

partnering with the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, 

or DARPA, to develop tools to increase the transparency of critical 

mineral pricing and improve the accuracy of supply and demand 

forecasts. 

The President’s budget request for Fiscal Year 2025 includes an additional $5.6 million to accelerate and expand our supply chain 

analyses. This increase will enhance our capability to model the 

economic impact of mineral supply chain disruptions. Such modeling has been in significant demand. For example, over the past 

year, the USGS has provided the Administration and Congress 

extensive analysis on China’s imposition of export controls on 

gallium, germanium, and graphite. 

In addition, as specified in the budget request, we are restructuring to support the designation of the USGS National Minerals 

Information Center as a principal statistical unit within the 

Federal Statistical System. 

Turning to the proposed bills: 

H.R. 6395. This bill would add the Department of Health and 

Human Services to the list of agencies the Department of the 

Interior consults with in designating critical minerals. The USGS 

supports this bill. A particular strength of the Federal 

Government’s approach to critical mineral issues is interagency collaboration. The USGS welcomes the opportunity to broaden these 

collaborative relationships by working with HHS. 

H.R. 8450. This bill would require an evaluation of potash, 

phosphate, and other critical fertilizer minerals as critical 

minerals, as well as an evaluation of associated exploration, development, and production policies. Our testimony focuses only on the 

critical mineral evaluation portion of this legislation. 

The USGS recognizes that potash and phosphate are essential to 

the U.S. economy, particularly the agricultural sector. Although 

they did not meet the threshold for inclusion in the 2022 list, both 

potash and phosphate will be evaluated for the 2025 list. In that 

light, we believe the legislation is not necessary, since the evaluation will be accomplished this year through the 2025 list development, and we would be happy to work with the Subcommittee on 

aligning those timelines. 

H.R. 8446. This bill would require inclusion of critical materials 

for energy technologies as designated by the Department of Energy 

in the list of critical minerals developed by the USGS. The USGS 

supports efforts to leverage the complementary yet distinct aspects 

of the two lists. We would, however, appreciate the opportunity to 

work with the Subcommittee to ensure that the legislation protects 

the scientific basis of the two component lists. 

Thank you again for the opportunity to testify. I will be happy 

to answer any questions. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Williams follows:] 
8 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DR. COLIN WILLIAMS, MINERAL RESOURCES PROGRAM

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

ON H.R. 6395, H.R. 8446, AND H.R. 8450 

Chairman Stauber and Ranking Member Ocasio-Cortez, thank you for inviting me 

here today to discuss legislation pending before the Subcommittee. My name is 

Colin Williams, and I lead the U.S. Geological Survey’s (USGS) national Mineral 

Resources Program. 

Background 

The USGS is the science arm of the Department of the Interior and provides 

impartial, actionable science and data on the energy and mineral resources that 

underpin the Nation’s technological innovation, manufacturing industries, trade, 

national security, and economy. As part of that role, we are the primary source of 

statistics on the domestic and global supply of mineral commodities; map and quantify the Nation’s mineral resources; and provide supply chain analyses informing 

both policy decisions and Federal and private sector investment. We also co-chair 

the National Science and Technology Council’s interagency Critical Minerals 

Subcommittee, which was created in 2010 and authorized in the Bipartisan 

Infrastructure Law. 

The Energy Act of 2020 and the USGS Role in Designating Critical Minerals 

An early accomplishment of the Critical Minerals Subcommittee was to bring 

together the Federal agencies’ existing definitions of critical, strategic, and other 

important mineral commodities and develop a whole-of-government approach to 

mineral criticality. The USGS’ role was to provide the data and supply chain analysis to quantify and model criticality, and to maintain a cross-sectoral focus that 

could identify commodities with potentially competing supply needs across multiple 

industries. This interagency approach was implemented by the USGS to develop the 

2018 list of critical minerals under Executive Order 13817, A Federal Strategy to 

Ensure Secure and Reliable Supplies of Critical Minerals. 

The Energy Act of 2020 directed the USGS to update both the methodology and 

the resultant list of critical minerals every three years, beginning with the 2022 list 

of critical minerals. The Energy Act provided a process for the update that includes 

interagency consultation and public comment. It defined ‘‘critical minerals’’ as nonfuel minerals essential to the U.S. economy or national security with a supply chain 

that is vulnerable to disruption and serving an essential function in the manufacturing of a product, the absence of which would have significant consequences for 

the economic or national security of the United States. 

In accordance with the Energy Act of 2020, the 2025 list will include an updated 

methodology to determine mineral criticality. The methodology will incorporate a 

data-driven modeling approach to evaluate potential risks to mineral supply chains. 

The USGS is incorporating supply disruption scenarios into the methodology to 

better represent possible future risks to supply chains and to estimate the potential 

effects of such disruptions to U.S. gross domestic product (GDP). 

As directed by the Energy Act of 2020, the USGS is developing multiple 

approaches to forward-looking supply chain analysis. We have expanded our annual 

Mineral Commodity Summaries to provide additional recycling data, and we are 

developing the National Mine Waste Inventory to ensure that our understanding of 

the domestic resource base includes both minerals still in the ground and mineral 

resources in mine waste and energy waste. We are developing five-year projections 

of production capacity for publication later this year as part of a global minerals 

outlook. In addition, we have analyzed scenarios including earthquake risks to 

specific countries’ copper production and processing, the 2010 tsunami’s effects on 

Japanese mineral processing, potential disruption to Russia’s supply of six mineral 

commodities, and the potential impacts of the People’s Republic of China (PRC)’s 

2010 threat to cut off rare earth supplies. 

We are also partnering to improve the Nation’s ability to forecast mineral supply 

chain disruptions. The USGS and the Energy Information Administration (EIA) 

have launched a collaboration in which EIA is to develop outlooks for specific energy 

technologies such as electric vehicle batteries, which may be incorporated into USGS 

cross-sectoral supply chain analyses; and the USGS is to populate those outlooks 

with mineral requirements, market information, and analysis. The USGS is also 

partnering with the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) to 

develop tools to increase the transparency of critical mineral pricing and improve 

the timeliness and accuracy of critical mineral supply and demand forecasts. 
9 

The President’s Budget for Fiscal Year 2025 includes an additional $5.6 million 

to expand and accelerate our critical minerals supply chain analysis. This increase 

will accelerate our ability to model the economic impact of time-critical mineral supply chain disruptions for events ranging from earthquakes to pandemics. Such 

modeling is in significant demand. For example, over the past year, USGS has provided the Administration and Congress extensive analysis on mineral commodityrelated issues resulting from the PRC’s imposition of export controls on gallium, 

germanium, and graphite. In addition, we are restructuring our Mineral Resources 

Program to support an application to the Office of Management and Budget for 

formal designation of the USGS National Minerals Information Center as a principal statistical unit within the Federal Statistical System. The President’s Budget 

for Fiscal Year 2025 specified that USGS intends to seek this designation and 

includes a budget restructure that supports the designation. 

H.R. 6395, Recognizing the Importance of Critical Minerals in Healthcare 

Act of 2023 

This bill would add the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to the 

list of agencies that the Department of the Interior consults with in designating critical minerals. The USGS supports this bill. A particular strength of the Federal 

government’s approach to critical mineral issues is the effectiveness of interagency 

collaboration through the Critical Minerals Subcommittee. This interagency input 

has contributed greatly to cross-sectoral approach to the list of critical minerals. The 

USGS would welcome the opportunity to broaden these collaborative relationships 

by working with HHS to further ensure a broad cross-sectoral perspective is 

reflected in the list. 

H.R. 8450, Phosphate and Potash Protection Act of 2024 

This bill would require an evaluation, in consultation with the Secretary of 

Agriculture, of the potential to designate as critical minerals potash, phosphate, and 

other minerals used in the production of fertilizer. In addition, the Secretary of the 

Interior would be required to evaluate policies related to the permitting and leasing 

of exploration, development, and production projects for these minerals. As the 

USGS does not issue permits or leases or direct economic policy, our testimony 

focuses only on the critical mineral evaluation portion of this legislation. 

The USGS recognizes that potash and phosphate are essential to the U.S. 

economy, particularly the agricultural sector, but they did not meet the quantitative 

threshold for inclusion in the 2022 list of critical minerals because more than 75% 

of potash imports and 80% of phosphate imports come from reliable trading partners. All non-fuel minerals and their supply chains, including both potash and phosphate, will be evaluated as part of the analysis that informs the 2025 list of critical 

minerals. In that light, the legislation is not necessary because an evaluation of 

these minerals is already planned. That said, we would like to work with the 

Subcommittee to ensure the timelines in the legislation align with the ongoing work 

developing the 2025 list. 

The USGS also studies other aspects of these essential minerals. Through the 

Earth Mapping Resources Initiative (Earth MRI), the USGS is actively studying the 

potential for critical mineral extraction from phosphate mine waste, and a USGS 

team recently published a resource assessment for potash in the Elk Point Basin, 

which spans the U.S.-Canada border, including parts of Montana and North Dakota. 

H.R. 8446, To amend the Energy Act of 2020 to include critical materials in 

the definition of critical mineral, and for other purposes 

This bill would require inclusion of critical materials for energy technologies, as 

designated by the Department of Energy (DOE), in the list of critical minerals developed by the USGS. As a possible way to manage the two lists, the USGS supports 

this bill. We would, however, appreciate the opportunity to work with the 

Subcommittee to ensure the legislation protects the scientific basis of the component 

lists. 

Conclusion 

Thank you again for the opportunity to testify. I will be happy to answer any 

questions. 
10 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD TO DR. WILLIAMS, MINERAL RESOURCES

PROGRAM COORDINATOR, USGS 

Dr. Williams did not submit responses to the Committee by the appropriate 

deadline for inclusion in the printed record. 

Questions Submitted by Representative Westerman 

Question 1. In your testimony you say the next critical minerals list will include 

an updated methodology which will incorporate a forecasting approach, and you 

specifically mention looking at scenarios involving earthquakes. 

1a) How much of a factor will potential natural disasters like earthquakes play 

in the new forecasting methodology? 

Question 2. Dr. Williams, how would adding the Department of Health and 

Human Services as a coHaborative agency during the Critical Mineral List 

determination process aide USGS in cross-sectoral examination of the mineral 

markets? 

2a) How would enacting H.R. 6395 aide USGS in its mission to analyze mineral 

supply chains’ role in national and economic security? 

Question 3. Dr. Williams, how does the methodology that USGS and DOE each 

employ to determine their critical mineral and critical material lists differ? 

3a) Why is continuing to allow USGS and DOE to each determine eligibility for 

minerals under their respective purviews, as H.R. 8450 proposes, important? 

Questions Submitted by Representative Curtis 

Question 1. Reliance on foreign anode suppliers persists, and the U.S. is nearly 

100% reliant on imports of anode materials. U.S. leadership in this critical mineral 

is possible, and ensuring its listing on the USGS list of—criti cal minerals is another 

market signal and accelerator to showcase our domestic capabilities. Can you discuss 

the importance of research and development, and the domestic sourcing of these 

critical minerals, including silicon and silicon carbide in next-generation battery 

technology? 

Mr. STAUBER. Thank you very much. Our next witness is Mr. 

Misael Cabrera. He is the Director of the School of Mining and 

Mineral Resources at the University of Arizona, and he is stationed 

in Tucson, Arizona. 

Mr. Cabrera, you are now recognized for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF MISAEL CABRERA, DIRECTOR, SCHOOL OF 

MINING AND MINERAL RESOURCES, THE UNIVERSITY OF 

ARIZONA, TUCSON, ARIZONA 

Mr. CABRERA. Chairman Stauber, Ranking Member Huffman, 

and members of the Committee, thank you for this opportunity to 

express my support for H.R. 8446. My name is Misael Cabrera, and 

I am the Director of the School of Mining and Mineral Resources 

at the University of Arizona. After over 130 years of preparing 

students for mining careers, the school was formed to support 

departments and programs across campus in delivering interdisciplinary innovation in mining and sustainable minerals. Before 

this appointment, I served as the Director of the Arizona 

Department of Environmental Quality. 

Today, I am not speaking on behalf of the university. My comments are based primarily on nearly 30 years of experience as an 

environmental professional. I have overseen the drafting of state 
11 

rules to protect air, water, and soil, and advocated for the passage 

of historic state legislation to protect the environment. This careerlong commitment to the environment has led me to understand the 

absolute urgency of having sustainable, abundant, and economic 

minerals and materials for our planet. This urgency validates the 

need for both the United States Geologic Survey Critical Minerals 

designation and the Department of Energy Critical Materials 

designation. 

The difference between the two designations can effectively be 

summarized in four materials: copper, electrical steel, silicone, and 

silicon carbide. Copper is essential for generating, transmitting, 

and storing electricity. Electric steel, an iron alloy, is necessary to 

operate nearly every electric motor efficiently. Silicone is essential 

for solar panels, semiconductors, and many alloys, including electric steel. Silicon carbide is a high-performance semiconductor used 

in electric vehicles, solar inverters, and health monitoring systems. 

In short, these materials are fundamental to modern life, our 

planet’s growing population, and the Biden administration’s 

climate agenda. 

