Critical Mineral Consistency Act of 2024

Floor Speech

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to H.R. 8446. This bill has a fairly innocuous seeming purpose on its face. It would amend the Energy Act of 2020 to add critical minerals as designated by the Department of Energy to the USGS, which is the agency that handles minerals issues for the United States, to a list of critical minerals.

My colleagues across the aisle will argue that this bill is simply for consistency and to streamline, that we have too many lists to manage critical minerals and materials, which, of course, are so important to our country, so it is important to harmonize these lists and make sure that we are operating the Federal Government in a streamlined manner.

It is critical that the American people understand that this is not the full story. In fact, this bill is the direct result of years of heavy lobbying and influence on the critical minerals list because, as you see, the critical minerals list is defined as all nonfuel minerals that are used as essential materials for national security or that may pose a supply chain vulnerability to disruption. The critical minerals list is designed to focus attention and vital resources on the most essential and at-risk mineral supply chains.

USGS' critical minerals list and DOE's Critical Materials List may sound similar, but they have different purposes because of the differences in how these lists are used and the Federal mandates for these agencies. They have different purposes that are not interchangeable.

The Energy Act of 2020 directed USGS to update the list of critical minerals to guide its use for infrastructure investments under the legislation that we passed here in 2021. As directed by a separate provision in the Energy Act of 2020, the Department of Energy undertook its own assessment of critical materials that were specific to energy needs because that is what the Department of Energy focuses on.

USGS is the agency that has existed since the 19th century here in the United States to take stock of, identify, and support the Federal Government in understanding our geology and minerals and what we do with them.

It affects the entire economy. It may sound very simple to streamline and combine these lists, but not only do they have different purposes, they have far-ranging consequences. The importance of the USGS critical minerals list cannot be overstated. This list drives billions of dollars in Federal investment and permitting decisions.

Mr. Speaker, let me tell you a little bit about what happens if you get placed on the USGS list, which does not apply to the DOE list. It means that companies are eligible for millions of dollars in tax credits and grants under various bills that Congress has passed, including the Inflation Reduction Act, the CHIPS and Science Act, and many others. It also allows for permit streamlining under previous legislation that Congress has passed.

What that essentially translates into is expedited reviews. Folks at home may be saying, well, isn't that a good thing? If you look at the environmental, social, and cultural impacts of mines and how they affect communities, you need a Federal process that makes it possible for our communities to weigh in.

There is a public comment process so that you can go and say that we don't want this mine in this place. For our Tribes, it puts into place a Federal consulting process so that our Tribes can protect their sacred and ancestral lands. For communities, they can comment on the environmental and water impacts of potential mine operations. For our public lands, it means we can protect the sites that are used for recreation for fishing and the values that we hold dear for both environmental and recreational purposes.

Importantly, it also affects the impact of whether or not, after mines go in, there is liability and legal remedy for the pollution that mines cause.

If our public is not able to comment on mines during the permitting process, they will not have judicial standing if these mines are abandoned or there is not appropriate care taken in the aftermath of the mine operations and efforts to close the mine down and remediate the lands. That means that the public taxpayers and the people are left holding the bag, not the multinational mining corporations that are seeking to open these lands for mining.

When you look at it in its totality, the very seemingly simple act of just saying let's harmonize these two lists and put it all under the rubric of the Department of Energy's list may seem like a simple no- brainer. What it amounts to, in its totality, is a massive multimillion-dollar giveaway to multinational corporations that are seeking to mine public lands in the United States.

It should be no surprise that it is industry lobbyists that have been working to get this change in the law for years. We have seen many different incarnations of this bill, some of which have been very explicit about copper, in particular, being added to the list, and some of which are a little more opaque like the bill we see in front of us today.

It is very clear that the copper industry is driving this bill in front of us today. We have to be realistic. Copper is an incredibly important resource. It is used in everything from our transmission lines to our electronics, consumer products, and cars and trucks. Even though it is designated as a critical material for energy purposes under the DOE list, it is not currently on the USGS list because it is not at risk of supply chain disruption.

