Hearings to examine S.362, to allow certain Federal minerals to be mined consistent with the Bull Mountains Mining Plan Modification, S.544, to provide for the location of multiple hardrock mining mill sites, to establish the Abandoned Hardrock Mine Fund, S.596, to establish a pilot program to support domestic critical material processing, S.714, to amend the Energy Act of 2020 to include critical materials in the definition of critical mineral, S.789, to require reports on critical mineral and rare earth element resources around the world and a strategy for the development of advanced mining, refining, separation, and processing technologies, and S.859, to modify the requirements applicable to locatable minerals on public domain land.

1[Senate Hearing 119-46]2[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]34                                                         S. Hrg. 119-4656                          PENDING LEGISLATION78=======================================================================910                                HEARING1112                               BEFORE THE1314                              COMMITTEE ON15                      ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES16                          UNITED STATES SENATE1718                    ONE HUNDRED NINETEENTH CONGRESS1920                             FIRST SESSION2122                                   on2324                                 S. 36225                                 S. 54426                                 S. 59627                                 S. 71428                                 S. 78929                                 S. 85930                               __________3132                             MARCH 12, 202533                               __________3435               [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]3637                       Printed for the use of the38               Committee on Energy and Natural Resources3940        Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.govinfo.gov4142                                ------4344                  U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE454660-022                    WASHINGTON : 20254748               COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES4950                        MIKE LEE, Utah, Chairman51JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming               MARTIN HEINRICH, New Mexico52JAMES E. RISCH, Idaho                RON WYDEN, Oregon53STEVE DAINES, Montana                MARIA CANTWELL, Washington54TOM COTTON, Arkansas                 MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii55DAVID McCORMICK, Pennsylvania        ANGUS S. KING, Jr., Maine56JAMES C. JUSTICE, West Virginia      CATHERINE CORTEZ MASTO, Nevada57BILL CASSIDY, Louisiana              JOHN W. HICKENLOOPER, Colorado58CINDY HYDE-SMITH, Mississippi        ALEX PADILLA, California59LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska               RUBEN GALLEGO, Arizona60JOHN HOEVEN, North Dakota6162                  Wendy Baig, Majority Staff Director63            Patrick J. McCormick III, Majority Chief Counsel64                Jeanne Kuehl, Professional Staff Member65                 Jasmine Hunt, Minority Staff Director66                 Sam E. Fowler, Minority Chief Counsel67            Maya Hermann, Natural Resources Policy Director6869                            C O N T E N T S7071                              ----------7273                           OPENING STATEMENTS7475                                                                   Page76Lee, Hon. Mike, Chairman and a U.S. Senator from Utah............     177Heinrich, Hon. Martin, Ranking Member and a U.S. Senator from New78  Mexico.........................................................     37980                               WITNESSES8182Haddock, Rich, Senior Advisor, Barrick Gold Corporation..........     583Somers, Brian, President, Utah Mining Association................   10684Wood, Chris, President and CEO, Trout Unlimited..................   1118586          ALPHABETICAL LISTING AND APPENDIX MATERIAL SUBMITTED8788American Exploration and Mining Association:89    Statement for the Record.....................................   14190Backcountry Hunters and Anglers et al.:91    Letter for the Record........................................   17292Baratta, Tom:93    Letter for the Record........................................   17494Bull Mountain Land Alliance and Northern Plains Resource Council:95    Letter for the Record........................................   17596Citizens for Responsible Energy Solutions:97    Letter for the Record on S. 714..............................   15398    Letter for the Record on S. 544..............................   15499Haddock, Rich:100    Opening Statement............................................     5101    Written Testimony with attached supplemental material........     7102    Responses to Questions for the Record........................   157103Heinrich, Hon. Martin:104    Opening Statement............................................     3105Lee, Hon. Mike:106    Opening Statement............................................     1107National Mining Association:108    Letter for the Record on S. 714..............................   138109    Letter for the Record on S. 544..............................   139110Outdoor Alliance:111    Statement for the Record.....................................   180112Pfister, Ellen:113    Letter for the Record........................................   186114Somers, Brian:115    Opening Statement............................................   106116    Written Testimony............................................   108117    Responses to Questions for the Record........................   168118Wood, Chris:119    Opening Statement............................................   111120    Written Testimony............................................   113121    Responses to Questions for the Record........................   171122123----------124The text for each of the bills addressed in this hearing can be found125on the Committee's website at: https://www.energy.senate.gov/hearings/1262025/3/full-committee-hearing-to-receive-testimony-on-pending-bills127128                          PENDING LEGISLATION129130                              ----------131132                       WEDNESDAY, MARCH 12, 2025133134                                       U.S. Senate,135                 Committee on Energy and Natural Resources,136                                                    Washington, DC.137    The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:01 a.m. in138Room SD-366, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Mike Lee,139Chairman of the Committee, presiding.140141              OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MIKE LEE,142                    U.S. SENATOR FROM UTAH143144    The Chairman. The Committee will come to order.145    Welcome to the Committee's first legislative hearing of the146119th Congress. Today, we will receive testimony on six bills147listed in the notice for today's hearing. All of these bills148address domestic mining and mineral processing, related149reporting, and public information. Four of these measures have150bipartisan co-sponsors, and a fifth has received some151bipartisan support. Having served on this Committee since 2011,152I am keenly aware that the United States has fallen behind153China and other nations when it comes to mining and mineral154processing. Today's hearing represents a first step in155developing a legislative record on measures to address this156very problem.157    Of course, not all of us will support each measure on which158the Committee will hear testimony today. I don't support all of159the bills listed on the notice for today's hearing. For160example, although I agree that America needs to process more161non-fuel minerals here at home, and I appreciate that Senator162Hickenlooper's bill, S. 596, has Republican co-sponsors, I have163strong reservations about the pilot program that this164legislation would establish.165    Also, I included Senator Lujan's bill, S. 859, in today's166hearing as a courtesy. Senators Henrich, Wyden, and Padilla are167co-sponsors, along with a number of Democratic colleagues.168    Today's hearing is reflective of my intent to sharpen the169Committee's focus on legislation without diminishing our other170responsibilities to consider presidential nominations or to171conduct oversight within our Committee's jurisdiction. We will172begin by moving pending nominations through the Committee as173soon as we have the requisite paperwork on these additional174nominations.175    I want to thank Ranking Member Heinrich and all the members176of the Committee for helping identify the six bills that we177will receive testimony on this morning. After I conclude my178opening statement, we will hear from Senator Heinrich for his179opening statement, and thereafter, I will introduce our180distinguished panel of witnesses. We will hear the witness181testimony, and then move to a round of questions from members.182Members will have five minutes for their questions and we will183alternate between senators on one side of the dais and then the184other.185    If you are here today, it's because you understand that186America's economic strength and national security hinge187ultimately on securing a reliable supply of key materials.188Currently, a majority of the world's mineral extraction and189refinement are controlled by adversarial countries. We have190seen what happens when we rely on these nations for essential191resources--supply chain disruptions, economic vulnerabilities,192and ultimately, tragically, national security risks. It's time193to fix that. The resources are here--right here in the United194States, and we just need the right policies in order for us to195be able to unleash them. My home State of Utah, for example,196has 40 of the 50 minerals deemed essential by the U.S.197Geological Survey. Yet, bureaucratic delays and inconsistent198regulations create often insurmountable barriers to domestic199production.200    A 2024 S&P global survey found that U.S.