The distinction between the USGS and DOE criticality assessments is crucial to understanding the value of both designations 

and the need for H.R. 8446. The DOE designation is forwardlooking, incorporating global demand trajectories based on growth 

scenarios for various energy technologies. On the other hand, the 

USGS-calculated supply risk is a function of economic vulnerability 

based on actual, in other words, past, but quantitative production 

data, the most recent of which was 2018. Both methodologies have 

merit, as they are transparent and reproducible, just from different 

vantage points. 

The more important but perilous matter is that our nation is precariously reliant on foreign sources of minerals and materials, and 

our reliance continues to grow. The 2024 USGS Minerals 

Commodities Report shows that the United States was at least 50 

percent import reliant for 41 out of 50 critical minerals. The 

Minerals Commodities Report also shows that China was the 

leading critical mineral producing nation, supplying 29 of 43 

critical minerals for which data was available. Not surprisingly, 

China increased its carbon dioxide emissions by over 90 percent 

from 2005 to 2022, making it the world’s largest emitter. The 

United States reduced its emissions by 17 percent during the same 

period. 

In sum, our lack of investment in critical minerals and materials 

over the last few decades has led to security concerns, economic 

insult, and environmental injury for the planet. While investment 

in critical minerals has been welcome, disparity exists with critical 

materials. That is unfortunate, given that China is the world’s 

largest producer of silicone, a critical material accounting for 

approximately 70 percent of the world’s production. 

It is also unfortunate, given that the International Energy 

Forum recently published a report estimating that the planet will 

need six new copper mines annually, and that includes recycling, 

to meet the net zero goals by 2050. 

I support H.R. 8446 because it recognizes that critical minerals 

and materials designations are complementary in nature, and that 
12 

1The Energy Act of 2020, Section 7002 defines Critical Materials as those determined by the 

Secretary of Energy using certain criteria or a Critical Mineral. In 2023, DOE established 18 

critical materials, 14 of which are on the USGS Critical Minerals List. 2 Cathles, L.M., & Simon, A.C. (2024, May 15). Copper Mining and Vehicle Electrification. 

International Energy Forum. 3Federal Register. (2023, August 4). Notice of Final Determination on 2023 DOE Critical 

Materials List, Vol. 88(149)., August 4, 2023. 4 Nassar, N.T., & Fortier, S.M. (2021). Methodology and technical input for the 2021 review 

and revision of the U.S. Critical Minerals List. U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2021- 

1045 

Federal funding should flow to support research, development, and 

deployment efforts across both domains. By doing so, the United 

States can strengthen its resilience to supply disruptions and continue to lead in energy innovation and environmental stewardship. 

Thank you so much. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Cabrera follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MISAEL CABRERA, DIRECTOR, SCHOOL OF MINING & 

MINERAL RESOURCES, UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA

ON H.R. 8446 

Chairman Stauber, Ranking Member Ocasio-Cortez, and Members of the 

Committee thank you for this opportunity to express my support for H.R. 8446. 

My name is Misael Cabrera, and I am the Director of the School of Mining & 

Mineral Resources at the University of Arizona. After over 130 years of preparing 

students for mining careers, the School was formed to support departments and programs across campus in delivering interdisciplinary innovation in mining and 

sustainable minerals. 

Before this appointment, I served as Director of the Arizona Department of 

Environmental Quality (ADEQ). During my tenure, the ADEQ team dramatically 

increased environmental outcomes and was recognized 28 times by local and 

national organizations. Previously, I held various environmental leadership roles in 

three international engineering firms. 

Today, I am not speaking on behalf of the University. My comments are based 

primarily on nearly 30 years of experience as an environmental professional. With 

my hands, I have collected hundreds of environmental samples and designed treatment systems that have removed hundreds of thousands of pounds of pollution from 

soil and groundwater. I have overseen the drafting of state rules to protect air, 

water, and soil and advocated for the passage of historic state legislation to protect 

the environment. This career-long commitment to the environment has led me to 

understand the absolute urgency of having sustainable, abundant, and economical 

minerals and materials for our planet. 

This urgency validates the need for both the United States Geologic Survey 

(USGS) critical minerals designation and the Department of Energy (DOE) critical 

materials designation. 

The difference between the two designations can be effectively summarized in four 

materials: copper, electrical steel, silicon, and silicon carbide.1 Copper is essential 

for generating, transmitting, and storing electricity.2 Electric steel, an iron alloy, is 

necessary to operate nearly every electric motor efficiently. Silicon is essential for 

solar panels, semiconductors, and many alloys, including electric steel. Silicon 

carbide is a high-performance semiconductor used in electric vehicles, data centers, 

solar inverters, and health monitoring systems. In short, these materials are fundamental for modern life, our planet’s growing population, and the Biden 

Administration’s climate agenda. 

The distinction between the USGS and DOE criticality assessments is crucial to 

understanding the value of both designations and the need for H.R. 8446. The DOE 

designation is forward-looking, incorporating global demand trajectories based on 

growth scenarios for various energy technologies.3 On the other hand, the USGS 

calculated supply risk as a function of economic vulnerability based on actual—i.e., 

past but quantitative—production data, the most recent of which was in 2018.4 Both 

methodologies have merit, as they are transparent and reproducible, just from different vantage points. The more important but perilous matter is that our nation 

is precariously reliant on foreign sources of minerals and materials, and our reliance 

continues to grow. 
13 

5 U.S. Geological Survey, 2024, Mineral commodity summaries 2024: U.S. Geological Survey, 

212 p., https://doi.org/10.3133/mcs2024 6 Annual total emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2), excluding land-use change, measured in 

tonnes, Our World in Data. https://ourworldindata.org/co2-emissions. Accessed on 6/1/2024. 7 Newtop Silicone. (n.d.). Silicone Manufacturing in China: A Winning Combination of Cost, 

Quality, and Expertise. https://www.newtopsilicone.com/silicone-manufacturing-in-china-awinning-combination-of-cost-quality-and-expertise. Accessed on 6/1/2024 1 Copper Development Association Inc. ‘‘Why Copper.’’ Accessed June 22, 2024. https:// 

www.copper.org/applications/plumbing/water_service/why_copper.html 2 7.10: Semiconductor Grade Silicon. ‘‘Chemistry of the Main Group Elements (Barron).’’ 

LibreTexts. Accessed June 22, 2024. https://chem.libretexts.org 3 Nature. ‘‘Sustainability, Equity and Security at Risk in Rush for Rare-Earth Metals.’’ Nature 

619, 436 (2023). 

The 2024 USGS Mineral Commodities Report shows that the United States was 

at least 50% import reliant for 41 out of 50 critical minerals. The Mineral 

Commodities Report also shows that China was the leading critical-mineralproducing nation, supplying 29 of 43 critical minerals for which data was available.5

Not surprisingly, China increased its CO2 emissions by over 90% from 2005 to 2022, 

making it the world’s largest emitter. The US reduced its emissions by 17% during 

the same period.6 In sum, our lack of investment in critical minerals and materials 

over the last few decades has led to security concerns, economic insult, and environmental injury for the planet. 

While investment in critical minerals has been welcome, disparity still exists with 

critical materials. That is unfortunate, given that China is the world’s largest producer of silicon, accounting for approximately 70% of the world’s production.7 It is 

also unfortunate, given that The International Energy Forum recently published a 

report estimating that the planet will need six new copper mines annually to meet 

the net zero goals by 2050.2

I support H.R. 8446 because it recognizes that critical minerals and materials 

designations are complementary in nature and that federal funding should flow to 

support research, development, and deployment efforts across both domains. By 

doing so, the United States can strengthen its resilience to supply disruptions and 

continue to lead in energy innovation and environmental stewardship. 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD TO PROFESSOR MISAEL CABRERA, DIRECTOR, 

SCHOOL OF MINING & MINERAL RESOURCES

Questions Submitted by Representative Curtis 

Question 1. Reliance on foreign anode suppliers persists, and the U.S. is nearly 

100% reliant on imports of anode materials. U.S. leadership in this critical mineral 

is possible, and ensuring its listing on the USGS list of critical minerals is another 

market signal and accelerator to showcase our domestic capabilities. Can you discuss 

the importance of research and development, and the domestic sourcing of these 

essential resources, including silicon and silicon carbide in next-generation battery 

technology? 

Answer. Critical minerals and materials are available mainly through the refining 

of ore. Chrysocolla, a naturally occurring copper oxide ore, cannot be extruded 

directly into electric wire; quartz, sans an electric arc furnace and further chemical 

processing, cannot be used to manufacture semiconductors; and hematite, a 

naturally occurring iron oxide, cannot be used to manufacture efficient motors. A 

refined material, electric steel, is needed for that. Minerals and materials become 

critical—in almost every practical modern sense—by reducing ore to near-elemental 

form through refining. For example, copper used in potable water piping has a 

purity of 99.9%.1 Similarly, silicon semiconductors must be more than 99.9999% 

pure.2 Further, copper and silicon are also essential to the energy transition. Thus, 

everyday modern life and decarbonization rely heavily on refining ore. 

Given the importance of refining for critical materials and minerals, it is imperative that we invest in research and development for domestic production. A longstanding lack of funding opportunities has unfortunately resulted in critical 

minerals and materials dominance from an unfriendly global competitor. A recent 

editorial in Nature succinctly captures the urgency of the current situation: ‘‘. . . 

just one country—China—has become the world leader in refining and processing 

these crucial elements for use in finished products.’’ 3 Further, according to the 
14 

4 U.S. Geological Survey, 2024, Mineral commodity summaries 2024: U.S. Geological Survey, 

212 p., https://doi.org/10.3133/mcs2024 5Shihui Zhang, Chi Zhang, Wenjia Cai, et al. ‘‘The 2023 China report of the Lancet Countdown on health and climate change: taking stock for a thriving future.’’ The Lancet Public 

Health, Volume 8, Issue 12, 2023, Pages e978-e995. Accessed June 22, 2024. https://doi.org/ 

10.1016/S2468-2667(23)00245-1 (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/ 

S2468266723002451) 6 EIA. 2023. ‘‘Annual Coal Report—Energy Information Administration.’’ Accessed June 22, 

2024. https://www.eia.gov/coal/annual/ 7 IEA (2021), ‘‘The Role of Critical Minerals in Clean Energy Transitions.’’ IEA, Paris. https:// 

www.iea.org/reports/the-role-of-critical-minerals-in-clean-energy-transitions 8 Ye, L., Lu, Y., Wang, Y. et al. ‘‘Fast cycling of lithium metal in solid-state batteries by 

constriction-susceptible anode materials.’’ Nat. Mater. 23, 244-251 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1038/ 

s41563-023-01722-x 9 NIKKEI Tech Foresight, Battle to secure SiC wafers—power semiconductors for EVS. 

Accessed June 22, 2024. https://www.coherent.com/news/battle-to-secure-sic-wafers-powersemiconductors-for-evs-en 

United States Geologic Survey, China was the leading nation, producing roughly 

two-thirds of critical minerals in 2023.4 This dominance results in more than just 

economic and supply chain impacts. In 2022, coal consumption in China, the world’s 

largest CO2 emitter, increased by 4%.5 The US decreased coal consumption by 5.5% 

in the same year.6

Domestic research and development for critical minerals and materials is particularly urgent as we innovate during the energy transition. The International Energy 

Agency reports, ‘‘Since 2010 the average amount of minerals needed for a new unit 

of power generation capacity has increased by 50% as renewables increase their 

share of total capacity additions. The transition to clean energy means a shift from 

a fuel-intensive to a material-intensive system.’’ 7

One of the most significant and mineral-intensive challenges in moving towards 

renewable energy is storage, i.e., batteries. Domestic research in energy storage and 

the minerals and materials that enable the technology should be accelerated. For 

instance, the development of solid-state lithium batteries using silicon as the anode 

has shown promise, with limited commercial manufacturing already underway. 

These discoveries could create significant advances in various battery applications.8

Beyond batteries, the electric vehicle market’s expansion has opened new prospects 

for silicon carbide, given its superior performance in EV inverters and controllers. 

Silicon carbide provides higher switching frequency, thermal resistance, and breakdown voltage, contributing to higher powertrain efficiency.9

As stated during my testimony on June 4, 2024, the four DOE Critical Materials 

absent from the USGS Critical Minerals List are copper, silicon, electric steel, and 

silicon carbide. These materials are essential to the energy transition and modern 

life and require research and domestic supply funding. I applaud the House 

Committee on Natural Resources for approving H.R. 8446 on June 12, 2024, moving 

closer to providing equal benefits to both lists. 

In conclusion, I encourage Congress to dramatically accelerate research funding 

of critical minerals and materials, particularly for innovative and sustainable 

refining methods. For instance, bioleaching, a process that uses microorganisms to 

extract metals from ores, has shown promise in reducing the environmental impact 

of traditional mining. Our reliance on critical minerals and materials from foreign 

refining creates defense insecurity, economic insult, and environmental injury. 

Mr. STAUBER. Thank you very much. Our next witness is Ms. 

Sally Macaluso. She is the Chief Procurement Officer for GE 

HealthCare, and she is stationed in the great city of Waukesha, 

Wisconsin. 

Ms. Macaluso, you are now recognized for 5 minutes. Welcome. 
15 

STATEMENT OF SALLY MACALUSO, CHIEF PROCUREMENT 

OFFICER, GE HEALTHCARE, WAUKESHA, WISCONSIN 

Ms. MACALUSO. Chairman Stauber, Ranking Member Huffman, 

Chairman Westerman, and Ranking Member Grijalva, thank you 

for the opportunity to speak to this Subcommittee and testify 

regarding the important role that critical minerals, elements, substances, and materials play in the medical technology sector. 

We appreciate the leadership Representatives Curtis, DeGette, 

and Fitzpatrick have shown in introducing H.R. 6395, recognizing 

the importance of the Critical Minerals and Health Care Act, and 

co-sponsoring it. 

GE HealthCare is a leading global medical technology, pharmaceutical diagnostics, and digital solutions innovator dedicated to 

providing integrated solutions, services, and data analytics to make 

hospitals more efficient, clinicians more effective, therapies more 

precise, and patients healthier and happier. With more than 51,000 

colleagues globally, we are headquartered in Chicago, Illinois and 

have manufacturing facilities located in South Carolina, 

Pennsylvania, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Wisconsin, Utah, Texas, 

Arizona, New York, and across the globe. GE HealthCare has 

around a 4 million install base serving patients in every state. And 

last year, our products and technology served more than 1 billion 

patients around the world. 

GE HealthCare supports the goal of including healthcare sector 

input when considering the designation of critical minerals, 

elements, substances, and materials. The bill accomplishes this by 

including the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human 

Services, in consultation by the Secretary of the Interior, regarding 

the designations. Taking into consideration which resources are 

key to medical technology and patient care will ensure that the 

country is able to prioritize products which impact millions of 

patients in the United States and around the world each day. Let 

me expand on two examples that help to share the important need 

for interagency communication. 

Helium is a chemical element vital to the healthcare system. It 

is used in magnetic resonance imaging, or MRI, which is a diagnostic test that assists medical professionals by creating very 

detailed images of structures, including tissues, the skeletal system, and organs inside the human body. There are over 70 million 

MR scans performed each year globally using GE HealthCare 

devices in support of critical healthcare needs such as stroke and 

brain trauma, breast cancer screening, and tumors, among many 

other usages. MRI systems create these images using large 

magnets and radio waves. Liquid helium is used to cool the superconducting magnets that are an integral part of the majority of 

MRs in use today, including those manufactured by GE HealthCare 

in Florence, South Carolina. The MR industry as a whole accounts 

for 22 percent of the utilization of the world’s supply of helium. 

Iodine, a chemical element and one of the heaviest stable 

halogens, plays an important role in patient care as contrast media 

in X-ray and computed tomography, known as CT scans, to 

enhance images for adult and pediatric patients. Healthcare professionals rely on these scans to have clear and accurate images to 

diagnose diseases and injuries and plan treatments. Annual X-rays 
16 

across the world comprise 27 percent of the global usage of iodine 

across industries. GE HealthCare, as a global leader in X-ray and 

CT technology, is one of the largest consumers of iodine in the 

world, where it is used in two GE HealthCare medical contrast 

products, Omnipaque and Visipaque. 

There are a host of other minerals, elements, substances, and 

materials which hold importance across the medical technology 

industry, including molybdenum, terbium, lutetium, and germanium. Ensuring the Secretary of the Interior consult with the 

Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services during 

the designation of critical minerals, elements, substances, and 

materials is appropriate, and will bring a vital perspective to 

current and future discussions. 

Thank you again for your time to share our perspective, and I 

welcome any of your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Macaluso follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MS. SALLY MACALUSO, CHIEF PROCUREMENT OFFICER, 

GE HEALTHCARE

ON H.R. 6395 

Dear Chairman Stauber, Ranking Member Ocasio-Cortez, Chairman Westerman, 

and Ranking Member Grijalva: 

Thank you for the opportunity to speak to this subcommittee and testify regarding 

the important role that critical minerals, elements, substances, and materials play 

in the medical technology sector. My testimony today is in response to the subcommittee’s interest in H.R. 6395, Recognizing the Importance of Critical Minerals 

in Healthcare Act. We appreciate the leadership Representatives Curtis, DeGette, 

and Fitzpatrick have shown in introducing this legislation and co-sponsoring it. 

GE HealthCare is a leading global medical technology, pharmaceutical 

diagnostics, and digital solutions innovator, dedicated to providing integrated solutions, services, and data analytics to make hospitals more efficient, clinicians more 

effective, and therapies more precise, and patients healthier and happier. With more 

than 51,000 colleagues globally, we are headquartered in Chicago, Illinois and have 

manufacturing facilities located in South Carolina, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Indiana, 

Illinois, Wisconsin, Utah, Texas, Arizona, New York, and across the globe. GE 

HealthCare has around a 4 million install base serving patients in every state, and 

last year our products and technology served more than 1 billion patients around 

the world. GE HealthCare is advancing personalized, connected, and compassionate 

care, while simplifying the patient’s journey across the care pathway. Our Imaging, 

Ultrasound, Patient Care Solutions, and Pharmaceutical Diagnostics businesses 

help improve patient care from diagnosis, to therapy, to monitoring. 

GE HealthCare supports the goal of including healthcare sector input when considering the designation of critical minerals, elements, substances, and materials. 

H.R. 6395, Recognizing the Importance of Critical Minerals in Healthcare Act, 

accomplishes this by including the Secretary of the Department of Health and 

Human Services in consultations by the Secretary of the Interior regarding the 

designations. 

Taking into consideration which natural resources are key to medical technology 

and patient care will ensure that the country is able to prioritize products which 

impact millions of patients in the United States and around the world each day. 

There are many examples of the important role that more than 50 critical minerals, 

elements, substances, and materials play in the portfolio of products which GE 

HealthCare manufacturers to help diagnose and treat patients. Let me expand on 

two examples that help to share the important need for interagency communication. 

Helium is a chemical element vital to the healthcare system. Helium is used in 

Magnetic Resonance Imaging, or MRI, which is a diagnostic test that assists medical professionals by creating very detailed images of structures, including tissues, 

the skeletal system, and organs inside the human body. There are over 30 million 

MR scans performed each year in the United States in support of critical healthcare 

needs such as stroke and brain trauma, breast cancer screening, and tumors, among 

many other usages. 
17 

MRI systems create these images using large magnets and radio waves. Liquid 

helium is used to cool the superconducting magnets that are an integral part of the 

majority of MRs in use today including those manufactured by GE HealthCare in 

Florence, South Carolina. Helium is extracted from natural gas and produced as a 

byproduct of natural gas processing from helium rich waste systems. The MR industry as a whole accounts for 22% of the utilization of the world’s supply of helium. 

While the supply of helium is stable today, the availability of supply over the past 

decade has been inconsistent, and we have established a multi-supplier strategy to 

ensure security of supply of this critical liquid gas. 

This Committee has dealt with helium issues in the past, when over a decade ago 

it passed legislation that required the privatization of the US Strategic Helium 

Reserve. The Bureau of Land Management at the U.S. Department of the Interior 

accepted a bid to purchase the Federal Helium System, and it is important to note 

that the impact of the sale has yet to be fully seen. 

Iodine, a chemical element and one of the heaviest stable halogens, plays an 

important role in patient care as contrast media in X-ray and computed tomography 

(CT) scans to enhance images for adult and pediatric patients. Healthcare professionals rely on these scans to have clear and accurate images to diagnose disease 

and injuries and plan treatment. Annual X-rays across the world comprise 27% of 

the global usage of iodine across industries. GE HealthCare, as a global leader in 

X-ray and CT technology, is one of the largest consumer of Iodine in the world 

where it is used in two GE HealthCare medical contrast products, Omnipaque and 

Visipaque. 

These are two of many examples of the importance of these critical resources for 

patients. There are a host of other minerals, elements, substances, and materials 

which are used in medical technology at GE HealthCare including Molybdenum, 

Terbium, Lutetium, and Germanium. 

Accordingly, having the Secretary of the Interior consult with the Secretary of the 

Department of Health and Human Services during the creation of this list is appropriate and will bring a vital perspective to the discussion. 

GE HealthCare supports the legislation, H.R. 6395, Recognizing the Importance 

of Critical Minerals in Healthcare Act, and commends Representatives Curtis, 

DeGette, and Fitzpatrick for this effort. 

Mr. STAUBER. Thank you very much for your testimony. Our next 

witness is Mr. Corey Rosenbusch. He is the President and CEO of 

the Fertilizer Institute, and he is based in Arlington, Virginia. 

Mr. Rosenbusch, you are now recognized for 5 minutes. Welcome. 

STATEMENT OF COREY ROSENBUSCH, PRESIDENT AND CEO, 

THE FERTILIZER INSTITUTE, ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA 

Mr. ROSENBUSCH. Good morning. Thank you, Chairman Stauber 

and Ranking Member Huffman. 

The Fertilizer Institute is the trade association that represents 

the fertilizer industry, ranging from manufacturers to distributors 

to retailers. We have recently taken center stage as the spotlight 

has been shined on fertilizer’s critical role in food and national 

security. Geopolitical events and significant supply chain disruptions resulted in 300 percent increases in some fertilizer prices, and 

raised awareness of the mineral resource-dependent materials that 

fertilizers are. 

One of my favorite industry books is ‘‘Alchemy of Air’’ by Thomas 

Hager, and in the book Sir William Crookes opens the 1898 British 

Academy of Sciences by declaring, ‘‘All civilized nations stand in 

deadly peril. As mouths multiply, food sources dwindle.’’ At that 

time, there were only 1.65 billion people on the planet. The only 

solution that he stated was expansion in the production and availability of fertilizer to enable growing more food without needing 

more land on which to grow it. 
18 

We know that half of the crop yields in this world are attributed 

to fertilizer use, yet we still face that same food security challenge 

from 1898. But now the global population is over 8 billion. Science 

responded to Crookes’ call and industry innovated to prevent mass 

starvation, and today Congress has a similar opportunity to act. 

People will often think of fertilizer perhaps as one product, but 

there are actually many fertilizer materials. And we often reference 

phosphate, potash, and nitrogen as the three macronutrients, but 

they are all very different resource-dependent products with very 

different supply chains. The United States only accounts for about 

7 percent of global fertilizer production, and we are a net importer 

of fertilizer. As a matter of fact, over 90 percent of all fertilizers 

are actually used outside the United States, making U.S. farmers 

even more vulnerable to supply shocks. 

We are fortunate that we are one of six countries that have both 

reserves of phosphate and potash, and we must ensure that these 

critical minerals can be accessed. Deficiencies in any of these nutrients will lead to crop yield failure, and our global partners have 

recognized that. Both Canada and the European Union have put 

these minerals on their own critical minerals list. 

The USGS states that critical minerals must be essential to the 

economic or national security of the United States and have supply 

chain vulnerabilities. Yet in 2022, both minerals were left off the 

list. We must note that in 2022 that list was released 2 days prior 

to Russia invading Ukraine, and you will understand why that is 

significant as we look at each of these two minerals briefly. 

First, phosphates. There are only 11 major phosphate-producing 

countries in the world. The largest producer is China, with 42 

percent, and Morocco is second, with 16 percent of production. 

These two countries together hold about 80 percent of the world’s 

reserves of phosphates, yet China only accounted for about 20 

percent of exports because of their policy restricting exports of the 

product. Likewise, Russia, the world’s largest supplier of fertilizer, 

was responsible for 14 percent of phosphate exports, but that was 

before it invaded Ukraine. 

The USGS focuses its analysis on phosphate rock, yet phosphate 

rock is not in a form that can be used by the plant. It must be processed into phosphate fertilizer. We frequently import phosphate 

fertilizers to meet our farmers’ demand, somewhere between 20 

and 27 percent in recent years. Yet, that is excluded from their 

analysis. 

And permitting is perhaps our biggest challenge to accessing 

these minerals. One recent permitting example of a phosphate 

mine in Idaho required 10 years and $36 million to complete. 

As we look at potash, Belarus and Russia represent about 40 

percent of global potash production. Sanctions on Belarus and, of 

course, Russia invading Ukraine greatly impacted their availability. We are fortunate that we do indeed get 80 percent of our 

potash from Canada. However, Canada is not immune from supply 

chain disruptions. For example, in 2023, we curtailed shipments 

and production of potash because of a dock worker strike. 

On behalf of the fertilizer industry, we thank Mrs. Cammack and 

Ms. Slotkin for their leadership on these bills. You can see that 

phosphate and potash are globally traded commodities that have 
19 

1Fertilizer 101: Nourish, Replenish, Grow, pp 28-30, Copyright 2010. The Fertilizer Institute. 

2 An extractive bioeconomy? Phosphate mining, fertilizer commodity chains, and alternative 

technologies/Sustainability Science (springer.com) 3 Id. at Fertilizer 101, p. 31. 

4The Canadian Critical Minerals Strategy—Canada.ca 

5Stewart, W.M., Dibb, D.W., Johnston, A.E. and Smyth, T.J. (2005), The Contribution of 

Commercial Fertilizer Nutrients to Food Production. Agron. J., 97: 1-6. https://doi.org/10.2134/ 

agronj2005.0001 

experienced significant supply chain shocks. And most importantly, 

they should be included on the critical minerals list because food 

security is national security. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Rosenbusch follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF COREY ROSENBUSCH, PRESIDENT AND CEO, THE

FERTILIZER INSTITUTE

ON H.R. 8450 

Good morning, Chairman Stauber, Chairman Westerman, Ranking Member 

Ocasio-Cortez, Ranking Member Grijalva, and members of the subcommittee. My 

name is Corey Rosenbusch, President and CEO of The Fertilizer Institute (TFI). 

TFI represents companies engaged in all aspects of the fertilizer supply chain 

from manufacturers to distributors to retailers. The fertilizer industry ensures that 

farmers receive the nutrients they need to grow the crops that feed our nation and 

the world. 

I want to thank the subcommittee for holding this hearing and providing the 

opportunity to discuss the bipartisan H.R. 8450, the Phosphate and Potash 

Protection Act of 2024, introduced by Representatives Cammack and Slotkin. 

Phosphate and potash and are two of the three most common forms of fertilizer, 

along with nitrogen. Phosphorus is present in every living cell, both plant and 

animal. Phosphate (P) is crucial to key energy reactions in plants, including photosynthesis, speeding maturity and reproduction, and increasing yield. Phosphorous 

deficiency has been cited as a key cause for below-optimum crop yields.1 The 

European Union includes phosphate on its critical raw materials list.2 Potash (K) 

is particularly important for high-carbohydrate crops like potatoes, sugar beets, and 

grapes. It also provides plants with starch, enabling them to resist wilting and survive winter conditions.3 Canada includes potash on its own critical minerals list.4

The book Alchemy of Air by Thomas Hager begins with an account of Sir William 

Crookes opening an 1898 meeting of the British Academy of Sciences by dramatically declaring that ‘‘all civilized nations stand in deadly peril.’’ Having achieved the 

desired effect of shocking his audience into paying attention, Sir William went on 

to state: ‘‘As mouths multiply, food sources dwindle.’’ He noted how recent advances 

in public health and medicine had significantly extended life spans. But, he also 

foresaw uncontrollable population growth, soil infertility due to overuse on limited 

available acreage for farming, and, ultimately, mass global starvation. At that time, 

the world population stood at approximately 1.65 billion people. 

The only solution, he said, was extraordinary expansion in the production and 

availability of fertilizer to enable growing more food without needing more land on 

which to grow it. 

Today, half of all global crop yields can be attributed to fertilizer use 5 at a time 

when the world’s population exceeds 8 billion people and is forecasted to surpass 

9.5 billion people by 2050. 

H.R. 8450, ‘‘Phosphate and Potash Protection Act of 2024 ‘‘ 

The U.S. fertilizer sector, an industry supporting 487,000 American jobs with 

annual wages in excess of $34 billion, thanks Congresswoman Cammack for her 

leadership and supports her bill, H.R. 8450, which would require the United States 

Geological Survey (USGS) to conduct a timely review for adding phosphate and 

potash to the Critical Minerals List and report back to key committees of jurisdiction on the issue. 

The U.S. and Global Fertilizer Industry 

The modern fertilizer sector is a highly competitive global industry with more 

than 60 countries engaged in the production of fertilizer; one-third of those countries 

have three or more fertilizer-producing entities. In addition to competition, the 

fertilizer industry is also subject to international markets, geopolitical pressures, 
20 

6 Impacts and Repercussions of Price Increases on the Global Fertilizer Market/USDA Foreign 

Agricultural Service 7 International Fertilizer Association, ‘‘Helping to Feed the World Sustainably: Public 

Summary Medium-Term Fertilizer Outlook 2023–2027,’’pp. 4-6, June, 2023 8 U.S. Geological Survey. Mineral commodity summaries 2023. (U.S. Geological Survey, 2023). 

and weather events. In some instances, a fertilizer-producing organization may be 

a state-run entity with lower worker safety and environmental standards or even 

with an eye towards tilting the global economy. 

The U.S. fertilizer market only accounts for the production of about 7% of all 

global fertilizer. We are a net importer. Production is just one part of the story, as 

exports and usage are also key considerations. More than 90% of global nutrient use 

currently occurs outside the United States (although last year the U.S. was 

responsible for 16% of global grain and 19% of global oilseeds production according 

to the U.S. Department of Agriculture). The two largest users of fertilizer are China 

and India,6 and demand continues to grow across emerging economies in Latin 

America, Asia, and Africa. As the attached International Fertilizer Association (IFA) 

map of trade routes at the end of this document indicates, the global fertilizer 

industry is, not surprisingly, heavily dependent on international trade and supply 

chain logistics. 

IFA projects that by 2027 global consumption of phosphates usage will grow by 

12%, primarily due to increased needs in Africa and West Asia, while potash usage 

will grow by 17%, driven by Belarussian trade with China.7

All of these factors combine to impact supply and demand, both domestically and 

globally. Prices for fertilizer here in the U.S. are unavoidably linked to global prices. 

In turn, this has a tremendous effect on food availability and food security in the 

U.S. and throughout the world. 

The Energy Act of 2020 defines a ‘‘critical mineral’’ as a non-fuel mineral or 

mineral material essential to the economic or national security of the U.S. and 

which has a supply chain vulnerable to disruption. Critical minerals are also characterized as serving an essential function in the manufacturing of a product, the 

absence of which would have significant consequences for the economy or national 

security. My testimony this morning will clearly outline how both phosphate and 

potash meet the criteria established in The Energy Act of 2020. After all, food 

security IS national security. 

Inclusion of phosphate and potash on the USGS Critical Minerals List is all about 

contingency planning for the future. Contingency planning is appropriate to deal 

with unforeseeable disruptions as the pandemic, global supply chain challenges, 

foreign export limitations, sanctions, and wars over the last four years combine to 

demonstrate. 

The USGS Critical Minerals List 

The USGS quantitative methodology is based on an approach that defines supply 

risk as the confluence of three factors: (1) the likelihood of a foreign supply disruption; (2) the dependency of the U.S. manufacturing sector on foreign supplies; and, 

(3) the vulnerability of the U.S. manufacturing sector to a supply disruption. 

Although potash appeared on the 2020 USGS Critical Minerals List, both phosphate and potash received low scores for supply risk and trade exposure in the most 

recent USGS Critical Minerals List and were left off. Note that the 2022 Critical 

Minerals List was released just two days before Russia invaded Ukraine in 

February of that year, greatly disrupting international fertilizer markets and 

exports to the U.S. 

Further, despite much evidence to the contrary, USGS in recent comments continues to insist phosphate and potash are not subject to supply chain vulnerabilities. 

Phosphate 

Under the three-pronged test for inclusion on the Critical Minerals List, the first 

two prongs regarding likelihood of a foreign supply disruption and the U.S. degree 

of dependence on foreign supply are clearly met and should be given significant 

weight. The U.S. Government itself has stated that supply chain disruptions are 

common, which clearly effects manufacturing, meeting the third part of the Critical 

Minerals List test. 

According to industry statistics, there are only 11 major phosphate producing 

countries globally. U.S. phosphate production is not insignificant, currently providing 9.6% of global production according to the USGS.8 But, it is well below that 
21 

9 NATIONAL SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY COUNCIL, SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRITICAL 

AND STRATEGIC MINERAL SUPPLY CHAINS, Assessment of Critical Minerals: Screening 

Methodology and Initial Application ix, 7-10 (March 2016), available at https:// 

www.whitehouse.gov/sites/whitehouse.gov/files/images/CSMSC%20Assessment%20of%20Critical 

%20Minerals%20Report%202016-03-16%20FINAL.pdf. 10 China issues phosphate quotas to rein in fertiliser exports—analysts/Reuters 11 China reduces fertilizer exports to Brazil in 50% this year/Agribusiness/valorinternational 

(globo.com) 12 High fertilizer prices contribute to rising global food security concerns/IFPRI: International 

Food Policy Research Institute 13 USDA ERS—Global Fertilizer Market Challenged by Russia’s Invasion of Ukraine 14Mineral Commodity Summaries 2024 (usgs.gov) 15Phosphate Rock (d9-wret.s3.us-west-2.amazonaws.com) 16Phosphate Rock (usgs.gov) 17 Evan Ellis, The Evolution of Peru’s Multidimensional Challenges, Part III: Engagement 

with China, Global Americans (August 3, 2022), https://theglobalamericans.org/2022/08/theevolution-of-perus-multidimensional-challenges-part-iii-engage-ment-with-china/#:∼:text=By%20 

the%20end%20of%202021,percent%20of%20its%20copper%20output. 18Water Treatment Chemical Supply Chain Profile-Phosphate Rock (epa.gov) 

of countries such as China (42%) and Morocco (15.9%) for global production. Those 

two countries combine to hold 80% of the world’s reserves.9

Further, as noted above, exports and usage are also key considerations. Some 

phosphate-producing countries consume a large portion of their production domestically, significantly impacting global availability and prices. Although it presently 

comprises more than 40% of global production, China accounted for only just over 

20% of the world’s exports in 2022 due to its recent effort to stabilize its own domestic supply of fertilizer by limiting exports. China’s policy of export quotas greatly 

impacted global supply. China had previously constituted about 30% of total world 

trade according to Chinese customs data.10 During this time, China reduced the sale 

of its phosphate fertilizers to Brazil, one of its leading customers, by 50%.11 In turn, 

this required Brazil, an emerging economy, to seek phosphate fertilizers elsewhere, 

only further disrupting global supply and driving up prices. Likewise, before Russia 

invaded Ukraine, Russia constituted as much as 14% of global exports.12 In the first 

three months after the invasion, prices for phosphate rock spiked by 38%.13 More 

recently, Russia has imposed its own export quotas. 

At this time, none of the announced capacity expansions to phosphate rock production are occurring in the United States. According to IFA, significant new mining 

projects planned for completion by 2026 are occurring in Morocco, Brazil, India, 

Egypt and Australia. Significant new mining projects planned for completion after 

2027 are under development in China, Tunisia, Saudi Arabia and Australia. The 

global average build cycle for adding substantial new capacity is four-to-five years. 

In the U.S., it’s longer. A permitting effort at an Idaho-based phosphate mine 

required 10 years and tens of millions of dollars. 

In the absence of available phosphate from countries such as China and Russia, 

USGS states that 98% 14 of U.S. phosphate rock imports are now sourced from Peru, 

a country with which the U.S. has a free trade agreement (FTA). The implication 

is that availability of Peruvian phosphate makes it unnecessary to include phosphate on the Critical Minerals List. However, Peru lacks a sufficient store of 

reserves to ensure future availability; its 2022 output accounted for only 1.9% of 

global production. Further, when comparing the 2014 USGS Phosphate report 15

with the 2023 USGS report,16 Peruvian phosphate reserves have declined by nearly 

75% over the last decade, falling from 820,000 in 2014 to 210,000 in 2023. Meanwhile, the largest investor in the Peruvian mining industry across the range of 

sectors is China.17 So, the U.S. is dependent on getting nearly 100% of its phosphate 

imports for domestic production from a country that currently generates less than 

2% of the global market, has diminishing reserves, and is heavily dependent on 

Chinese investment. 

Further, regarding U.S. vulnerability to supply chain disruption, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) says in a study of phosphate availability, 

‘‘Agricultural use of phosphate-based fertilizer, trade disputes, and reliance on a 

small number of countries for imports have led to limited supply and dramatically 

increased price of phosphate rock.’’ EPA goes on to say, ‘‘There have been historic 

widespread supply disruptions due to decreased production in countries that are significant suppliers to the international market. Supply disruptions have impacted 

availability of derivative products’’.18

In fact, although USGS focuses on imports of phosphate rock, the rock by itself 

is not fertilizer; it must be converted to fertilizer in the U.S. manufacturing process. 

Without the availability of phosphate especially due to supply chain disruptions, 

maintaining the scale of U.S. processing of triple superphosphate (TSP), 
22 

19 Impacts and Repercussions of Price Increases on the Global Fertilizer Market/USDA 

Foreign Agricultural Service 20Mineral Commodity Summaries 2024 (usgs.gov) 21Potassium Depletion: The Invisible Threat to Global Food Security (scitechdaily.com) 22Potash facts (canada.ca) 23 Id. Canada (46%), Russia (17%), Belarus (10.7%) and Israel (7.6%), respectively 24Plenty of Potash, but Some Regions Lack Low Cost Sources for Crop Production/U.S. 

Geological Survey (usgs.gov) 25 Id. 26Mineral Commodity Summaries 2024 (usgs.gov) 

diammonium phosphate (DAP), and monoammonimum phosphate (MAP) is not 

possible. Separately, the U.S. frequently imports phosphate-processed fertilizers. 

According to industry statistics, the U.S. imported 27% of its phosphate fertilizer 

in 2021 and 20% in 2022 used to satisfy American farmer needs. In 2022, four countries, Morocco (27%), China (21%), Russia (16%), and Saudi Arabia (15%), accounted 

for nearly 79% of processed phosphate exports. 

Potash 

Again, applying the three-pronged test for inclusion on the Critical Minerals List 

regarding the likelihood of a foreign supply disruption, the U.S. degree of dependence on foreign supply, and the potential impact on U.S. manufacturing are all 

clearly met. 

U.S. production is globally insignificant at only 1% of global mine production, 

according to industry figures. Global potash production is extremely concentrated 

with 10 countries combining to produce over 92% of the world’s supply; two-thirds 

of the world’s potash supplies come from just three countries Canada, Russia, and 

Belarus.19 At present, U.S. sanctions on Belarus combined with the impacts of 

Russian aggression in Ukraine have greatly impeded the availability of potash from 

these sources. As USGS itself has said, ‘‘supply uncertainty from . . . Belarus and 

Russia caused potash prices to rise in the first half of 2022.’’ 20 By some estimates, 

global pricing for potash increased by 500% over the previous year due to Russia’s 

invasion of Ukraine, among other factors.21

Importing more than 80% of our potash from Canada, the U.S. is the third largest 

global importer at 17%, trailing only the developing economies of Brazil (23%) and 

China (18%) according to industry statistics. Once again, China is a major producer, 

accounting for 12% of the global supply, but it is not a significant exporter.22 Meanwhile, Israel is in the top four of exporting countries even though it provides only 

6% of global production; nevertheless, Israel is currently at war. Canada, Russia, 

Belarus and Israel, accounted for over 80% of Potash global exports.23

At this time, none of the announced capacity expansions to potash production are 

occurring in the United States. According to IFA, significant new mining projects 

planned for completion by 2026 are located in Laos, Canada, Russia and Jordan. 

Significant new mining projects that are planned for completion in 2027 and beyond 

exist in Canada, Spain and Belarus. The global average build cycle for adding substantial new capacity is eight-to-10 years. 

All three prongs on the USGS Critical Minerals List criteria are met. As USGS 

declared in a recent press release, ‘‘According to a recent USGS global assessment 

of potash resources, the costs of importing potash long distances can limit its use 

and imports are subject to supply disruptions,’’ 24 which satisfies the first prong. As 

concerns the need for dependence on foreign supply under the second prong, USGS 

also stated, ‘‘some (U.S.) regions lack potash deposits needed for optimal food crop 

yields.’’ 25

The U.S. currently imports nearly all of its potash, getting it primarily from 

Canada, a country with which the U.S. enjoys strong trade relations. However, even 

Canada is not immune to supply chain disruptions. During the pandemic, the Biden 

administration was forced to impose cross-border vaccine requirements, which impeded truck traffic. Moreover, in its 2024 USGS Potash report, USGS notes that 

‘‘production in Canada was lower in part owing to a dock workers strike in July 

2023 that curtailed shipments of potash from the port of Vancouver, British 

Columbia. This led to temporary closures of some mines in Canada. Production 

resumed at those mines after the strike was settled in August.’’ 26 This disruption 

lasted fewer than two months. Still, Canada’s potash production declined 11% in 

2023 relative to 2022. Now, Canada faces the possibilities of mid-summer strikes 

involving rail workers as well as workers in its west coast ports and at the Port 

of Montreal. 

Finally, regarding the third prong, lack of availability of potash to U.S. manufacturers negatively impacts fertilizer production. Potash goes into important plant 
23 

nutrients such as potassium chloride, potassium nitrate, and potassium sulfate, 

among other potash-based fertilizers. 

Conclusion 

Thank you again for the opportunity to be with you all this morning. On behalf 

of the fertilizer industry, thanks as well to Ms. Cammack and Ms. Slotkin for 

leading on H.R. 8450. 

Contingency planning is appropriate to deal with unforeseeable disruptions, 

including supply chain disruptions of imports, impacting U.S. manufacturing. And, 

in this case, on disruptions that impact U.S. crop yields and food security. Whether 

it be food security, national security or commercial reliance, phosphate and potash 

are both essential nutrients that American farmers depend upon to reliably and 

sustainably meet the country’s food security requirements. They should be included 

in the Critical Minerals List. 

I am happy to answer any questions. 

Mr. STAUBER. Thank you very much. Our next witness is Dr. 

Roopali Phadke. She is a Professor of Environmental Studies at 

Macalester College, and she is based in the great city of Saint Paul, 

Minnesota. 

Dr. Phadke, you are now recognized for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF ROOPALI PHADKE, PH.D., PROFESSOR OF 

ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES, MACALESTER COLLEGE, SAINT 

PAUL, MINNESOTA 

Dr. PHADKE. Thank you, Chairman Stauber, Representative 

Huffman, and distinguished members of the Subcommittee. Good 

morning. I am from the great city of Saint Paul. Thank you for 

inviting me to discuss critical minerals policy. My name is Roopali 

Phadke. I am a Professor of Environmental Studies at Macalester 

College in Minnesota. For the last 25 years, my research has 

focused on energy infrastructure. For the last 10, I have studied 

critical minerals policy. The views I share here are my own. My 

testimony draws in particular from my experience in Minnesota. 

H.R. 8446 proposes to amend the Energy Act to include critical 

materials in the list of critical minerals. As we have heard, the list 

maintained by USGS and by Commerce, State, and Energy Departments have been designed for different purposes, they draw on 

different methodologies and forecasting techniques. 
24 

The DOE Critical Materials List is specifically aimed at the 

energy sector. It is not interchangeable with the economy-wide 

Critical Minerals list. These lists matter because they inform strategic national policy and agency investments, and to date they have 

been used to privilege primary extraction. 

Mining is often posed as the only solution to the clean energy 

transition, but it has an immense cost to communities and the 

environment. Far less attention and investment has focused on the 

recovery and recycling of metals that are already above ground. 

They are all around us in this room. They are in our laptops, our 

phones, AirPods. I don’t know if many people know that vapes are, 

in fact, one of the worst kinds of e-waste. 

I want to focus on three reasons why we need to invest in the 

circular economy and demand-side management. The first is the 

environmental harm caused by improper disposal, the second is the 

cost of inaction, and the third is the lost economic value. 

The abundance of critical minerals in our waste streams challenges arguments about scarcity. The 2024 Global E-Waste Monitor 

reported that the world’s generation of e-waste, including phones, 

appliances, basically anything with a cord and a circuit board, is 

rising five times faster than recycling. The global average annual 

e-waste generated per capita is about 17 pounds. In the United 

States, it is a staggering 46 pounds per capita per year. 

Each of us probably has a drawer at home full of e-waste, and 

it is because no one knows what to do with it. My state home in 

Minnesota can provide a case study. Though we are considered 

among the top states in the United States in terms of our recycling 

of e-waste, we collect only 20 percent. If it is not in a drawer, it 

is landing in a landfill, where e-waste is leaching toxins into the 

soil and water. 

There is a real cost to improper disposal, especially in the form 

of devastating infrastructure losses each year from battery fires. In 

Minnesota, the City of Blaine lost a $20 million transfer station 

due to a battery fire in 2018. Rice County in Minnesota, the Rice 

County Landfill had a battery fire that burned for almost a week 

straight last year. Similar examples exist nationwide. This is a 

tremendous lost opportunity because there is economic value in 

this waste. The metals in e-waste are worth $91 billion globally. 

Finally, recycling critical minerals creates jobs. My colleagues 

and I have calculated that the average 267 million pounds of ewaste that is generated annually in Minnesota alone could create 

1,700 new jobs. This includes work in collection, de-manufacturing, 

shredding, IT asset collection, and refurbishing. 

In conclusion, a clean energy economy requires the Federal 

Government to invest in the circular economy of critical minerals 

because it is the most pragmatic, just, and timely way to ensure 

responsible supply chains. While the DOE has begun investing in 

R&D work, it is paramount that Congress continue to support 

these efforts through policies like extended producer responsibility, 

reuse in design, and a Federal ban on landfilling e-waste. 

Currently, there are 17 states that have that policy in place. 

I appreciate the opportunity to provide this statement and I look 

forward to engaging with the Committee. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Phadke follows:] 
25 

1Owen, J. et al. 2022. ‘‘Fast track to failure? Energy transition minerals and the future of 

consultation and consent,’’ Energy Research & Social Science, 89: 102665. 2https://rmi.org/insight/low-carbon-metals-for-a-low-carbon-world 

3https://www.iea.org/reports/global-critical-minerals-outlook-2024/market-review 

4https://www.epa.gov/trinationalanalysis/metal-mining 

5https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPURL.cgi?Dockey=20004GRW.TXT 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF ROOPALI PHADKE, PH.D., PROFESSOR, DEPARTMENT OF

ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES, MACALESTER COLLEGE

ON H.R. 8446 

Chairman Stauber, Ranking Member Ocasio-Cortez, and distinguished members 

of the subcommittee, good morning. Thank you for inviting me to discuss critical 

minerals policy. 

My testimony represents my views only and reflects my decades of scholarship as 

a Professor of Environmental Studies at Macalester College in Minnesota. My background is in environmental policy, with a focus on energy and water issues. For 

more than 25 years, my research has focused on energy infrastructure development 

and public engagement in technology design. For the last 10 years, I have studied 

critical minerals with attention to both the challenges of increasing primary extraction and the opportunities that come with greater investments in a circular economy 

approach. I’m grateful that my research has been supported by federal agencies 

including the National Science Foundation, NOAA, the Department of Energy, and 

private foundations. My testimony draws in particular on my experience in 

Minnesota. 

Adequate supplies of critical minerals are key to achieving the climate policy goals 

asserted by the Biden-Harris Administration. H.R. 8446 amends the Energy Act of 

2020 to include critical materials in the list of critical minerals. The lists maintained by USGS and the Commerce, State and Energy Departments, have been 

designed for different purposes, and draw on different methodologies and forecasting 

techniques. The DOE critical materials list is specifically aimed at the energy sector 

and agency priorities; it is not interchangeable with the economy-wide critical 

minerals list. 

These lists matter because they inform strategic national policy and agency 

investments. They have justified Executive Orders, new grants programs and tax 

credits. In effect, they have been used to privilege primary extraction. 

I do not believe that categorization and classification is where Congress should 

be focusing its critical minerals policy attention. Despite the interventions of the 

last three Presidential administrations to categorize minerals to stimulate development, there has been little success in re-establishing a U.S. critical mining sector. 

Primary extraction may not be the most responsible method for sourcing minerals 

for important technologies including batteries, solar panels, and wind turbines. 

Instead, I urge Congress to prioritize development of a robust circular economy of 

metals. 

Critical minerals mining is often posed as a necessary requirement for the clean 

energy transition. The challenges to opening up new mines have been well documented, including how and why local communities respond adversely to new mining 

proposals.1 This challenge is partly rooted in the mining sector’s poor sustainability 

record globally, and in the U.S. Mining is one of the world’s most carbon-intensive 

sectors. In 2019, the Rocky Mountain Institute estimated that the production of 

industrial metals accounted for over 10% of global greenhouse gas emissions.2 Similarly, the International Energy Agency found that the waste generated per unit of 

mineral produced increased by over 20% from 2019 to 2022, and water consumption 

increased by around 25% during this period.3 In 2022, the EPA reported that the 

mining sector accounted for 44% of reported national toxic releases.4 Cleanup of the 

approximately half million abandoned hardrock mines in the U.S. is estimated by 

the EPA to cost more than $35 billion.5

This immense environmental footprint, combined with the challenges incumbent 

in building out new mines, suggests it’s high time to shift critical minerals policies 

toward more responsible sourcing that does not rely on primary mining. Far less 

attention and investment has been given to the recovery and recycling of metals 

from waste streams, including consumer electronics, landfills and legacy mines. 

While the Department of Energy has begun investing in R&D work in this area, 

it is paramount that Congress continue to support these efforts. 

In the testimony that follows, I describe how circular economy and demand side 

management strategies can create resilient supply chains by limiting import 

dependence, while also reducing the negative impacts on air, soil and water from 
26 

6https://ewastemonitor.info/the-global-e-waste-monitor-2024/ 

7KU Leuven. 2022. ‘‘Metals for Clean Energy: Pathways to solving Europe’s raw materials 

challenge.’’ Accessed at: bit.ly/MetalsCleanEnergy 8 U.S. CPSC. 2018. ‘‘Status Report on High Density Batteries Project’’. Accessed at: https:// 

www.cpsc.gov/s3fs-public/High_Energy_Density_Batteries_Status_Report_2_12_18.pdf 9https://unitar.org/about/news-stories/press/global-e-waste-monitor-2024-electronic-wasterising-five-times-faster-documented-e-waste-recycling 10 Jensen, M. et al. 2023. ‘‘The Economic Potential of E-Waste Recycling in Minnesota,’’ Iron 

Range Partners for Sustainability. Accessed at: https://www.irpsmn.org/ewaste-recycling 

primary extraction. This approach can also produce new employment opportunities 

while upholding the sovereignty of Tribes whose lands are in close proximity to 

mining operations. 

The below sections focus on: 1) Developing robust circular economy systems and 

demand side approaches, 2) Reforming the Mining Law of 1872, and 3) Strengthening FPIC (Free, Prior and Informed Consent) requirements, especially as it 

relates to Tribal communities. 

1) Developing robust collection systems and demand side approaches 

The abundance of critical minerals in our waste streams challenges arguments on 

scarcity. The UN’s fourth Global E-waste Monitor reported that the world’s generation of e-waste, including mobile phones, home appliances and anything else 

powered by electricity, is rising five times faster than documented e-waste recycling. 

They estimate the annual generation of e-waste is rising by 2.6 million tons annually, on track to reach 82 million tons by 2030.6 The global average annual e-waste 

generated per capita is 16.8 lbs, but in the U.S. it’s a staggering 46 lbs per capita. 