In fact, the United States is a net exporter of copper. Let me repeat that. Copper is not at risk of supply chain disruption. We are exporting our copper.

So why is industry pushing so hard to open new mines on our public lands? Well, guess what? There is a lot of money to be made, and it turns out that the major holder of the two companies that are pushing for this bill is the Chinese Government. How ironic is that?

In fact, we know that over 10 percent of one of the largest copper mining multinational companies in the world that is seeking to open a copper mine in Arizona is pushing for this bill to expedite the permitting, reduce the timelines, and make sure that the public and Tribes cannot comment on whether or not they want the mine there.

We know that there are mine sites that have been identified that would be on sacred lands, and we know that it would have devastating impacts for the water supply of the State of Arizona and the entire Southwest.

In addition to that, copper mining is an incredibly disruptive activity. It is pollution heavy. It impacts the landscape. Smelters are notorious for emitting air pollutants. In Arizona, arsenic levels have been recorded at 150 times higher than State health guidelines, posing higher cancer risks to communities. We know the well-known impacts to water and to acid mine drainage in our communities.

On top of all of this--and I think this is the part that should raise all of our concerns--is that the copper industry is trying to use its influence through lobbying and through campaign donations to our colleagues.

It should be of no surprise that the primary sponsor of this bill and the other bills like it come from the very State where these mine companies are seeking to mine are on sites that have already been identified as unsuitable for copper mining. They are Tribal sacred sites, in a number of cases.

There have literally been decades of effort from the copper industry because there are high-quality copper deposits in many of these places, including in Oak Flat, which is a place that has been held sacred by the Apache people since time immemorial.

Why are our friends across the aisle trying to advance a lobbying bill on behalf of a multinational set of corporations, which are held, in part, by Chinese Government inholdings on American lands that would violate the basic human, cultural, and religious rights of our indigenous communities? I will let the American people decide why they think that is happening, but it is certain that we just came out of an election, isn't it?

I think it is crucial that people understand this isn't a simple streamlining bill. This isn't about just harmonizing this list with that list. This is about foreign influence on the mining industry, on the copper industry, here in the United States.

I ask my colleagues across the aisle who have voted time and time again on this very floor to prevent foreign companies held by our adversaries, including China, from buying American lands, from trying to take American water rights, why on Earth would you be advancing a bill that would literally give away mining concessions to companies that are held by foreign adversaries? Why would you do it when we know that our communities have already resoundingly said that they do not want these mines in our communities, that they will harm our cultures, communities, waters, and public lands?

I look forward to hopefully getting some answers to these questions, but the American people should understand what this bill actually is, and I urge my colleagues to oppose H.R. 8446.

I think this is a really important debate for the American people to hear. I want to first address the comments that were made about these companies, which are seeking to get access to public lands for copper and other minerals, as being confused.

Let's talk about the specific corporations that have been lobbying for this bill and variations of this bill for years. Freeport, which is one of the largest copper mining companies in the United States, is worth $61 billion. Rio Tinto, an international conglomerate, the very one that is held by Chinese Government holdings, is worth $159 billion.

I ask my friends across the aisle: Do you really believe that a multinational corporation that is worth $159 billion in multiple countries and continents is confused about permitting? I don't think so. Mr. Speaker, $159 billion is 18 times the annual budget of the State of Arizona.

Come on, guys. We are not fools. These companies have spent decades lobbying to open public lands and specifically the sites that they are looking to mine on in Arizona. In fact, it is why places like Oak Flat were set aside, because they are cultural, sacred lands of Tribes. The copper industry, 100 years ago, had tried to mine on those lands, but we recognized as a Nation that we don't want to mine on every single inch of American lands because there are places where it is not suitable. It is not suitable for cultural reasons. It is not suitable for environmental reasons. It is not suitable because we don't want to look at a giant hole miles across in our backyards.

Now, we need mining and we need minerals, but let's be clear: These companies are not confused. They spend millions of dollars every year lobbying the United States Congress and giving campaign donations to our friends who are running for Congress. This is not confusion. This is influence. Let's be very clear about what we are talking about.

Now, I want to also address the claim that this is not about copper. