```

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

 
                   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
       
       
                  [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]       

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

                    U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
                    
55-912 PDF                WASHINGTON : 2024         

                     COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES

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

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

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

              SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES

                       PETE STAUBER, MN, Chairman
                     WESLEY P. HUNT, TX, Vice Chair
              ALEXANDRIA OCASIO-CORTEZ, NY, Ranking Member

Doug Lamborn, CO                     Jared Huffman, CA
Robert J. Wittman, VA                Kevin Mullin, CA
Paul Gosar, AZ                       Sydney Kamlager-Dove, CA
Garret Graves, LA                    Seth Magaziner, RI
Daniel Webster, FL                   Nydia M. Velazquez, NY
Russ Fulcher, ID                     Debbie Dingell, MI
John R. Curtis, UT                   Raul M. Grijalva, AZ
Tom Tiffany, WI                      Grace F. Napolitano, CA
Matt Rosendale, MT                   Susie Lee, NV
Lauren Boebert, CO                   Vacancy
Wesley P. Hunt, TX                   Vacancy
Mike Collins, GA
John Duarte, CA
Bruce Westerman, AR, ex officio

                                 ------                                

                                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
                                     

 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.
    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, 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 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 peer-reviewed scientific criteria for 
that list.
    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 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-of-government 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 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:]
  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 
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 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.
    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 
commodity-related 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.

                                 ______
                                 
 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 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 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 
forward-looking, 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 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ The 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\ Federal 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
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    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-mineral-producing 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    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
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \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-a-winning-
combination-of-cost-quality-and-expertise. Accessed on 6/1/2024
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \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
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Given the importance of refining for critical materials and 
minerals, it is imperative that we invest in research and development 
for domestic production. A long-standing 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 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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\ Nature. ``Sustainability, Equity and Security at Risk in Rush 
for Rare-Earth Metals.'' Nature 619, 436 (2023).
    \4\ U.S. Geological Survey, 2024, Mineral commodity summaries 2024: 
U.S. Geological Survey, 212 p., https://doi.org/10.3133/mcs2024
    \5\ Shihui 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/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \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
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \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-power-semiconductors-
for-evs-en

    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.

  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 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.
    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.
    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 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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Fertilizer 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.
    \4\ The Canadian Critical Minerals Strategy--Canada.ca
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \5\ Stewart, 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
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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, 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \6\ Impacts and Repercussions of Price Increases on the Global 
Fertilizer Market/USDA Foreign Agricultural Service
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \7\ International Fertilizer Association, ``Helping to Feed the 
World Sustainably: Public Summary Medium-Term Fertilizer Outlook 2023-
2027,''pp. 4-6, June, 2023
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    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 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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \8\ U.S. Geological Survey. Mineral commodity summaries 2023. (U.S. 
Geological Survey, 2023).
    \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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \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
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \14\ Mineral Commodity Summaries 2024 (usgs.gov)
    \15\ Phosphate Rock (d9-wret.s3.us-west-2.amazonaws.com)
    \16\ Phosphate 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/the-evolution-of-
perus-multidimensional-challenges-part-iii-engage-ment-with-china/
#::text=By%20 
the%20end%20of%202021,percent%20of%20its%20copper%20output.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \18\ Water Treatment Chemical Supply Chain Profile-Phosphate Rock 
(epa.gov)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    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), 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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \19\ Impacts and Repercussions of Price Increases on the Global 
Fertilizer Market/USDA Foreign Agricultural Service
    \20\ Mineral Commodity Summaries 2024 (usgs.gov)
    \21\ Potassium Depletion: The Invisible Threat to Global Food 
Security (scitechdaily.com)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \22\ Potash facts (canada.ca)
    \23\ Id. Canada (46%), Russia (17%), Belarus (10.7%) and Israel 
(7.6%), respectively
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \24\ Plenty of Potash, but Some Regions Lack Low Cost Sources for 
Crop Production/U.S. Geological Survey (usgs.gov)
    \25\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \26\ Mineral Commodity Summaries 2024 (usgs.gov)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Finally, regarding the third prong, lack of availability of potash 
to U.S. manufacturers negatively impacts fertilizer production. Potash 
goes into important plant 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.

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    

                                 __
                                 

    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.
    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 e-waste 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:]
 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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Owen, J. et al. 2022. ``Fast track to failure? Energy 
transition minerals and the future of consultation and consent,'' 
Energy Research & Social Science, 89: 102665.
    \2\ https://rmi.org/insight/low-carbon-metals-for-a-low-carbon-
world
    \3\ https://www.iea.org/reports/global-critical-minerals-outlook-
2024/market-review
    \4\ https://www.epa.gov/trinationalanalysis/metal-mining
    \5\ https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPURL.cgi?Dockey=20004GRW.TXT
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    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 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \6\ https://ewastemonitor.info/the-global-e-waste-monitor-2024/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \7\ KU Leuven. 2022. ``Metals for Clean Energy: Pathways to solving 
Europe's raw materials challenge.'' Accessed at: bit.ly/
MetalsCleanEnergy
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \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
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \9\ https://unitar.org/about/news-stories/press/global-e-waste-
monitor-2024-electronic-waste-rising-five-times-faster-documented-e-
waste-recycling
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    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 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \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
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \11\ Environmental Justice Foundation. 2024. ``Critical minerals 
and the green transition''. Accessed at: https://ejfoundation.org/
resources/downloads/EJF_critical-minerals-and-the-green-transition.pdf
    \12\ Dominish, 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/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    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 (Li-ion) 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \13\ https://rmi.org/insight/breakthrough-batteries/
    \14\ Transport & Environment. 2023. ``Clean and lean: Battery 
metals demand from electrifying cars, vans and buses''. Accessed at: 
https://www.transportenvironment.org
    \15\ https://www.spglobal.com/commodityinsights/en/market-insights/
latest-news/energy-transition/042122-almost-half-of-tesla-evs-produced-
in-q1-had-no-nickel-cobalt-in-battery#:: 
text=Electric%20vehicle%20maker%20Tesla%20equipped,quarter%20results%20p
resentation %20April%2020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \16\ https://www.climateandcommunity.org/more-mobility-less-mining
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 
similar bridge period. During this time, it is paramount that 
terrestrial, or land-based, 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \17\ MRIWG Final Report. 2023. ``Recommendations for Improving 
Mining on Public Lands''. Accessed at: https://www.doi.gov/media/
document/mriwg-report-final-508-pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \18\ Deonandan 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-energy-transition-
metals/02531033947
    \20\ See Owen et al. 2022.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \21\ https://www.doi.gov/pressreleases/biden-harris-administration-
report-outlines-reforms-needed-promote-responsible-mining
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    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 
(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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \22\ See 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/
    \23\ Warner, 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
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    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 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 
forward-looking, 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 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 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.
    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.
    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.
    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.
    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 supply-demand 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 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.
    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.
    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.]

            [ADDITIONAL MATERIALS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD]

Submission for the Record by Rep. Huffman

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

The full document is available for viewing at:

https://docs.house.gov/meetings/II/II06/20240604/117364/HHRG-
118-II06-20240604-SD004.pdf

                                 [all]
```