-based mineral201projects take an average--an average--of 29 years to move from202discovery to production. That is the second longest timeline in203the world. To put that in perspective, if a mine were needed204for defense applications during World War I, using today's205permitting timelines, it wouldn't be operational until after206World War II had come to an end. That is unacceptable. It's one207of the reasons why I have introduced the Critical Mineral208Consistency Act with my colleague from Arizona, Senator Mark209Kelly. Right now, the Department of Energy and the Department210of the Interior have separate, parallel, inconsistent lists of211what counts as critical and what does not. That does not make212any sense.213    In 2023, the Energy Department added copper to its list of214critical materials, recognizing the metal as integral in energy215technologies, but also at risk for supply disruptions by 2035.216But the U.S. Geological Survey left copper off its own list,217even though it is vital for power grids, wind turbines, and218electric vehicles. My bill would require these lists to match.219These designations send a powerful message to investors. The220U.S. Government is backing these supply chains on national221security grounds. If we want private investment in domestic222production, we need clarity and we need consistency. That is223exactly why we need to pass Senators Cortez Masto and Risch's224Mining Regulatory Clarity Act to enable mining on federal land.225    But streamlining regulations is only part of the equation.226This doesn't get to the whole thing we need to get to,227streamlining regulations. We need to go beyond that, and to228truly strengthen our supply chains we must also reject policies229that create additional burdens on domestic production. Imposing230additional federal royalties would only add cost and231uncertainty, potentially shutting down existing projects, and232driving investment overseas--overseas specifically to nations233with far worse, far inferior environmental and humanitarian234standards than what we have here. It would create redundant235fees, as domestic mining projects are already subject to state236and local royalties and taxes. Simply put, these proposals237would make our mineral supply chains less competitive and it238would make them more vulnerable, impacting everything from239economic growth to national security. We cannot afford to drag240our feet any longer. China is racing ahead in mineral241processing and refining. We need to move faster, smarter, and242more strategically. The United States has the resources, the243talent, and the technology. We just need the right policies to244lead this charge. That starts here with hearings like this one245that we are having today, and with legislation like what we246will be discussing at this hearing.247    I look forward to working with my colleagues to ensure that248we have the ability to unlock our full potential and secure249America's mineral future. Thank you.250    I now recognize Senator Heinrich for his opening statement.251252          OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MARTIN HEINRICH,253                U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW MEXICO254255    Senator Heinrich. Thank you, Chairman.256    I am glad that we are holding this hearing today on a set257of issues that are critically important to people and258communities across the country, but particularly in the West.259However, before turning to the topic of today's hearing, I260think it's impossible to talk about any natural resource issue261today without talking about the incredible damage being done to262the workforce that manages those lands and resources for the263American people.264    The illegal firings of probationary staff, rumored to be265just the beginning of staffing reductions, is already reducing266access to public lands, with locked gates and closed visitor267centers at parks across the country. What's more, as we are268considering legislation intended to increase mineral production269on public lands, this Administration is cutting staff at land270agencies that process those same permits. With a voluntary271resignation offer that encouraged some of the most experienced,272highest-performing staff at these agencies to leave public273service, along with illegal firings of staff who were recently274promoted because of their high performance, this Administration275is crippling the very public land agencies that evaluate plans276for new mines. Anyone who is hoping for ``government277efficiency'' out of this Administration can see that what we278are actually getting is government dysfunction.279    Now, to today's hearing, in particular. Modern technologies280involve a lot of raw materials, and as our scientists and281engineers find new and cheaper ways to generate and store282energy, the types and quantities of minerals used in energy283technologies will only continue to grow. Responsible domestic284mining and processing can be part of the solution, but we can't285get there with outdated laws that don't reflect the nation's286needs and priorities today. The law that governs metal mining287on most public lands in the West was written in 1872--more than288150 years ago. Yellowstone had been a national park for barely289two months when the mining law was signed, and New Mexico would290still be a territory for another 40 years. We have actually291learned quite a bit since 1872--how to manage public land for292public benefit, how to conserve habitat for sustainable fish293and wildlife populations, how to protect our drinking and294irrigation water from heavy metals pollution, and how to ensure295a fair return for the commercial development of resources that,296after all, belong to the American people. And yet, our hardrock297mining law remains stuck in the 19th century, right when we298need to build the energy infrastructure of the 21st century.299Updating the 1872 Mining Law could bring public land mining300into the 21st century and provide the minerals that we need for301the energy technologies of today.302    But we are here today to talk about more than just mining,303because mining alone won't solve our supply chain dependence on304adversaries unless we also invest in the entire life cycle of305minerals. This includes increasing our domestic mineral306processing capacity, continuing the onshoring of manufacturing307through the CHIPS and Science Act, and investing in recycling308technologies so that we can reuse the minerals that we already309have. The fact that we export copper and rare earth materials,310as well as things like batteries, to China in the form of311electronic waste is one of the more infuriating realities of312our current system. We should be capturing and reusing the313minerals present within our borders in devices, vehicles,314batteries, and machinery, rather than paying to ship them315overseas.316    I firmly believe we can find ways to secure the minerals we317need for new energy technologies while also protecting our318water, air, and public lands. I believe it's possible to open319new mines while giving local communities a say in whether a320particular location on public land is an appropriate place for321a new mine, just like we do for oil and gas and other uses. And322I am confident that we can find a way to finally fund the323cleanup of legacy mine pollution that contaminates streams and324rivers across the West. I hope that today's hearing will be a325step toward all of those goals.326    The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Heinrich.327    Now, I will be pleased to introduce each of our witnesses.328    It is my pleasure, first, to introduce and welcome Brian329Somers, the President of the Utah Mining Association. Mr.330Somers joined the Association as its President back in 2019. He331previously led the Utah Science, Technology, and Research332Initiative as its Managing Director. Earlier in his career, Mr.333Somers served in leadership and senior staff positions in the334Utah state government and also in private industry.335    Our next witness is Mr. Rich Haddock. Mr. Haddock is an336attorney who has worked in the mining industry for more than 30337years. He spent the last 25 years of that time at Barrick Gold338Corporation in both legal and operational roles and retired as339general counsel in 2022. Mr. Haddock is currently a senior340advisor to Barrick. He is also a member of the Board of the341Directors of Perpetua Resources Corporation. I am pleased to342relate that Mr. Haddock holds a degree in geology from Brigham343Young University and a law degree from the University of Utah344School of Law.345    Finally, we will hear from Mr. Chris Wood, the President346and CEO of Trout Unlimited since 2001. Before joining Trout347Unlimited, Mr. Wood served as the Senior Policy and348Communications Advisor to the Chief of the U.S. Forest Service,349capping a career in government. He is the author and co-author350of numerous papers and articles and three books.351    Okay, so we will now hear from each of the witnesses. Mr.352Haddock, we will start with you, then move to Mr. Somers, and353then Mr. Wood.354355          STATEMENT OF RICH HADDOCK, SENIOR ADVISOR,356                  BARRICK GOLD CORPORATION357358    Mr. Haddock. Chairman Lee, Ranking Member Heinrich, Senator359Cortez Masto, and members of the Committee, thank you for360inviting me to testify today. I believe it is critical to361competitiveness and national security for the United States to362develop a secure mineral supply chain. One only needs to look363at China's export ban of certain strategic minerals to364understand this. I believe we can do much of what is necessary365here at home with a domestic mining industry.366    Over the last 40 years, production of many critical367minerals has become concentrated in just a few mines in368unfriendly jurisdictions where global demands are met by a race369to the bottom--a price of human rights standards, of labor370standards, and of environmental standards. Often, critical371minerals are produced only as byproducts or are found in very372small quantities along with gold, copper, lead, zinc, iron, and373other economically viable minerals. The key to domestic374production of as many of these minerals as possible is a375healthy ecosystem for the U.S. mining industry, policy,376expertise, and investment. The first step in creating a healthy377mining ecosystem is before you today as S. 544, the Mining378Regulatory Clarity Act. This is a bipartisan bill. I testified379in support of it at the request of chairs from both parties.380This bill addresses the confusion, delay, and continuing381litigation created by the Ninth Circuit Rosemont decision,382which upended decades of mining law interpretation and agency383practice. Rosemont, if not addressed, would make it nearly384impossible to site mine support facilities like mills, shafts,385crushers, tailings facilities, and roads. In BLM regulatory386parlance, these are called ancillary facilities, but I think387``necessary'' is really a better adjective because you can't388have a mine without one, and I am grateful the Committee389recognizes that.390    The version of the MRCA before you today responds to391criticisms of the original bill, S. 1281, introduced by Senator392Cortez Masto in the 118th Congress. Initially, industry and393environmental groups worked together to develop a detailed394savings clause to defuse the criticism. When it persisted under395Senator Cortez Masto's leadership, Committee staff worked with396industry representatives and environmental group397representatives to produce this version of the bill. It is the398same language this Committee advanced last fall as part of the399Energy Permitting Reform Act of 2024.400    The MRCA is narrowly tailored. Over the last 50 years, less401than one-third of one percent of the land in Nevada has been402included in a plan of operations. This, the state with the most403mining and 85 percent federal land. Only a portion of the404ground inside a plan of operations is disturbed and only a part405of that disturbed ground contains ancillary facilities. These406subsection (c) mill sites created by the bill can only be407located inside a proposed plan of operation, which only happens408when you have a real mine. Real mines are few and far between,409and honestly, I wish we had a few more, and perhaps our410critical mineral concerns might not be as acute as they are411today.412    So with that, I applaud that the Congress recognizes the413strategic importance of minerals as represented by the three414critical mineral bills before the Committee. I thank the415sponsors for their work on these bills. The Chairman's Critical416Mineral Consistency Act is common sense--one list, that is417dynamic, to guide policy.418    I applaud the goals of the Critical Minerals Future Act, S.419596, because it recognizes there are market forces that inhibit420the domestic production of these minerals and proposes ways to421begin to address those forces. I thank Senator Hickenlooper and422his staff for their extensive outreach to industry and effort423on the bill. I also appreciate that S. 789 recognizes that the424U.S. needs to be as resource-savvy as our global competitors.425Importantly, I think these bills underscore the need to focus426on and improve our knowledge of potential domestic resources427for these minerals, which I believe should be our long-term428primary goal.429    And finally, while not today's topics, I would be remiss if430I didn't, number one, thank the Committee on Environment and431Public Works for recognizing that permitting and associated432judicial review needs to be improved, and for your ongoing work433on these issues. And number two, acknowledge, thank, and434congratulate Senator Heinrich for his tireless effort on the435Good Samaritan bill last year, which was a great step in the436right direction, and we were delighted to see signed into law.437    Thank you, and I look forward to any questions.438    [The prepared statement of Mr. Haddock follows:]439440    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]441442    The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Haddock.443    We will hear from Mr. Somers next.444445             STATEMENT OF BRIAN SOMERS, PRESIDENT,446                    UTAH MINING ASSOCIATION447448    Mr. Somers. Chairman Lee, Ranking Member Heinrich, and449other members of the Committee, thank you for the invitation to450testify.451    Mining is a critical industry in Utah, contributing $7.7452billion to the state's GDP, supporting nearly 57,000 direct and453indirect jobs, and powering Utah's broader economy by producing454the coal which provides 62 percent of Utah's low-priced455electricity. Mining jobs in Utah are family- and community-456sustaining jobs, with mining salaries averaging 46 percent more457than the average Utah wage. The recent actions of China to ban458or restrict the export of critical minerals or mineral459processing technologies, which they control, should highlight460the need to strengthen our domestic mining and mineral461processing capabilities and reshore critical mineral supply462chains. Of the ten minerals or mineral groups currently subject463to Chinese export bans or restrictions--rare earth elements,464antimony, germanium, gallium, graphite, tungsten, tellurium,465bismuth, molybdenum, and indium--Utah has the capacity to466produce nine. Utah is currently producing the rare earth467elements tellurium and molybdenum. Utah has proven and very468rare primary resources of germanium, gallium, and indium and469significant historical production of antimony, tungsten, and470bismuth.471    As the Chairman mentioned, Utah hosts 40 of the 50 critical472minerals on the Department of the Interior's current critical473minerals list--40 of the 50 critical minerals in just one474state, admittedly one with an unusually rich and diverse475mineral endowment. Add occurrences of critical minerals in476other states, and there is little reason the U.S. should be as477dependent as it is on foreign critical mineral supply chains,478again, with our geopolitical adversary, China, as the dominant479global producer. Our current situation is the result of a lack480of investment in and support of our domestic mining and mineral481processing industries as well as outright market manipulation482by China and other foreign mineral producers. The U.S. mining483industry is committed to responsibly developing our mineral484resources, and it is appropriate that the U.S. has stringent485labor, safety, financial, and environmental regulations.486However, these regulations must also be rational, stable,487economically feasible, and not misaligned with the regulatory488environments of other free and developed nations with major489mining industries--nations like Canada and Australia.490    The Chairman also mentioned the report from S&P Global that491found that the U.S. has the second longest timeline in the492world for developing a new mine--29 years--the worst record of493any country in the world, except for Zambia. That report494states, ``The development of a mine in the U.S. is not only495long and costly, it is unusually uncertain. While developing a496mine in Canada or Australia can also take a long time . . .497those mines do reliably enter production. In the U.S., even if498mines receive all required permits, they are subject to higher499litigation risk. Uncertainty and litigation risk may explain500why exploration budgets committed by investors to Canada and501Australia over the last 15 years have been 81 percent and 57502percent higher than to the U.S.''503    If the U.S. is to have any chance of becoming self-504sufficient in supplying its own critical mineral needs,505Congress and the Federal Government must commit to real506permitting reform, litigation reform, ending federal land and507mineral withdrawals, renewing the diminishment of state primacy508for the enforcement of federal labor and environmental laws,509reversing the decline of mining engineering programs at U.S.510universities, providing grants for research and to do mineral511extraction and processing technologies, and providing incentive512to attract more mineral exploration and other mining investment513to the U.S. A positive first step is the recent introduction of514the Critical Mineral Consistency Act of 2025 by Chairman Lee515and Senator Kelly. This act will end the misalignment between516the Department of the Interior's critical minerals list and the517Department of Energy's critical materials list.518    If the act is passed, it will have a positive effect on519Utah, as we are a major copper producing state. In fact, Utah520is home to one of the largest and most productive copper mines521in the world, the Rio Tinto Kennecott Bingham Canyon Mine. Rio522Tinto Kennecott is not only a world-class copper operation that523has one of only two working copper smelters in the U.S., it is524also Utah's largest producer of critical minerals, currently525producing tellurium, platinum, and palladium, and with the526potential to produce rare earth elements, indium, germanium,527gallium, and many other critical minerals through secondary528recovery. The example of Rio Tinto Kennecott highlights the529fact that many critical minerals are co-mingled with base530metals, precious metals, and other mineral commodities, and why531we must not only support and invest in new mines, but also532expand production in secondary recovery at existing mines and533mineral processing facilities.534    I know the Utah success story on this front is the Energy535Fuels White Mesa Mill in Blanding, Utah. The White Mesa Mill is536the last functioning conventional uranium mill in the U.S., and537which is now also processing monazite, a mineral byproduct538which contains uranium, but also high concentrations of rare539earth elements. Using an existing and already-permitted540facility--and a high dose of rural Utah ingenuity--the White541Mesa Mill has created the most advanced rare earth element542processing operation outside of China, a great step toward543ending that nation's stranglehold on the rare earth supply544chain.545    Again, I appreciate the opportunity to highlight some of546Utah's success stories and to discuss how the Federal547Government can better support state efforts to lead on the548critical minerals front. I look forward to any questions from549the Committee.550    Thank you.551    [The prepared statement of Mr. Somers follows:]552553    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]554555    The Chairman. Thanks, Mr. Somers.556    Mr. Wood, you are next.557558                    STATEMENT OF CHRIS WOOD,559               PRESIDENT AND CEO, TROUT UNLIMITED560561    Mr. Wood. Chairman Lee, Ranking Member Heinrich, and other562Committee members, thank you very much for inviting me to563testify today.564    Trout Unlimited has been involved in mining issues for a565long time, from protecting special places, such as Bristol Bay566in Alaska, to working with the mining industry and other567partners to clean up legacy pollution from abandoned mines.568Domestic mineral production helped to build our nation. It won569two world wars. It fueled westward expansion and provides the570raw materials for modern society. At the same time, historic571mining left hundreds of thousands of abandoned mines that dot572the landscape, leeching their toxic brew of lead, zinc,573cadmium, arsenic, and other pollutants into our rivers and574streams. To be certain, there is no constituency for acid mine575waste and orange rivers. There is, however, a bipartisan576commitment to clean up abandoned mines, to encourage577responsible mining, and to propel the needs of a clean energy578future while making our rivers and streams cleaner and our579communities healthier. Working together, we have an opportunity580to craft a path forward that is collaborative, innovative, and581responsible.582    In 1872, the General Mining Law helped to spur settlement583of the West. Today, it is an anachronism in need of584modernization. The EPA estimates that 40 percent of western585headwater streams are negatively affected by abandoned hardrock586mines. These are, by and large, not contemporary mines. They587were built many decades or even a century ago. An analysis588conducted by Trout Unlimited scientists found that589approximately 110,000 miles of streams, enough to encircle the590earth four times, are listed as impaired, and abandoned mines591are a major source of these impairments. Thanks last year to592the leadership of Senator Heinrich, Senator Risch, and many593other members of this Committee, Congress passed the Good594Samaritan Remediation of Abandoned Hardrock Mines Act of 2024.595The new law is proof that the mining industry and conservation596interests can find common ground and pass common-sense mining597legislation.598    Tens of thousands of abandoned mines negatively affect our599nation's waters. The reality is that this is a completely600solvable problem. Just about every commodity produced from our601public lands has an associated royalty or fee that helps to602address remediation from legacy development. I appreciate that603mining companies must make years and often millions of dollars604in investments before they can mine, but there should be a605common-sense royalty once new mines are up and running to help606pay for the cleanup of legacy mines. The coal industry alone607has paid more than $12 billion in royalties since 1977 to help608clean up abandoned coal mines across Appalachia and parts of609the West. If we can do it with coal, we can do it with hardrock610minerals, especially given the immense need.611    Finally, professional land managers should be able to deny612a mine if it is proposed in a community drinking water supply,613a sacred site, or an exceptional fish and wildlife habitat. But614that denial should happen early in the process, before a mining615company has invested tens of millions of dollars in exploration616or development. Between the industry's desire for certainty,617the confusion caused by the Rosemont decision, the obvious need618for a royalty, and the equally obvious need for some measure of619discretion as to where mining can and should occur, there is an620agreement to be had. We have fought and bickered and disagreed621over mining on public lands for over 100 years. Certainly,622there is a common-sense compromise within our reach that would623provide sufficient, dedicated funding for abandoned mine624cleanups, allow that certain landscapes are inappropriate for625mining, and at the same time, address the legal and regulatory626certainty needed for investment by the mining industry. You627have Trout Unlimited's commitment to continue working in good628faith to strike that balance.629    Thank you for the opportunity to be here today.630    [The prepared statement of Mr. Wood follows:]631632    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]633634    The Chairman. Thanks so much for your opening testimony. We635will now proceed to questions. We will be alternating between636Republicans and Democrats in five-minute rounds.637    Mr. Somers, I would like to start with you.638    Last month, I introduced a bill called the Critical Mineral639Consistency Act, and I did this in order to try to align the640Department of the Interior's critical minerals list with the641Department of Energy's critical materials list. Can you explain642for us, Mr. Somers, why both critical minerals and critical643materials are essential to the United States, particularly with644regard to our economic, energy, and national security?645    Mr. Somers. Absolutely. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I applaud you646for introducing this particular piece of legislation because647the disparities between the lists that the Federal Government648has maintained, especially between the DOI list and the DOE649list, have been perplexing to the mining industry for a number650of years now, and in many cases, again, when you are talking651about critical minerals specifically, a lot of these critical652minerals, as I mentioned in my testimony, are co-located with653base metals and precious metals and other things that may not654appear on either of these lists. But in particular, in the case655of Utah, again, our most productive copper mine is also our656most productive critical mineral mine. And so, making sure that657you have equal consideration from the Federal Government for658both the critical minerals and minerals like copper is really659essential.660    The other issue that comes to the fore here is that, you661know, regardless of what national defense technology or energy662transmission technology you are talking about, I mean, they are663going to rely both on things like copper, and on some of the664more boutique minerals, you know, that are on the critical665minerals list. And so, you know, while you have a large number666of rare earths, for example, that will go into an F-35, which667we have a lot of in Utah, you also need a lot of copper to make668an F-35. You also need vanadium for the alloys that go into669those airframes. And so, again, having some consistency from670the federal perspective when it comes to any potential fast-671track permitting or grants and research and other things is672essential in order for us----673    The Chairman. Why does it matter for us to try to produce674those in the United States rather than importing them?675    Mr. Somers. Right, absolutely. I mean, again, as you have676seen from the recent actions of China, I mean, if you have677something like antimony, for example, that is banned, that678prevents us from manufacturing munitions in the United States679because those are critical to go into, again, munitions, the680national defense systems, and other things. And so, it does681become a national security risk if we are relying on foreign682producers and especially adversarial foreign producers for683those minerals.684    The Chairman. Makes sense.685    Mr. Haddock, in your testimony, you noted that Nevada,686where Barrick operates, is a state with a lot of federal land,687and Utah faces, of course, a similar challenge with 67 percent688of our land being owned by the Federal Government. When it689comes to mineral development, what additional hurdles do690companies face when trying to develop these things when they691are operating on federal land as compared to either state land692or private land?693    Mr. Haddock. The additional hurdle is permitting--that is,694the timeline for permitting. The permitting timelines on state695or private land would be much quicker, and then, of course, the696litigation risk on the tail-end, where almost every project is697litigated. It makes it very difficult to spend a lot of money,698like for some projects you would spend half a billion dollars699before you get to the point of permitting it. That's a lot of700money to sit there for a long time.701    The Chairman. But when you are going in to operate on702either state land or private land, there is still permitting703required. There is still a potential litigation risk. Tell me704how that risk and the corresponding delays compare between the705two.706    Mr. Haddock. There is kind of a broader range of litigation707risk because of, number one, NEPA. The federal agencies that708administer the public lands do an absolutely great job of709bringing together mountains of data, analyzing all the range of710issues that that they have to consider under the various laws.711But what tends to happen in those cases is that the courts tend712to flyspeck the EISs and nitpick until they find one issue that713they don't think has been adequately addressed and then you are714back to supplemental EIS.715    The Chairman. Okay, so does that suggest that the716additional time consumed in the federal process doesn't717necessarily produce a cleaner, safer outcome-- it's more718flyspecking and time consuming, but not necessarily with a719corresponding benefit to environmental quality? And if this is720the case, how does this impact--how does that situation,721compounded by recent court decisions, how does that impact722investment in project development?723    Mr. Haddock. Well, it makes it harder to invest, but you724are absolutely right. NEPA was enacted before many of the725detailed federal environmental laws that have performance726standards. And what commonly happens is, whether you are727working on state land or private land or federal land, you have728to comply with all those laws. What typically happens to an EIS729process is, additional mitigation measures are imposed,730additional performance standards are imposed, and then they are731litigated over. So that's kind of the additional burden from732that.733    The Chairman. Thank you. My time is expired.734    Senator Heinrich.735    Senator Heinrich. Thank you, Chairman.736    Mr. Wood, according to the GAO, there are at least 140,000737abandoned hardrock mine features just on federal land--and GAO738actually points out itself that that information, where those739sites are, is so lacking that the true number may actually be740closer to half a million features on public land alone. That741leads into the dynamic that you described of something like 40742percent of headwater streams being impaired--places that should743run clear and be home to trout--running orange and acidic,744which certainly impacts both irrigation and municipal water745supplies. Walk us through what the primary impediments are to746being able to clean up those sites and how much of it is purely747a resource constraint.748    Mr. Wood. Well, thanks to your good work, sir, on the Good749Samaritan Remediation of Abandoned Hardrock Mines Act, one of750the primary problems--liability issues--is at least being751addressed in a pilot program over the next seven years. But the752single largest and most fundamental challenge that we face on753cleaning up abandoned mines is that there is no dedicated754funding source for it. So TU has managed to do about 50755abandoned mine cleanups around the country. And the way we are756able to do that, in spite of the liability, is we get federal757agencies to agree to hold the liability for us, and it's only758on public land that we can do that.759    But we have to cobble--we have to beg, borrow, and steal to760get that money. It's membership dollars. The mining industry,761frankly, has been generous in supporting a lot of abandoned762mine cleanups--foundations, private citizens. Unlike with coal,763unlike with oil, unlike with gas, there is no dedicated funding764source that we can rely on.765    Senator Heinrich. Mr. Haddock, is it reasonable to expect766mining companies to make some contribution toward that effort?767    Mr. Haddock. Senator, let me answer that one this way: we768have said over the years that we would support a reasonable net769royalty. Now, there are, as you have heard me say before, there770are issues about that, including that we should look at total771government take. And when you look at total government take, in772the form of taxes and royalties to state and local governments,773that the amount that you pay to operate in Nevada is really774commensurate with what we would pay to operate in Australia or775Canada. That said, we support a reasonable net royalty. Net776royalty is preferable because in the hardrock mineral context,777the ore bodies are extremely complex and different, and net778represents--net actually recognizes the difference between ore779bodies. You don't have to go about determining what kind of780royalty rate for which ore body.781    The other thing I would note is the way--we have to782remember the state and local taxes, because the way the mining783law was set up to begin with was, it really left taxation and784royalties to state governments. It is interesting because when785they pulled oil and gas out of the mining law in 1920, they786made the royalty a federal royalty, but then the Federal787Government collects it and then distributes it back to the788states. And so, with that, I would say that we support it. We789would support actually a reasonable net royalty that is790earmarked first for abandoned mine land reclamation.791    Senator Heinrich. Good. That's very helpful. So it sounds792like the main issues here are creating some sort of regulatory793certainty and permitting certainty so that the capital does not794have to be ridiculously patient. There is the issue of actually795being able to have some sort of revenue source that is796reasonable to be able to clean up the existing mine lands797problem, and then the issue that Mr. Wood brought up, of some798level of discretion within the public land management agencies799so that you don't get into the sort of intractable arguments800that oftentimes lead to litigation.801    Do you foresee, Mr. Haddock, a potential sort of global802solution here where you could have a lot more certainty at the803front end, and then come up with a reasonable number that does804take into account those variations and then be able to have a805more predictable way to clean up all of the legacy issues?806    Mr. Haddock. I think all of those things can happen without807wholesale revision of the mining law. Those are discrete issues808that I think can be addressed discretely. My view on certainty809up front is, that's what the BLM's land resource planning810process is about, and I think that's where the certainty needs811to come. That's where the resources that need to be protected812need to be identified because once you start exploring, you813need to be able to continue.814    Senator Heinrich. So you basically need a map of like where815this is going to be embraced and it's permissive, and where the816places where maybe there is enough of a conflict that it's not817appropriate.818    Mr. Haddock. And that process exists and is in place today819in the BLM districts.820    Senator Heinrich. Thank you.821    The Chairman. Senator Daines.822    Senator Daines. Chairman, thank you.823    I want to talk about the Bull Mountains coal mine. This is824a mine near Roundup, Montana. It plays a crucial role in825Montana's energy economy. The mine employs 250 people. Now,826these are high-paying jobs with good benefits. It generates827over $90 million a year in state, local, and federal taxes and828revenues. It is the lifeblood of Musselshell County.829Unfortunately, these jobs are now at risk and the life of the830mine and the community it serves are in limbo. It's because of831the checkerboard federal ownership in Montana, as well as this832longwall mining process, that this mine is running out of833permitted coal and might be forced to close. And this is why I834introduced Senate bill 362. It's a targeted, short-term fix835that allows the mining of very specific federal minerals to836ensure that we have enough time to find a longer-term solution837for the mine. This bill simply allows the mine to continue838mining the same materials it has for decades under the same839permit it has had for years.840    Last Congress, this Committee passed this identical bill841with a bipartisan vote. I want to thank my colleagues on this842Committee for working with me to make that happen, and I hope843we can again pass this short-term fix so these workers in844Montana can continue to provide for their families. Mining jobs845saw a major hit in Montana over the last couple of years. The846Bull Mountains Mine recently had to lay off dozens of847hardworking Montanans because they have run out of permitted848coal. And recently, the Stillwater Mine, the United States only849platinum and palladium mine, which is used in catalytic850converters to keep our air clean, it recently laid off 700851Montanans. We can't afford the loss of any more jobs for these852Montana miners. That's why we must pass this bill and get it on853the President's desk.854    Mr. Somers, as the President of the Utah Mining855Association, you understand how vital the mining industry is to856building jobs, local communities, national security, and tax857revenues. In Montana, coal-fired plants provide the largest858share of Montana's electricity generation, accounting for 45859percent of Montana's in-state generation. The coal industry not860only supplies Americans with a low-cost, reliable, and secure861source of energy--it's called baseload power--but it also862generates millions of dollars of federal, state, and local863revenue per year, and creates hundreds of very good-paying jobs864in Montana.865    Mr. Somers, can you speak to the importance of supporting866our coal jobs and ensuring that coal mines, like the Bull867Mountains Mine in Montana, continue to provide revenue for our868states as well as our counties?869    Mr. Somers. Absolutely, thank you, Senator.870    Utah is very similar to Montana with regard to its coal871industry. We also deal with checkerboard ownership. We deal872with, you know, underground mines, and the planning that has to873go into that. And like Montana, the vast majority of our874electricity is provided by coal-fired generation. I mentioned875in my testimony that, you know, mining jobs, on average in876Utah, pay about 46 percent more than the Utah average wage, but877when you go into our coal-producing counties, the number can go878over 100 percent. So in many of our coal-producing counties,879especially in central Utah, mining companies--coal mining880companies--are by far the largest private employer, and provide881very essential revenue, and not just for the direct mining882jobs, but for all of the service jobs that go into those883particular industries. And Utah in particular, like Montana,884has made a very concerted effort to ensure that our coal mines885stay healthy, and also that our coal-fired generation plants886are preserved and we are able to provide that essential887baseload power so that we can continue to have the type of888economic growth that we have become used to in Utah over the889last number of years.890    Senator Daines. You know, it's fascinating when you have891conversations with technology leaders today. You are chatting892with--whether it's Google or AWS or Microsoft and others--893before you start talking about the technology, perhaps AI, the894first conversation right now is the shortage of baseload power.895It is the constraint for innovation here for our country long-896term, and grateful that we have baseload power in these coal-897fired plants.898    Chairman Lee, I want to close by saying thanks for holding899this hearing. I can't stress enough the importance of passing900this bill, Senate bill 362. It has been passed before in this901Committee, ensuring that the Roundup and the Musselshell902community isn't left behind because of federal inaction. The903Federal Government has been slow-rolling this. This is a short-904term fix to allow the process to finally become completed for a905long-term solution. This will allow enough time for the Trump906Administration to finalize a new permit, for Congress to pass907legislation like my Crow Revenue Act, to bring long-term908economic certainty for the workers, Musselshell County, as well909as the Crow Reservation and the Crow Nation.910    Mr. Chairman, thank you.911    The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Daines.912    We will turn next to Senator King.913    Senator King. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.914    This discussion reminds me of a little-known biblical915provision where God came to Moses and said, ``I have good news916and bad news.'' Moses said, ``What's the good news?'' God said,917``I am going to allow you to part the waters of the Red Sea. My918people will escape. The waters will then come back and engulf919Pharaoh's army.'' Moses said, ``God, that's wonderful. What's920the bad news?'' God said, ``You prepare the environmental921impact statement.''922    [Laughter.]923    Senator King. Sorry, I couldn't resist.924    [Laughter.]925    Senator King. Mr. Haddock, why does the permitting take so926long? And I used to work on permitting of energy projects. We927thought four or five years was a long time. Why does it take 29928years? What are the bottlenecks?929    Mr. Haddock. The permitting itself doesn't take 29 years,930but the average EIS is about four years for a mining project931now. There is a massive amount of baseline data and work that932has to go in--back, you know, in an iterative process with the933agency, and there are just detailed studies, and then at the934tail-end there are massive numbers of comments that then have935to be responded to that require additional work. It is just a936very long process that is, at this point, managed by very937dedicated, very capable federal employees that are stretched938very thin.939    Senator King. We hope that those federal employees will940still be here after the next several months, but that's another941subject.942    What about--how do we look on cooperation with our943international neighbors? For example, Canada, Australia,944allies--do we need to have more cooperative relationships in945that situation, Mr. Somers? Talk about mining as an946international factor.947    Mr. Somers. Sure. And I think that we do have to948distinguish between countries that are allies and countries949that have similar environmental and labor standards like Canada950and Australia, as you mentioned. You know, a good example of951cooperation that we see in Utah is the production of tellurium.952So tellurium is mined at the Bingham Canyon Mine--the Rio Tinto953Kennecott Mine, and then it's actually sent to Montreal for954processing and then sent back to Utah and to Arizona for955manufacturing into----956    Senator King. I don't want to calculate the tariff of that957going back.958    Mr. Somers. Sure. But I do think that, again, finding ways959to utilize allied supply chains, and also utilizing existing960facilities is very important because in many cases you are961going to be able to get to actual production much quicker if962you are utilizing existing facilities than if you are trying to963build them from greenfield operations.964    Senator King. Absolutely. So one word that hasn't been965mentioned much this morning is processing. My understanding,966for example, is that a great deal of lithium comes from967Australia, but something like 85 percent of the processing is968done in China. Should we also be talking about processing when969we are talking about mining? Aren't they interrelated in a way,970because, ultimately, we need that product, the result of the971processing?972    Mr. Somers. Absolutely. If you are producing extracted973minerals here in the U.S. but you are having to send them to974China or another unfriendly nation for processing, then you975haven't really solved the problem at all. So processing needs976to be part of this conversation at every level.977    Senator King. So that should be part of what we are978discussing here in terms of bottlenecks and that process. And I979think you touched on this, but my notes were, who pays for980abandoned mine cleanup? And it sounds like it's sort of catch-981as-catch-can, Mr. Wood. There is no steady source of available982funds.983    Mr. Wood. That's right, and I would be remiss not to984mention again that the mining industry has been very supportive985of helping to clean up abandoned mines so long as they don't986have to hold the liability. But that's the big problem, we987don't have a dedicated funding source to get ahead of these988abandoned mines that dot the landscape.989    Senator King. One sort of parenthetical question. Mr.990Somers, you mentioned a mine that was producing a lot of991important minerals, and there were other minerals there that992could be produced at that mine. If you are going after lithium,993and you have discovered tellurium, do you have to go through994another permitting process, or can that mine expand its995production of additional materials without additional delay?996    Mr. Somers. To be honest, that depends on that operation,997and it depends on the regulatory environment within the state998where that operation is taking place, but in most cases, it is999easier to go and to produce new minerals from an existing1000permitted facility, because in many cases it's a matter of1001finding ways, you know, through secondary recovery processes to1002pull other minerals out of a waste stream in many cases. And1003so, again, it depends on the type of operation, but generally1004you are better off, and can get to actual production quicker if1005you are using existing permitted facilities.1006    Senator King. Thank you. I am out of time.1007    Mr. Haddock, I want to continue our discussion of net1008versus gross royalties, and if you would give us some written1009material on why mining should be treated different than oil and1010gas or coal in terms of the way the royalty is calculated. So1011we are out of time here, but I look forward to having some--1012maybe a page or two on that subject.1013    Thank you.1014    Mr. Haddock. I can point you to materials we submitted to1015the Committee before, and I will do that.1016    Senator King. Thank you.1017    The Chairman. Senator Cortez Masto.1018    Senator Cortez Masto. Thank you. Thank you to the1019panelists. Rich and Chris, great to see you again. Mr. Somers,1020thank you for joining us as well. I am going to do this on1021behalf of my mining companies in Nevada, but I know they would1022invite any Senator on this panel to come and see hardrock1023mining in the State of Nevada. I think it is important to see1024it and understand what is going on to recognize the challenges1025that they are facing and why they are talking about net1026royalties. So I appreciate that.1027    Thank you also for the hard work that I know you have done1028on the Mining Clarity Act, and the work that we have done1029together to really focus on some of the challenges that we1030heard at the last Committee. Now, this is based on those1031challenges. We amended it. It passed out of Committee in a1032bipartisan way last Congress, but I want to put to bed some of1033the stuff that we are still hearing out there with respect to1034this act. So Mr. Haddock, if you would, when we came together1035to address some of the concerns that we heard last time, there1036were concerns that the Mining Clarity Act would allow mining in1037national parks, monuments, and other withdrawn areas. Can you1038address that? Can you talk a little bit about whether that's1039true or not?1040    Mr. Haddock. The savings clause in the act makes clear, and1041we worked extensively with Trout Unlimited and others on that,1042that it does not affect any of the laws that govern mining in1043the parks, and it does not change anything that's been1044withdrawn. If it has been withdrawn, it's gone. And I think1045it's crystal clear in the act.1046    Senator Cortez Masto. Mr. Wood, you would agree?1047    Mr. Wood. I would.1048    Senator Cortez Masto. Thank you.1049    And then, Mr. Haddock, can you also confirm that the1050savings clause and the restructuring of the language, which1051includes adding the provision to deposit the mill site annual1052maintenance fees into an abandoned mine reclamation cleanup1053fund exists? And that was part of this discussion as we try to1054address some of the concerns. We recognize there is not a1055dedicated funding source, but this was an attempt to try to1056start that process. Is that right?1057    Mr. Haddock. It was, and it was a really convenient way to1058do it because this is a new kind of mining claim, and it was1059great to just tie it to abandoned mine reclamation.1060    Senator Cortez Masto. Yes, and if you would address the new1061kind of mining claim, because this new language limits where1062these new mill site claims can be located. And there is an1063accusation that somehow this is also a land giveaway or that1064new claims would blanket all of our public lands. Would you1065address that?1066    Mr. Haddock. Yes, new claims wouldn't blanket all of our1067public lands. As I have said, it's only a very, very small1068percentage of Nevada's lands that is even inside a plan of1069operations compared to the 22 percent that has already been1070withdrawn and the nine percent that's proposed to be withdrawn.1071We are talking about a tiny percentage of one percent of the1072state that is in plans of operations. And only part of that is1073the ancillary facilities. And so, in order to locate one of1074these new subsection (c) mill sites, you have to have a plan of1075operations. You have to have a real mine. You just can't go out1076and put them anywhere on federal land. You have to have been1077working there. You have to have been drilling. You have1078prepared a plan of operations. You are going into an EIS. You1079have spent tens of millions of dollars at a minimum.1080    Senator Cortez Masto. For that plan of operation.1081    And then, Mr. Haddock, finally, this bill does not overturn1082or reverse the Rosemont decision. The bill leaves Rosemont in1083place. It just creates a new path that miners can choose to1084take. Can you discuss under what circumstances a mining company1085may choose to take this new path?1086    Mr. Haddock. Well, from my perspective, it's an easy choice1087because it's clear, and I don't have to fight in permitting1088over whether or not a given lode claim is valid in the sense1089that it has an economically minable mineral deposit on it1090before I put my crusher on top of that. I don't have to argue1091about whether or not that claim is still valid when I mine1092through it in the underground and I still have a crusher1093sitting on top of it. It eliminates those issues.1094    Senator Cortez Masto. Right, but a mining company can1095choose if they want to go under the Rosemont decision as a way1096to exist, they can move through that path or they can move1097through this path setting forth an operational plan with a mill1098site and contributing to abandoned mine cleanup. Is that right?1099    Mr. Haddock. They can.1100    Senator Cortez Masto. Okay, so there is still a choice1101for----1102    Mr. Haddock. There is still a choice.1103    Senator Cortez Masto. Okay, I appreciate that.1104    And then, finally, let me just say thank you to all of you.1105You have heard the hurdles. There is no doubt the permitting1106process is the hurdle. We absolutely need to, in the West, make1107sure that our federal agencies that are crucial to us1108continuing this mining in Nevada--it is the BLM and DOI--that1109they are adequately funded and staffed. But we also have to1110make sure, and I am going to put a fine point on this, that1111those people in those positions can't use their positions to1112delay permitting by putting it off just because they don't like1113the permitting or the mining that is going on. That is not1114their choice to do. And so, we have to address both ends of it1115when we are looking at moving forward to address the permitting1116process of this as well.1117    So thank you again to the Chairman and Ranking Member for1118this hearing.1119    The Chairman. Let's see--Senator Gallego is next.1120    Senator Gallego. Thank you, Chairman Lee and Ranking Member1121Heinrich, and thank you to our witnesses for your attendance1122today.1123    I have been outspoken about the need to shore up our1124critical mineral supply chains for years, especially for our1125national security, and just our energy future, and Arizona1126certainly can be a leader in this space. Over 70 percent of the1127nation's copper comes from Arizona, along with gold, silver,1128zinc, and many others. As we produce--these minerals and metals1129and advanced technology contribute to our economy and build1130infrastructure. We can do this in a way that protects our1131natural resources too. So I am glad to see multiple bipartisan1132bills on critical minerals in this hearing, and I look forward1133to continuing to work on these issues.1134    So my first question is for Mr. Wood. You mentioned in your1135testimony that, historically, mining has threatened drinking1136water supply and quality. In states like mine, water is a very1137scarce resource that must be conserved and clean. What other1138actions can the Federal Government take to protect and1139remediate our water in the context of mining and critical1140mineral supply chains?1141    Mr. Wood. Thank you, sir, for your question.1142    An important step was taken last year with the passage of1143the Good Samaritan legislation, which will allow for 12 pilot1144projects over the next seven years, and then we have every1145intent of coming back and trying to authorize that legislation1146to remove the liability hurdles that organizations like mine or1147mining companies would face by trying to clean up those1148abandoned mines.1149    The second, again, I mentioned this earlier, but the second1150point is paramount today--it's funding. There is just no1151funding for it. There is no dedicated funding source. So even1152if you didn't have concerns about liability, you still have to1153go out and cobble together hundreds of thousands--occasionally1154millions--of dollars to do these cleanup projects.1155    Senator Gallego. My next question is for Mr. Haddock.1156    Please expand on how the Critical Minerals Consistency Act1157would decrease uncertainty about research and tax credits,1158especially those passed by Congress in the last few years.1159    Mr. Haddock. Senator, I'm sorry, that last part about how1160the consistency would affect research?1161    Senator Gallego. Would decrease uncertainty about research1162and tax credits, especially those passed by Congress in the1163last few years.1164    Mr. Haddock. Well, I think the Act simply decreases the1165uncertainty in mine permitting, and I don't think it really1166affects the research and that end of things.1167    Senator Gallego. Okay.1168    Mr. Wood, back to my question from earlier. You said that1169some of these cleanups can be hundreds of thousands to millions1170of dollars. Is there any national estimate of how much cleanup1171on an annual basis budget we need to actually be effectively1172cleaning up some of these sites?1173    Mr. Wood. On an annual basis?1174    Senator Gallego. Yes.1175    Mr. Wood. It would be nice if we had a billion dollars a1176year, but I am just pulling that out of the air.1177    [Laughter.]1178    Senator Gallego. It would be nice if a lot of us had a1179billion dollars.1180    Mr. Wood. Yes, you know, a lot of these projects, to be1181clear, they are minor construction sites, and my engineers get1182mad at me whenever I say this, but in many cases you are1183dealing with tailings, you dig a ditch, you line with an1184impermeable barrier, you bulldoze the tailings in there, put in1185another impermeable barrier, maybe you dig a French drain1186around it, and then you walk away. So a lot of these are not--1187these are not Superfund sites that we are talking about. These1188are often low-tech construction projects. They get more1189expensive. The reason I used the millions word was, if you have1190to do something like build a wastewater treatment plant, that,1191obviously, would be more expensive than just doing a small1192construction project.1193    Senator Gallego. Okay, thank you. I yield back.1194    Senator Heinrich. So with respect to Senator Gallego's1195question, the EPA estimates that the total liability for these1196sites is about $54 billion. So if we had a billion dollars a1197year, it would still take 54 years to get these sites cleaned1198up.1199    The Chairman. Senator Hickenlooper.1200    Senator Hickenlooper. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thanks for1201having--both you and the Ranking Member--having this hearing,1202and Mr. Haddock, good to see you, and Mr. Somers and Mr. Wood,1203nice to see you again.1204    Obviously, I got a master's in geology back in 1979. Spent1205a fair amount of time looking at the difference between geology1206and resources and what the difference is between a lode that1207could be a mine and a lode that couldn't be a mine. I think if1208you go back and look on a broader scale, we are facing1209challenges now that are going to require a much higher level of1210precision when we make those decisions. And Mr. Haddock,1211obviously you have been clear, you and Mr. Somers both, in1212terms of we have that capability now to a large extent.1213    We have introduced three bills on critical minerals that1214were part of a number of other bills, and they are mostly1215smaller bills, but they are demanding to--we are trying to1216drive innovation, strengthen coordination, make sure we have1217the appropriate alliances. But I thought that this does seem1218like a moment of alignment where we could actually address--1219have a more comprehensive bill that looked at that alignment of1220self interest in terms of really, I think, many people, and my1221first question will be toward you, Mr. Wood, whether you agree1222with this, that many people in the environmental community1223recognize that we are going to need a lot more critical1224minerals if we are going to deal with the challenges of climate1225change--more electric vehicles, wind, solar, you know, all of1226these things demand, not just, you know, rare earth minerals,1227but nickel and copper, I mean, things like this.1228    And so, Mr. Wood, just to start that, do you think it's1229possible that we could--can you imagine some sort of a1230consensus from the environmental side of things that we could1231help establish what would be the criteria, the framework, by1232which mining could take place and processing could take place,1233and by so setting standards, we would then export them once we1234have worked our way through that? And I am not saying this1235happens easily. Is that something you can imagine?1236    Mr. Wood. I can absolutely imagine that. I don't think we1237are that far apart. I mean, coming up with a reasonable--I am1238not an expert in royalties, but coming up with a reasonable1239royalty, I think, is achievable, it sounds like. Building some1240discretion, whether it's the land use plan or upon enactment of1241a bill to make clear that some areas are suitable for1242development, some are not, that sounds achievable. And I would1243be remiss if I didn't say that rare earth minerals, and1244minerals, generally, are absolutely vital for the future of1245this country. And so, I would rather we mine them here and give1246the industry the certainty it needs while providing the1247protections that conservation demands.1248    Senator Hickenlooper. Great, and I agree. I think this is1249obviously a unique time, where we have what is too often rare1250in government, which is the alignment of self interest, and1251that's whether you are working in non-profits, or in1252businesses, or in government, the alignment of self interest is1253the secret to progress.1254    Mr. Haddock, we introduced the Critical Materials Future1255Act to really expand domestic processing of critical minerals1256and directly reduce our reliance on China. It has been already1257said several times that China does so much of the processing1258for so many of these minerals. Can you elaborate a little bit1259on the need for investments both in domestic mining and also1260domestic processing?1261    Mr. Haddock. Well, it's obviously important to have1262processing onshore if you can have it. The materials that we1263would mine and concentrate for processing are still bulk1264materials, and they are expensive to ship.1265    Senator Hickenlooper. Right.1266    Mr. Haddock. So if you have, all things being equal, if you1267have domestic processing, that promotes a domestic industry.1268The other thing I would add is, just to kind of put it in1269context, over the last two decades, China has invested $571270billion in critical mineral supply chain, onshore and offshore.1271They have recognized the need for that and they have been very1272aggressive. And so that's why so much mineral processing is in1273China.1274    Senator Hickenlooper. I agree. Thank you.1275    Mr. Somers, just really quickly, expanding domestic mining1276and processing is going to require a skilled workforce. We have1277only 600 students in the United States right now that are1278enrolled in mining-related programs. Many of them are at the1279Colorado School of Mines, I am proud to say. China has 1.41280million students in mining. How are we going to address this?1281    Mr. Somers. Yes, thank you, Senator. I think that that's a1282huge problem, and not just for the technical degrees--the1283mining engineering, chemical engineering, and other degrees--1284but also for, you know, skilled trades and other things.1285    Senator Hickenlooper. Right.1286    Mr. Somers. You know, I think that the Mining Schools Act1287that was considered in the last Congress is a good first step1288in that to provide some opportunities for our currently1289certified mining schools to go out and recruit more students1290and have more resources available to them. But, you know,1291solving that workforce problem is critical if we are going to1292be able to reshore these supply chains.1293    Senator Hickenlooper. Right. Thank you, all. And I yield1294back only because I have to. I could spend the afternoon1295talking to you. I yield back.1296    The Chairman. Thanks, Senator Hickenlooper.1297    We will now start the second round.1298    Mr. Haddock, I would like to start with you. A few minutes1299ago, you mentioned you would be okay with a new net royalty,1300but that's not, of course, what is being proposed in S. 859.1301How do you think a gross royalty, as proposed in S. 859, would1302affect the industry and would affect essential mining1303investment and development?1304    Mr. Haddock. Well, it would be devastating, as the1305testimonies we submitted on the predecessor to this bill showed1306that that kind of royalty would take 67 percent of the value of1307the operation. It would take it up from about 30, where we1308spend today for total government take, to two-thirds of the1309operation, and that just would make the United States1310impossible to do business in.1311    The Chairman. So you add that on top of the other burdens1312and it would make it an impossibility.1313    Now, Mr. Somers, if there were a net royalty, there might1314be some businesses, some companies, I suspect, that could1315absorb that and deal with it, but what would that do to the1316state of competition in the industry, particularly as it1317relates to smaller companies, those that are less established?1318How would they fare in that environment when they had a net1319royalty added on top of the pre-existing burdens that we have1320been discussing today?1321    Mr. Somers. I think it would be very damaging, and1322especially, again, when the resources, obviously, don't move,1323but the capital can move. And so, companies are going to invest1324where they are going to get the best return. And I think1325especially in the mining industry, where we rely very much on1326small exploration companies and on junior mining companies to1327develop many of these mineral deposits, in many cases, they1328will be sold off to larger companies. I think that, you know,1329having anything that hampers investment, especially in those1330smaller companies, and that front-end of the mining, those1331front-end mining operations, would be very damaging in the long1332term.1333    The Chairman. So we have to look at this, I suppose, as one1334of many market signals. If we were to do that, like I say, even1335though some larger companies could absorb it, a lot of the1336newer exploration, or at least a significant amount of the new1337development, the new exploration, is undertaken by startups, by1338smaller companies. We have to respond to all kinds of market1339signals--market signals that have to take into account whether1340there is federal land involved, whether to what extent there is1341federal permitting involved, and whether to what extent there1342is a federal litigation risk associated with that permitting.1343You add more things on top of that, including a royalty, a new1344royalty, whether that's gross or even net, doesn't that, in1345many circumstances, chill investment in the United States and1346effectively drive it elsewhere?1347    Mr. Somers. Absolutely, and I think it also goes in1348opposition to what many of the states are trying to do to bring1349investment to their state. So in Utah, for example, over the1350past few years we have passed two different tax credits that1351incentivize mineral exploration and also high-cost1352infrastructure associated with mining operations and other1353extractive operations. And so, if you have the states moving in1354a direction where they are trying to incentivize production and1355exploration in order to attract that investment, but on the1356federal side, you are moving in the other direction, then you1357are really canceling those efforts out.1358    The Chairman. Right.1359    Mr. Somers, how would you compare interacting with federal1360authorities on permitting and other matters to state1361regulators? For example, the Utah Division of Oil, Gas, and1362Mining, sometimes referred to as DOGM. What are those two1363experiences like?1364    Mr. Somers. I think, in many cases, you know, as I1365mentioned in my testimony, it's very important that we protect1366primacy for states so that we can manage as many of these1367federal laws and regulations as possible. But in general, I1368mean, the state agencies tend to be more responsive because,1369frankly, we can call their bosses. I mean, we can call, you1370know, the head of the Department of Natural Resources, where1371DOGM is. We can, you know, call the Governor, legislators, and1372get responses there. Whereas, you know, trying to fix problems1373on a federal level becomes much more difficult, you know, and1374not to say that we don't have opportunities to influence those1375agencies through working with our federal delegation and other1376things, but you know, as a general principle, I think, you1377know, the government closest to the people functions the best,1378and we find that in regulatory agencies as well.1379    The Chairman. Do you find--is there any kind of inferior1380environmental outcome or greater risk of environmental harm as1381a result of a decision where jurisdiction is vested in a state1382agency, for example, the Utah Division of Oil, Gas, and Mining,1383as compared to federal authorities?1384    Mr. Somers. We have not witnessed that in Utah.1385    The Chairman. So the biggest significant difference, if I1386am understanding you correctly, is the amount of time, the1387amount of delay, and the uncertainty--shorter, greater1388certainty with the states without a diminished environmental1389outcome?1390    Mr. Somers. Correct.1391    The Chairman. Thank you.1392    Senator Heinrich.1393    Senator Heinrich. Actually, Senator Murkowski hasn't had a1394chance to even have her first round, so I would defer to her.1395    The Chairman. My peripheral vision was off.1396    Senator Murkowski. I know, I am so far down the dais here,1397but that's okay. I show up, and that's so much of what matters.1398    The Chairman. My wife would call that male refrigerator1399blindness, and it claims many victims.1400    [Laughter.]1401    Senator Murkowski. I am going to have to remember that one.1402    I want to thank you for having this hearing. As one that's1403been focused on the issue of critical minerals and the1404vulnerability that we have in this country when it comes to1405being able to access our own, and the increasing reliance on1406countries like China, this is a key issue, and I am glad that1407the Committee is taking it up so early.1408    Mr. Somers, I wanted to start with you. There was an1409interesting article in the Wall Street Journal just a bit ago1410entitled, ``Why the U.S. Keeps Losing to China in the Battle1411Over Critical Minerals.'' You may have seen it. But it tells1412the story of Syrah. This is an Australian company that--I have1413cited this story a fair amount in the Biden Administration1414because what we saw was hundreds of millions of U.S. taxpayer1415dollars that went to support that, even though they were1416planning on sourcing the graphite from a very unstable part of1417Mozambique. It's one of those sources of frustration. You watch1418this whole project. Syrah goes into force majeure last year,1419and so, everything that the U.S. taxpayer has put out there is1420at risk, at jeopardy, and you have continued unrest in1421Mozambique. To me, this was a situation where you had just no1422common sense when it came to the federal investment decisions.1423    And then, I will submit to you that we have some1424opportunities in our own country to be smart about our1425investments, lower risk investments here at home. My colleagues1426have heard about the potential for Graphite One, the largest1427natural graphite deposit in North America. We pushed, we1428pleaded, we did everything that we could to raise the profile1429on this. We did get support from the Defense Production Act.1430That was helpful. But when it came to Department of Energy, it1431was really pretty tough to get any attention here. So I am1432looking at this, and at least with the previous Administration,1433seeing this unwillingness for the Federal Government to invest1434in projects here at home.1435    And so, my question to you is whether or not you think it1436would be wise, advisable, to have some kind of a requirement1437for any federal investments in mineral processing to be tied to1438the extent practical to domestically sourced minerals, because1439we know we are not doing the processing. We want to bring1440processing here. But also, it doesn't make sense if we are1441getting the raw materials from other countries. Speak to this1442if you would, please.1443    Mr. Somers. Absolutely, I think that would be a very wise1444requirement. And again, in my testimony, I mentioned that just1445in Utah we have 40 of the 50 critical minerals on the DOI list,1446you know, and you add the graphite that you mentioned in your1447home state, and mineral occurrences in other U.S. states, there1448is really very little reason that we need to go outside of the1449U.S. to source these minerals. And again, if we have both the1450extraction and the processing happening here domestically, then1451that really does shore up our supply chain and ensure that we1452don't have those economic and national security risks.1453    I would also say that in many cases, not only are there1454natural deposits, but in the case of graphite, for example----1455    Senator Murkowski. Synthetic.1456    Mr. Somers [continuing]. There are opportunities, you know,1457there are projects right now, currently, in Pennsylvania and1458West Virginia that are getting graphite from coal, you know,1459with off-gassing of hydrogen, which can be used for electricity1460generation. And so, there are many opportunities for us to be1461innovative as well and not rely on unstable countries in order1462to extract the raw resources.1463    Senator Murkowski. Well, thank you for that.1464    Let me ask a question of you, Mr. Haddock. In your written1465testimony you briefly mentioned the Bureau of Mines. This was1466abolished back in the '90s. You didn't specifically call for1467its resurrection, but given the importance of what we are1468talking about here today, it's something that I have certainly1469thought about. We have a Department of Energy. Maybe we want a1470Bureau of Mines to look at our mineral security and our1471competitiveness. So what do you think about the idea? What1472would a modern Bureau of Mines look like? What functions would1473they be responsible for?1474    Mr. Haddock. Thank you, Senator. That's a great question.1475    In my mind, as I was looking at these critical minerals1476bills, and everybody was talking about all the coordination1477between all these various agencies, and this agency could do1478this and that, it just felt like there is a need for1479centralization here. And also, one of the things that I have1480talked about before and I have advocated is that there needs to1481be a knowledge base of, you know, as private explorers are out1482working, we need to find a way to be able to share the1483information that's critical to knowing where these byproduct1484minerals are, and in small concentrations. And so, I don't know1485exactly what it would look like, but I certainly know, in a1486business world, you would create a focus on that with a small1487group of people with the right expertise and focus on those1488very narrow questions.1489    Senator Murkowski. Good, well, thank you for that. That1490might be something that the Committee would want to explore,1491Mr. Chairman. You know, where we are trying to eliminate a lot1492of bureaucracy nowadays, but when you are focusing in an area1493as significant as this for our entire economy, it seems to me1494that we might want to give a little more definition. And so,1495certainly something that I would love to work with you all on.1496    Thank you, and I appreciate all of you being here today,1497and Senator Heinrich, thank you for the courtesy of the1498refrigerator look over here.1499    [Laughter.]1500    The Chairman. Thanks so much, excellent suggestion.1501    Senator Heinrich.1502    Senator Heinrich. I am going to defer to Senator1503Hickenlooper. I know he has a second round.1504    Senator Hickenlooper. Great. Let me get back to my question1505there. I got distracted for just that moment. It's always the1506case.1507    You guys have been talking a lot about supply chain, and I1508think that's at the essence of all of these things. Again, I1509want to go back to Mr. Somers.1510    The National Critical Minerals Council Act, to ensure that1511we are, you know, coordinating minerals policy at the highest1512level of government. Can you elaborate on why it's essential to1513elevate critical minerals to the highest levels of the White1514House, obviously, but also to the agency, and how a national1515council or a minerals advisor could enhance that?1516    Mr. Somers. Absolutely, and I would like to echo what Mr.1517Haddock said. I think that, you know, more centralization in1518the Federal Government would be very beneficial in whatever1519form that takes, a Bureau of Mines or a National Critical1520Minerals Council or Minerals Czar. I am not sure exactly, you1521know, what that should look like specifically, but I think that1522ensuring that the Federal Government is working together, and1523you have the Department of Energy, the Department of the1524Interior, the Department of Defense, and the Trade1525Representative, and others, I mean, all the different parts of1526government that need to be involved in these discussions so1527that, you know, we are, again, maximizing our opportunities to1528be self-sufficient with our critical minerals supply chain and1529also dealing with trade issues and other issues that can affect1530investment here in the U.S. is absolutely essential.1531    Senator Hickenlooper. I appreciate that more than you can1532imagine. I think collaboration and coordination is going to be1533in high demand.1534    Mr. Wood, and this is just, again, someone who also loves1535trout, and like many of your members, I enjoy taking the trout1536out of the water, but also putting them back.1537    Mr. Wood. Yes, that's good. That's good.1538    Senator Hickenlooper. I think we have some of the largest1539trout, I think, in the country, if you don't recognize that1540yet.1541    Mr. Wood. Yes, you do.1542    Senator Hickenlooper. What actions can Congress take to1543reduce the impacts of some of these new mining projects? What1544have we not talked about yet where we could get better value?1545    Mr. Wood. You know, I think we have talked about several1546topics already that would reduce impact. I will say that modern1547mining is a lot different than historic mining practices. These1548are well-regulated industries. Most of them are well-1549capitalized. I do think that the two biggest problems with the1550mining law, I don't think are that unfixable. One is, as I1551mentioned earlier, creating a dedicated funding source or1552royalty, and the second issue would be making clear that there1553is discretion for denying a mine permit early in the process.1554    Senator Hickenlooper. Right. I agree. Perfect. Thank you, I1555appreciate that. Obviously, that's a discussion that could go1556on for some hours.1557    Mr. Wood. Yes.1558    Senator Hickenlooper. Mr. Haddock, we talked about a better1559path forward for mining in this country by simpler permitting1560processes, you know, faster responses, but making sure that we1561have the highest environmental standards. And I guess I could1562say, actually to all witnesses, we have already covered a1563number of the permitting bottlenecks that mining companies face1564on projects. But as we resume on this Committee bipartisan1565discussions and solutions, what would you think--each can1566suggest one--what should be our highest priority?1567    Mr. Haddock. I will start. Pass the Mineral Regulatory1568Clarity Act.1569    Senator Hickenlooper. Okay, that's fair.1570    Mr. Somers.1571    Mr. Somers. Again, I think that there has been a lot of1572discussion about permitting reform, and that is absolutely1573critical, and also litigation reform.1574    Senator Hickenlooper. There you go.1575    Mr. Wood. And I would say, again, funding to clean up1576abandoned mines and allowing some more discretion in the1577process for areas where you shouldn't mine.1578    Senator Hickenlooper. All right, absolutely. Well, the1579Ranking Member described, what was it, the $54 billion backlog,1580and yet, the billion dollars a year that you mentioned really,1581it's almost just taking care of what is happening, you know,1582day to day with existing mining, as small as it is. But anyway,1583somehow that has got to come together as well, as we get1584ultimate solutions.1585    Anyway, thank you all, I appreciate your work, and look1586forward to working with you going forward.1587    I yield back.1588    The Chairman. Okay, I really appreciate all three of our1589witnesses for coming here today. You have offered some very1590valuable testimony that we have all benefited from. As you can1591tell, these are issues on which there is a lot of bipartisan1592consensus--not always on the discrete policy proposals at hand,1593but in many areas there is. At a minimum, there is a lot of1594bipartisan consensus over the importance of these issues, and1595that leads often to legislative consensus, or very nearly such.1596    We have some brief housekeeping before we wrap up.1597    I ask unanimous consent to enter into the record some1598letters of support for S. 714, the Critical Mineral Consistency1599Act, and S. 544, from the following organizations: the National1600Mining Association, the American Exploration and Mining1601Association, and Citizens for Responsible Energy Solutions also1602submitted one.1603    And without objection, so ordered.1604    [Letters for the record follow:]16051606    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]16071608    The Chairman. The record for this hearing will remain open1609for two weeks.1610    We thank the witnesses, and we stand adjourned.1611    [Whereupon, at 11:25 a.m., the hearing was adjourned.]16121613                      APPENDIX MATERIAL SUBMITTED16141615                              ----------16161617[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]16181619                                 [all]