Urban mining and landfill mining can make a critical contribution to the circular 

economy of metals. Whereas ‘‘urban mining’’ has been used to describe the process 

of recovering e-waste found above ground in our homes and communities, landfill 

mining recovers materials from both active and inactive waste facilities. A report 

from the highly regarded Belgian university KU Leuven argued that ‘‘Recycling is 

Europe’s main opportunity to improve its long term self-sufficiency and could 

provide 45–65% of Europe’s base metal needs by 2050’’. They also write that metals 

recycling, on average, saves between 35% and 95% of the CO2 compared with 

primary metals production.7

When e-waste isn’t properly disposed of it ends up in landfills, where the EPA 

estimates it contributes 70% of all toxic metals pollution, despite making up 2% of 

the total weight present in landfills. My home state of Minnesota can provide a case 

study. Though we are considered among the top states in terms of e-waste recycling, 

the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency’s 2022 SCORE data suggests we collect only 

20% of our e-waste. Most of the rest ends up in landfills where it leaches toxins 

into soil and water. 

There is also a cost to this inaction. Improperly collected e-waste totals millions 

of dollars each year in lost business income and local tax expenditures. In 2018, the 

U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission reported more than 25,000 battery fire 

or overheating incidents involving consumer products in a five-year period.8 Waste 

industry leaders report devastating infrastructure losses each year to battery fires. 

In Minnesota, the city of Blaine lost a $20 million transfer station due to a battery 

fire in 2018. In another Minnesota example, the Rice County landfill had a battery 

fire that burned for almost a week straight last year. Similar examples exist 

nationwide. 

This is a tremendous lost opportunity because there is economic value in this 

waste, whether it comes from consumer devices, landfills or legacy mine waste. The 

fourth Global E-waste Monitor reported that the economic value of the metals contained in the e-waste generated globally was estimated at US$91 billion in 2022.9

In 2020, they had calculated that value at $57 billion. 

In 2018, the International Labor Organization reported that six million jobs could 

be created globally by transitioning towards a circular economy which includes 

activities like recycling, repair, rent and remanufacture—replacing the traditional 

economic model of ‘‘extracting, making, using and disposing’’. As previously mentioned, the global average annual e-waste generated per capita is 16.8 lbs, but is 

46 lbs per capita in the U.S. Last year my colleagues and I used this statistic in 

a pilot study to estimate the value of our Minnesota e-waste. We calculated that 

the average 267 million pounds of e-waste generated annually in our state could 

create 1,700 direct jobs.10 According to the Coalition for American Electronics 

Recycling Jobs report, e-waste collection, de-manufacturing, shredding and information technology asset collection/refurbishing activities generate one full time job for 

each 172,000 pounds of e-waste processed. In Minnesota, the e-waste firm 

Repowered reported that for every additional 98,600 pounds of e-waste accepted in 
27 

11 Environmental Justice Foundation. 2024. ‘‘Critical minerals and the green transition’’. 

Accessed at: https://ejfoundation.org/resources/downloads/EJF_critical-minerals-and-the-greentransition.pdf 12Dominish, E. et al. 2020. ‘‘The potential of avoidance, reuse and recycling solutions to 

minimise mining for lithium-ion batteries for electric vehicles’’. Institute for Sustainable 

Futures, University of Technology Sydney. Accessed at: https://www.earthworks.org/publications/ 

recycle-dont-mine/ 13https://rmi.org/insight/breakthrough-batteries/ 14Transport & Environment. 2023. ‘‘Clean and lean: Battery metals demand from electrifying 

cars, vans and buses’’. Accessed at: https://www.transportenvironment.org 15https://www.spglobal.com/commodityinsights/en/market-insights/latest-news/energytransition/042122-almost-half-of-tesla-evs-produced-in-q1-had-no-nickel-cobalt-in-battery#:∼: 

text=Electric%20vehicle%20maker%20Tesla%20equipped,quarter%20results%20presentation 

%20April%2020. 16https://www.climateandcommunity.org/more-mobility-less-mining 

their facility, they were able to add 1 full-time position to their recycling team. 

Repowered focuses on providing post-release opportunities and extensive training for 

those who have spent time in corrections. 

Given the lack of comprehensive e-waste recycling rules in the U.S., states are 

starting to fill the vacuum. Of the 25 states with e-waste laws, 17 states have 

banned e-waste from landfills. In 2024, an ambitious 100% Electronic Waste 

Recycling Bill (SF 3940/HF 3566) was introduced in Minnesota with the goal of 

reducing pollution, inspiring economic activity, and recovering valuable metals. 

Federal support for e-waste recycling takes the form of agency programs. In 2013, the Department of Energy created the Critical Materials Institute with a $120 

million budget to research alternatives, reduce waste and diversify production. With 

funding from the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, the DOE has initiated 

two new grant programs: the Battery Material Processing Grant Program ($3 billion 

for FY 2022–26) and the Battery Manufacturing and Recycling Grant Program ($3 

billion for FY 2022–26). The DOE’s $125 million Battery and Critical Mineral 

Recycling Program is designed to award grants for research, development and demonstration projects to create innovative and practical approaches to increase the 

reuse and recycling of batteries. The DOE has argued that these investments are 

essential to advancing a domestic supply chain of critical materials for the energy 

transition. 

Consumer education and responsible collection are aspects of a circular economy 

strategy to reduce mineral demand. The EU estimates that such strategies can 

reduce 58% of critical minerals demand between 2022 and 2050 compared to a business as usual scenario, with recycled cobalt, nickel and manganese potentially supplying 80–90% of demand.11 A similar report by an Australian think tank found 

that circular economy policies have the potential to reduce mining demand for 

cobalt, copper, lithium, and nickel by 25–55% of total demand by 2040.12

The Rocky Mountain Institute has argued that the evolution of battery designs 

may initiate dramatic shifts in energy systems as early as 2030. They report that 

new battery chemistries are expected to compete with the prevailing lithium-ion (Liion) technology. For example, RMI recently reported that solid state batteries are 

‘‘poised to massively disrupt the storage industry by unlocking new opportunities for 

cheap, safe, and high-performing batteries’’.13 Reduced battery sizes will also impact 

demand for nickel, cobalt, manganese and lithium.14 Tesla reported that almost half 

of their EVs manufactured in the first quarter of 2022 had nickel and cobalt-free 

lithium iron phosphate batteries.15 According to the IEA’s Global Critical Minerals 

Outlook 2024, cobalt demand is expected to decrease by 30–45% in 2024. 

Transit planning and technology design strategies can also reduce demand. 

Research by the UK group Transport & Environment found that combined policies 

that incentivize smaller EVs, innovate battery chemistries and reduce private car 

journeys could cut demand for key metals lithium, nickel, cobalt and manganese by 

36–49% by 2050 in the European Union. This finding is also supported by the 

University of California Davis’ Climate and Community Project. Their innovative 

modeling of material flows and socioeconomic policies showed that three key strategies can reduce U.S. lithium demand by 90% in the next 3 decades: decreasing car 

dependency, right-sizing EV batteries, and creating a robust recycling system.16

2) Reforming the General Mining Act of 1872 

It will take time to establish the circular economy infrastructures that can meet 

critical minerals demands. The EU Metals for Clean Energy 2022 report suggests 

that gap could be as short as 2035 before sufficient metals from first generation 

products enter the recycling loop. If the U.S. adopted policies similar to the EU, 

including securing sustainable imports from reliable partners, we could imagine a 
28 

17MRIWG Final Report. 2023. ‘‘Recommendations for Improving Mining on Public Lands’’. 

Accessed at: https://www.doi.gov/media/document/mriwg-report-final-508-pdf 18Deonandan et al. 2024 ‘‘Social License to Operate (SLO): Private governance and barriers 

to community engagement,’’ The Extractive Industries and Society, 17: 101404. 19 Block, S. 2021. ‘‘Mining Energy-Transition Metals: National Aims, Local Conflicts,’’ Morgan 

Stanley Capital International. Accessed at: https://www.msci.com/www/blog-posts/mining-energytransition-metals/02531033947 20See Owen et al. 2022. 21https://www.doi.gov/pressreleases/biden-harris-administration-report-outlines-reformsneeded-promote-responsible-mining 

similar bridge period. During this time, it is paramount that terrestrial, or landbased, mining proceed with improved and enforced human rights and environmental 

due diligence to reduce harms. This requires Congress reform the General Mining 

Act of 1872. 

In 2023, the Biden-Harris administration released a comprehensive report providing guidance to Congress and federal agencies for mining reform. The Bipartisan 

Infrastructure Law directed the Department of Interior and the USDA to identify 

legislative and regulatory recommendations to increase ‘‘the timeliness of permitting 

activities for the exploration and development of domestic critical minerals’’. This 

also followed a rulemaking petition from Tribes, Indigenous led organizations and 

conservation groups.17 After eliciting 26,000 public comments and engaging in 

dozens of ‘‘listening sessions’’ with stakeholders, the Department of the Interior-led 

Interagency Working Group on Mining Laws, Regulations and Permitting (IWG) 

released 65 recommendations. Among these recommendations are the need for a 

programmatic environmental impact statement that identifies good sites for mining 

while allowing for ‘‘meaningful, robust, and early consultation between the federal 

and tribal governments’’. They also suggest a reclamation fee structure to help pay 

for abandoned mine cleanup. And, connected to my previous section, the 

recommendations encourage mining and reprocessing at previously disturbed sites. 

3) Consent and consultation 

Decarbonization and climate action shouldn’t be pitted against Indigenous 

sovereignty. Globally, Indigenous communities bear the brunt of the mining industry’s adverse effects, including on their health, environment, livelihood and culture, 

yet they share minimally in the benefits and have little input in decision-making.18

A 2021 Morgan Stanley Capital International report found that 97 percent of nickel, 

89 percent of copper, 79 percent of lithium, and 68 percent of cobalt reserves and 

resources in the U.S. are located within 35 miles of Native American reservations.19

This has deep implications for the need for Tribal consultation and consent.20

The IWG report cited above concluded that fundamental reform of the Mining 

Law of 1872 is necessary to ‘‘achieve the best outcomes for communities and Tribes 

impacted by mining, America’s clean energy and climate goals, and certainty for 

industry’’.21 They also argue that agencies must be required to expand engagement 

with Tribes toward more meaningful, robust and early consultation. Congress 

should act in accordance with these recommendations. 

Without such measures and protections, Tribes will continue to use legal means 

to block new mining. Indigenous sovereignty is being expressed through legal challenges across the U.S., including by evoking environmental quality standards that 

supersede federal standards. Almost exactly a year ago, the NewRange copper nickel 

mine in northeastern Minnesota had its Army Corps water permit revoked because 

it did not comply with the water quality standards set by a sovereign downstream 

tribe, the Fond du Lac Band of Lake Superior Chippewa. The Fond du Lac Band 

had EPA-approved water quality standards of their own in place, nearly twice as 

strict as Minnesota’s, to protect their wetlands from mercury contamination. In 

August 2023, the Minnesota Supreme Court agreed with the Army Corps decision, 

and suspended the mining permit. Their ruling found that state regulators failed 

to fully consider the threats to water quality. This may be the first time that a Tribe 

objected to a federal permit on the basis of their rights under the Clean Water Act. 

The approach taken by the Fond Du Lac Band, not only to establish standards 

through local science but to defend their sovereignty at the agencies and in court, 

may be the tactic pursued by other tribes. 

Tribes may also choose to challenge mining development through the granting of 

rights to nature. In the U.S., five Tribes have passed rights of nature resolutions, 

including the Menominee Indian Tribe of Wisconsin’s adoption of a resolution to 

recognize the rights of the Menominee River. The White Earth Band of the Ojibwe 

nation in Minnesota adopted a Rights of Manoomin law in 2019 to protect wild rice 
29 

22See the White Earth press release dated Feb 6, 2019. Available at https://celdf.org/2019/02/ 

press-release-white-earth-band-enacts-first-of-its-kind-rights-of-nature/ 23Warner, E.K. and J. Lillquist. 2023, ‘‘Laboratories of the Future: Tribes and Rights of 

Nature’’, California Law Review Vol.111:325. Accessed at https://doi.org/10.15779/Z38599Z292 

(manoomin).22 The resolution specifies that no government entity can approve a permit that would allow for these rights to be threatened. Legal scholars Warner and 

Lillquist have written that while municipalities may face substantial obstacles to 

claiming rights for nature, in the form of vagueness, preemption and potential sanctions, Tribal claims may be more successful because they have both inherent 

sovereignty and different environmental ethics from most other communities within 

the U.S.23

While I am not Indigenous, my research has brought me close to those communities on the edge of new mining development. I’ve had the opportunity to listen to 

their concerns in their homes, and to harvest wild rice from their threatened lakes. 

It’s become abundantly clear to me that without Indigenous leadership and 

Indigenous solutions to future minerals development, U.S. society will reinscribe a 

new era of unjust extraction. 

In conclusion, a clean energy economy requires the federal government to invest 

in the circular economy of critical minerals because it is the most pragmatic, just 

and timely way to ensure responsible supply policies. This is achieved by reducing 

demands on critical minerals and supporting recycling and reuse. The Biden-Harris 

administration is investing in this work, and we need more time to see the results. 

In particular, Congress should follow the guidance of the IWG on reforms to the 

Mining Law of 1872. This can help usher in an era of responsible mining that not 

only avoids the worst harms to people and the environment, but builds a new model 

of industrial ecology where waste is seen as a resource for sustainable livelihoods. 

I appreciate this opportunity to provide this statement and I look forward to 

engaging with the Committee. 

Mr. STAUBER. Thank you very much for your testimony. I will 

now recognize Members for 5 minutes of questions, and I am going 

to recognize myself first for 5 minutes. 

Dr. Williams, how does the way that USGS evaluates critical 

minerals differ from the way DOE evaluates critical minerals? 

Dr. WILLIAMS. There are a number of different aspects, but the 

primary differences are, of course, that DOE’s Critical Materials 

List is focused on the energy sector, and our work on critical 

minerals, as was mentioned, looks broadly across the full economic 

and national security spectrum, so that there are some things on 

our Critical Minerals List that are there for reasons other than 

energy priorities and don’t overlap with the DOE list. 

Also, because they are critical materials, some of them, as has 

been mentioned, things like electrical steel, are not composed of 

critical minerals themselves, but it is a manufactured product that 

there is a concern about supply. And our focus is on the fundamental mineral commodities. 

Mr. STAUBER. And, Dr. Williams, how could placing DOE’s 

materials on the USGS list, as H.R. 8446 proposes to do, streamline interagency coordination? 

Dr. WILLIAMS. I think we would say that, basically, we work very 

well together right now already. And I did forget to mention that, 

of course, DOE does have that forward-looking component to critical materials. But we are absolutely open to anything that would 

help the complementarity of those approaches and lead to any 

increase in coherence of government policy. 

Mr. STAUBER. And I think H.R. 8446 would do just that. 

Mr. Cabrera, DOE’s Critical Minerals List includes several 

minerals absent from USGS’s list. How do you believe merging the 
30 

two lists would benefit efforts to secure the U.S. minerals supply 

chain and meet future demand? 

Mr. CABRERA. I believe that the DOE list, because it is forwardlooking, accounts for the extreme increases in demand of several 

materials and minerals that is unaccounted for in the USGS 

minerals list. USGS has a very robust process that looks at actual 

production data, but because they are looking at actual production 

data, that data is dated. So, merging the two lists puts us in a 

better situation as a country to meet all of that forecasted demand. 

There simply won’t be enough copper available to us for the energy 

transition, and that analysis has been done with respect to 

recycling. We simply have to mine more. 

Mr. STAUBER. Thank you. 

Ms. Macaluso, USGS does not currently consult with the Department of Health and Human Services when determining the Critical 

Minerals List. As the Chief Procurement Officer for GE 

HealthCare, which minerals are most susceptible to supply shocks, 

and what would their absence mean for patient care? 

Ms. MACALUSO. Thank you for the question, Representative. 

At GE HealthCare, we use over 50 critical minerals, elements, 

materials, and substances, and they are all vital to health care and 

to patients. Many of those critical minerals are single-sourced, and 

some of them are multi-sourced. So, it is very important that we 

rely on having input from the HHS Committee into making decisions around these, because we want to make sure that we are 

factoring in critical health care and patient impact. 

So, when we are making laws, regulations, and to be able to 

monitor when there is scarcity of some of these, because they are 

critical and they do impact our patients and the healthcare system. 

Mr. STAUBER. Well, there is some good news. The Pulsar, when 

you talk about helium, Pulsar Helium, the big find in northern 

Minnesota, 13.6 percent helium as part of that extraction, which 

we know that 3 percent is economically viable. So, it is a good find 

right in the heart of the Duluth complex, the working industrial 

Superior National Forest. 

Mr. Rosenbusch, why are potash and phosphate so essential for 

the fertilizer industry? 

Mr. ROSENBUSCH. Well, they are one of the three macronutrients 

that plants are required to grow, so we must ensure that all of our 

crops have adequate phosphate and potash. Otherwise, we wouldn’t 

be able to achieve the crop yields. 

I mentioned that 50 percent of crop yields in the world are 

because of fertilizer use. So, as we think about our role in feeding 

the world, but also our own national security, it is critical that 

these fertilizers are available to farmers, and that we produce as 

much as we can domestically so that they have multiple choices for 

those particular products. Not one is more important than the 

other, and all three are required. 

Mr. STAUBER. Thank you. Before I yield back, I want to take a 

minute to thank Dr. Phadke for joining us today. It is always great 

to see a fellow Minnesotan. 

And as someone who, based on your testimony, has an extensive 

background in environmental policy, I am sure you recognize we 
31 

are where the best water in Minnesota is found, right in the heart 

of mining country. 

And I will yield to Mr. Huffman from California for 5 minutes. 

Mr. HUFFMAN. And we want to keep it that way. Right, Mr. 

Chairman? 

Mr. STAUBER. We will. 

Mr. HUFFMAN. Thank you. 

Mr. Rosenbusch, just quickly, to your point about the importance 

of these chemicals in industrial agriculture, you do acknowledge 

that organic farmers manage to provide these inputs without chemical additions, right, through strategies like mulching and compost 

and other natural alternatives? 

Mr. ROSENBUSCH. Yes, we support all types of farming. 

Mr. HUFFMAN. I just wanted to point that out. Thank you. 

Mr. ROSENBUSCH. Organic farming is terrific, but can’t feed the 

world. 

Mr. HUFFMAN. I am going to reclaim my time and just ask that 

we enter into the record a 30-year side-by-side study by the Rodale 

Institute that has found that, after a few years of transition, the 

yields of these different models of agriculture are actually quite 

similar. There are other ways to provide the food that we all agree 

we need and we want, maybe without playing around with the list 

in question. 

And I want to come back to that because many of us want to 

transition to clean energy, and we want to see more renewable 

energy, but we want to do it in a responsible, efficient, and environmentally sound way and a rational way as we contemplate 

supply chain security. There are real consequences to ill-conceived 

mining when it comes to public health, fish and wildlife habitat, 

outdoor recreation opportunities, businesses, and more. And I just 

think we need to have a very clear understanding of what H.R. 

8446 would mean in the context of an industry that is already 

incredibly favored under existing law. 

So, as a reminder, by amending the ‘‘critical mineral’’ definition 

in the Energy Act of 2020, we would be creating a loophole to make 

copper eligible for Federal support. And Dr. Williams, I just want 

to ask you to walk us through, if you would, please, why copper is 

not currently on USGS’s Critical Minerals List. 

Dr. WILLIAMS. Thank you for the question. Very basically, we 

depend on less than half of our copper to be imported. We have a 

relatively robust domestic copper industry. We have a fairly significant amount of copper that is also recycled. And for the approximately 40, 45 percent of our copper that we do import, we import 

it from reliable trading partners like Chile and Canada. So, from 

those major perspectives, based on the data we were looking at for 

the 2022 list, we did not see copper as a critical mineral. 

Mr. HUFFMAN. What is your understanding, if you would, around 

the controversy over the proposal to add copper to the list? 

Dr. WILLIAMS. Basically, it has to do with how we look forward, 

and what we expect in the future. If through the energy transition 

we have a significant increase in demand for copper or we just 

have a continuing demand for copper, how will those major 

components such as recycling, such as domestic mining, such as 
32 

importation from reliable trading partners respond to that increase 

in demand? Or will there be challenges that develop? 

Mr. HUFFMAN. And I think it is also important to understand the 

United States’ role in the global copper supply. Where does the 

United States fit into the global supply of copper? 

Dr. WILLIAMS. We produce, I believe, a little bit less than 5 

percent of the global copper mining, but use, as I mentioned, closer 

to 10 percent of the global copper budget. So, we are a significant 

player, but there are many other countries, such as Chile and 

others, who are much more significant in the production of copper. 

Mr. HUFFMAN. And recycling? 

Dr. WILLIAMS. It varies around the world. The European Union 

says that they are recycling about 60 percent of their copper. I 

haven’t looked at those numbers in detail, but that would be 

significantly more than the amount we recycle. 

Mr. HUFFMAN. Thank you. 

Dr. Phadke, given that it can take a decade from exploration to 

commercial mining, how do we know the mines that are targeting 

the Critical Minerals List will actually be needed 10 years from 

now? 

Dr. PHADKE. Thank you for the question. Everyone is trying to 

forecast demand, and to get it right. The new IEA 2024 study actually looks at 10 different scenarios for forecasting that demand, and 

a lot of those scenarios are based on different and new evolving 

kinds of battery chemistries. We know in that study they also suggest that cobalt could be out of batteries by 2030, based on the 

innovation in battery chemistry. 

So, there are so many opportunities ahead of us. One study that 

came out of Belgium from the very distinguished KU Leuven 

Institute suggested that Europe, by 2035, will be able to meet 

between 50 and 75 percent of its critical minerals demands from 

recycling. 

So, the demand forecasting is an art, and it really needs to 

incorporate a number of scenario plans. 

Mr. HUFFMAN. Thank you. I yield back. 

Mr. FULCHER [presiding]. Thank you for that. The Chair 

recognizes Mr. Gosar for 5 minutes. 

Dr. GOSAR. Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

Dr. Phadke, I am a big recycler myself. I have these big buckets 

of batteries. I don’t want anything to go to the landfill. So, what 

condition do you feel our recycling is, poignantly? Is it 20 percent 

of our waste? 10 percent? 

Dr. PHADKE. Recycling our e-waste is about 20 percent in the 

United States. 

Dr. GOSAR. Would you agree with that, Dr. Williams? 

Dr. WILLIAMS. I would actually defer to our expertise as 

primarily the mineral deposits and the e-waste broadly. 

Dr. GOSAR. Yes, I am just trying to figure this out because we 

have had a number of experts before that have said it is anywhere 

from 5 to 20 percent. So, that is what I was trying to get at. 

Dr. Phadke, can you force technology? 

Dr. PHADKE. You can incentivize technology, and you can—— 

Dr. GOSAR. You can’t force it. 
33 

Dr. PHADKE. Well, I think policies do present opportunities that 

move us in directions we want to support. 

Dr. GOSAR. It might get you in the general vicinity, but when 

Einstein developed E=MC2, he came up with the idea, right? And 

it is that one idea that stimulates all the rest of them. So, what 

I am saying is that, when we are talking about battery life, these 

are all estimates because it would take a quantum leap in technology to get batteries up to par with the combustion engine. Just 

that alone. 

Mr. Cabrera, are you aware of the new smelting techniques? 

Mr. CABRERA. Yes. 

Dr. GOSAR. You are extracting smaller amounts of minerals, and 

you are getting everything out of them almost. Is that true? 

Mr. CABRERA. The new smelter technologies are much more 

efficient, yes. 

Dr. GOSAR. So, you are extracting in a certain type of ore. You 

can get everything out of there. Like, if it is platinum, gold, copper, 

all sorts of things off of that, right? 

Mr. CABRERA. The new smelter technology is better at removing 

multiple minerals from the ore, yes. 

Dr. GOSAR. OK. Is there a reason why you wouldn’t want DOE, 

HHS, and USGS to be siloed in talking about all these minerals? 

Because it seems to me like, if these minerals could interact, 

there are a lot of different things that somebody might look at in 

one eyesight that could help another. So, I see a danger. Do you 

see a danger in that siloization of these materials? 

Mr. CABRERA. I believe that every complex problem deserves different perspectives. But I also believe that the question of critical 

minerals and materials is so urgent, it is so important, that we 

should invest in all of those different perspectives simultaneously. 

Dr. GOSAR. You are aware of the Resolution Copper mine? 

Mr. CABRERA. Yes, sir. 

Dr. GOSAR. They have invested over $2 billion now for reclamation in that area which, mined over 100 years, and they still now, 

somebody said 10 years. That is a gift. We are talking about 20 

years now, going on 30 years for that Resolution Copper. 

So, shouldn’t we be incentivizing the Good Neighbor policy with 

mining? They cleaned up. They spent $2 billion. They have come 

to me and said, ‘‘What do you want?’’ 

I am saying, ‘‘Explain to people. Here is the water you put in. 

This is how dirty it is. Here is what comes out, and it is clean 

enough for you to drink. I want all those things to show the mining 

of today is not the mining of yesterday.’’ Can you address that a 

little bit? 

Mr. CABRERA. Yes. Comparing the mining of the past to the 

modern, highly-regulated mining that we do so well and so responsibly in this country is like comparing pizza to salad because they 

are both food. They are both food, but they are not the same. So, 

mining of the past was very different than mining of today. 

And our demand for minerals is not decreasing, it is increasing. 

Yet, we are increasingly offshoring the supply. And as we do that, 

we are hurting the environment because there are very few countries on the planet that can take care of the environment the way 

we do. We not only have regulations, but we enforce them. 
34 

Dr. GOSAR. Ms. Macaluso, is that right? 

Ms. MACALUSO. Yes. 

Dr. GOSAR. Do you see what I was talking about, the siloization 

of these different materials? Would you find that kind of a complicated problem, especially in the healthcare field, with these rare, 

critical, rare earths and critical minerals? 

Ms. MACALUSO. I am sorry. I am having difficulty hearing you. 

Could you repeat the question? Thank you. 

Dr. GOSAR. Do you see any problems with the siloization of these, 

like, DOE, USGS, HHS in regards to the utilization of different 

minerals? 

Ms. MACALUSO. From a GE HealthCare perspective, it is really 

important to us that we have HHS opinion with regards to these 

critical minerals because, at the end of the day, our patients and 

healthcare system relies on them. So, we would want to make sure 

that we have that healthcare input in determining the Critical 

Minerals List. 

Dr. GOSAR. I thank the gentleman and I yield back. 

Mr. FULCHER. The gentleman yields. The Chair recognizes Ms. 

Kamlager-Dove for 5 minutes. 

Ms. KAMLAGER-DOVE. Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

When we hear about the need to add this mineral or that 

mineral to the Critical Minerals List, it is usually framed as a way 

to boost new domestic mining of that mineral. I think my constituents know all too well what it is like to live alongside an extractive 

industry. The experiences they have had with pollution and public 

health problems from the Inglewood Oil field have made me very 

skeptical of an industry rushing to extract while promising to be 

responsible. 

So, these new mines are being pushed as part of a clean transition. The need for this transition should be obvious, despite some 

of my colleagues’ attempts to deny the ways climate change is 

already harming communities across the country. However, I am 

concerned that the urgency of the climate crisis is being co-opted 

by extractive industries to repeat harmful forms of development. 

Dr. Phadke, much of your research focuses on what you have 

called the green energy bargain. Can you briefly explain what that 

bargain is? 

Dr. PHADKE. Yes, thank you for the question. 

When I talk about the green energy bargain, in particular I am 

referencing this scenario that has been presented to us by the 

mining industry that, if we want clean energy, new mining is a 

necessity. It has given the industry what you might call a green 

halo, and that has argued for fast-tracking new mines. 

I want to challenge that, and I also want to challenge even the 

term ‘‘responsible mining,’’ which is used widely across the 

industry. That term has now such interpretive flexibility that we 

aren’t sure what it means. We are not sure who we are being 

responsible to, for how long, and with what assurances. Are we 

using the IRMA standards? Are we referencing responsible mining 

with the approach by, for example, the ICMM, which is the 

industry trade group? 

Ms. KAMLAGER-DOVE. Thank you. It is co-optive language is what 

you are talking about. And I appreciate you also explaining that. 
35 

Many of my colleagues frame opposition to new mines as 

NIMBYism, but as you have mentioned, and as we have heard 

from so many witnesses, communities near mines have very real 

substantive concerns for their environment and health. So, given 

that the majority of known reserves of critical minerals in the 

United States are on or are near tribal lands, and many of those 

tribes have opposed these mines, why is improving tribal consultation and engagement so essential for being responsible in this 

space? 

Dr. PHADKE. It is essential. Tribes have sovereignty over their 

lands. They have a long history of adverse impacts from mining. 

They are absolutely justified in their skepticism, given these past 

harms, and they are warranted in asking for the highest of 

standards. 

They also have unique legal standing. And I will give you an 

example from the state of Minnesota, where the New Range Copper 

Nickel mining permit, just almost exactly a year ago, was revoked 

by the Army Corps, and that was held up by the Minnesota 

Supreme Court. The reason it was revoked is because that tribe 

has EPA-approved water quality standards that supersede 

Minnesota’s state standards, and they have legal standing to do so. 

And tribal challenges will continue, and this will delay our clean 

energy goals, and these setbacks that might come from these legal 

challenges have been successful in many cases. 

Ms. KAMLAGER-DOVE. Thank you. How can recycling and 

alternative sources of minerals help us meet our critical mineral 

needs? 

Dr. PHADKE. I have described in my written testimony and also 

here in my oral testimony that there are approaches that Congress 

can support that will help us advance the circular economy of 

metals, and there are tremendous amounts of minerals already 

above ground that we can further exploit. 

The one point I want to make, though, is that there is violence 

in our inaction, and this is regarding the electronic waste that is 

building in our landfills that is leaching into our air and into our 

waters. We are creating new fenceline communities all the time 

because we are not addressing the piling up of this toxic waste. 

Ms. KAMLAGER-DOVE. Thank you so much, and I yield back. 

Mr. FULCHER. Thank you, and I recognize myself for 5 minutes. 

We have three bills in front us today. And I want to thank the 

panel specifically for your participation. This does help. We do 

learn from this process. I do want to focus on H.R. 8450 for my line 

of dialogue, because there is a significant Idaho nexus there, as 

there are phosphate resources in my state. 

And Mr. Rosenbusch, in your oral presentation it was interesting 

for me to hear that the overwhelming majority of phosphate 

fertilizer production in the world comes from China and Morocco. 

My understanding is also Russia and Saudi Arabia. Somewhere in 

the neighborhood of 80 percent of the processed phosphate comes 

from those regions. Yet, when looked at by the U.S. Geological 

Survey, there tends to be a focus on phosphate rock, which is in 

a different form, right? It is not processed yet. And that, in 

particular, comes from Peru. 
36 

Yet, if I understand you correctly, there is more than one way 

to look at that. Expand for a moment what happens to your viewpoint of the situation if you are only looking at the rock, as opposed 

to the entire process. 

Mr. ROSENBUSCH. Yes, that is a fantastic question, and I think 

we are asking that it be evaluated the same way that potash 

would, for example. So, you are not importing potash ore. Potash 

is also processed and brought in as granular fertilizer. And similarly, phosphate, when it is processed from the rock into the granular phosphate fertilizers, look at Peru, for example, it is less than 

6 percent of total demand in the United States because many of the 

countries that have those large reserves are doing their own manufacturing and then importing it in. 

So, you have to look at that holistically to understand what the 

true demand and supply is for phosphate fertilizers in the United 

States. And we believe that that phosphate granular product would 

be consistent with the same way we look at potash. 

Mr. FULCHER. So, in that vein, if you take a look at it from that 

perspective, should phosphate be on the Critical Mineral List, or 

certainly considered for that? 

Mr. ROSENBUSCH. Yes, absolutely. And I think, when you look at 

supply chain shocks, it is the one that is probably more exposed 

than just about any of our nutrients. When we think about where 

that product is coming from, when we think about China’s control 

over phosphates, it really does create a global dynamic of supplydemand that could put the U.S. farmer at risk. And we believe 

that, when you look at the true picture of phosphate trade and 

where product is coming in from, it would be a high priority for 

that list. It is a critical element. 

We know that there are organic farms out there, but they are a 

third less efficient in terms of yields than what using traditional 

NPK fertilizers are. And there is no way we can sustainably feed 

the planet on organic farming alone. We need phosphate and 

potash. 

Mr. FULCHER. Well, just like other critical minerals, we have 

that right here domestically, including in my state. 

I only have a little less than 2 minutes left, so I want to deviate 

to something else that you talked about in your oral testimony, and 

that was permitting and lawsuits. You only have a little over a 

minute, but frame that a little bit better. When you say permitting 

is a hurdle, what is that specifically and what kind of lawsuits and 

from whom are you seeing that? 

Mr. ROSENBUSCH. Yes, I think what the industry is looking for 

is efficiency. We want to be efficient in our permitting. And I think 

one of the things that critical minerals would do would give you a 

single agency to work with to get through that permitting process. 

Every state is slightly different. The jurisdiction is slightly different. And I referenced one of the phosphate mines in Idaho that 

took 10 years to permit. And the amount of capital, the capital 

intensity of this industry, is incredible, billions of dollars that go 

into setting up some of these operations. So, the opportunity to get 

those permits so that we can mine more efficiently in a shorter 

amount of time, and also without adding significantly to the cost 
37 

of establishing those assets, is really the objective of Critical 

Mineral—— 

Mr. FULCHER. Are you seeing lawsuits, as well? 

Mr. ROSENBUSCH. There are a ton of lawsuits. I mean, there are 

a lot of groups that will do whatever they can to block permitting. 

We have seen that with land trades, we have seen that with very 

specific issues. And oftentimes, they are not even driven by the 

community. It is driven by outside groups that are coming in that 

just have resources to prolong that process. 

Mr. FULCHER. Mr. Rosenbusch, I thank you for that. I am out of 

time. I am going to yield my time to Mr. Curtis for 5 minutes. 

Mr. CURTIS. Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

In Utah, we take immense pride in the critical minerals sourced 

from our state and the Western region, the broader region. These 

minerals not only bolster our national security, but also drive 

medical advancements, a fact well recognized in Utah. 

The process for identifying critical minerals mandates the USGS 

to collaborate with various government organizations. However, 

glaringly, the Department of Health and Human Services, HHS, 

was omitted from this consultation, despite the indispensable role 

critical minerals play in health care. And I get it. While it is imperative that the Critical Minerals List be established through an 

independent agency, it is equally critical for health care to have 

representation in these deliberations. 

Helium is a good example of why this legislation is vital. Despite 

its scarcity, helium was removed from the Critical Minerals List, 

overlooking its indispensable use in MRI technology. Under the 

proposed legislation, consulting HHS prior to removing helium 

from the Critical Minerals List would become mandatory. 

Moreover, medical isotopes, a technology rapidly advancing 

thanks to several Utah companies, underscores the urgency of this 

bill. 

Why should we source minerals from Utah, when Russia, a major 

global helium producer, holds dominance? The opportunity to 

extract and develop these isotopes domestically is paramount, given 

their critical role in a myriad of medical applications from cancer 

treatments to diagnosing heart defects. Moving forward, it is 

imperative to pave the way for these medical advancements to 

flourish within the United States, rather than relying on external 

sources from our enemies like Russia. 

Ms. Macaluso, could you please elaborate on the significance of 

critical minerals in GE’s healthcare research and development? 

Ms. MACALUSO. Yes, thank you so much, Congressman Curtis. 

First, let me thank you for your work on healthcare policy. 

Prioritizing health care is important to Utah and to the country. 

So, we thank you for your dedication to patients. 

With respect to research and development in medical technology, 

it is hugely important because it benefits patients and healthcare 

providers, all of us around the world. And while performing R&D 

for products, we explore the use of minerals, elements, materials, 

and substances so we can optimize product quality, performance, 

sustainability, security of supply, cost, and patient experience. 
38 

A practical example is the next generation of IPM magnets we 

recently deployed across our MR portfolio that uses 70 percent less 

helium. So, R&D on these critical minerals is hugely important. 

Mr. CURTIS. Excellent. What implications would arise if GE and 

the other leading healthcare companies were able and given the 

opportunity to participate in these discussions before these 

decisions are made? 

Ms. MACALUSO. Great. Thank you again for the question. 

If manufacturers were not able to source these critical minerals, 

elements, substances, and materials, there could be serious impacts 

to patient care. And I will use helium as an example, because it 

came up so many times today. MRs use helium to lower the 

temperature in the systems because it allows the wires and the 

magnets then to have super conductive properties, and then that 

enables a magnetic field which allows you to generate the image. 

If we think about GE HealthCare alone, there are 70 million 

MRI exams performed annually which assist doctors in early detection, accurate diagnosis, creation of treatment plans, and then 

monitoring those treatment plans. So, just consider what would 

happen if we didn’t have access to having the helium. It would 

impact health care and impact patients around the world. 

So, when you think about how these MRs are used for monitoring for stroke and brain conditions, cancer screening, spinal cord 

injuries, heart conditions among other usages, it is why we need 

the HHS input into making these decisions because we all rely on 

these lifesaving technologies. 

Mr. CURTIS. Thank you. And with just a few seconds left. Medical 

isotopes. 

Ms. MACALUSO. Yes. 

Mr. CURTIS. A lot of people haven’t heard of those. Why are they 

so transformative, and what is out there in the future for us with 

medical isotopes? 

Ms. MACALUSO. Thank you for the question. They are very 

transformative. 

Alzheimer’s disease, Parkinson’s disease, heart disease, prostate 

cancer, neuroendocrine cancer, and other advanced cancers are 

some of the conditions that these specific diagnostic radiopharmaceuticals diagnose as part of PET and SPECT scans. These imaging 

techniques can actually seek out the target of interest and allow us 

to then image it so that the appropriate therapeutics can be 

directed to it. 

We strongly believe in the value of these tools for patients and 

providers. 

Mr. CURTIS. Thank you so much. I am sorry I am out of time, 

but I think everybody can see why HHS should be included in 

these deliberations. Thank you. 

Ms. MACALUSO. Thank you. 

Mr. FULCHER. Thank you to the member from Utah. And to the 

witnesses, thank you for your testimony. Never underestimate the 

impact you have. And the fact that you are taking your time and 

effort to inform us means a lot. Oftentimes, that shapes what we 

do, so thank you for your participation. 
39 

Members of the Subcommittee may have some additional 

questions for the witnesses, and if so, we will ask you to respond 

in writing. 

Under Committee Rule 3, members of the Committee must 

submit questions to the Subcommittee Clerk by 5 p.m. on Friday, 

June 7. The hearing record will be held open for 10 business days 

for these responses. 

If there is no further business, without objection, the Committee 

stands adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 12:34 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 
40 

[ADDITIONAL MATERIALS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD]

Submission for the Record by Rep. Huffman 

The full document is available for viewing at: 

https://docs.house.gov/meetings/II/II06/20240604/117364/HHRG118-II06-20240604-SD004.pdf 

Æ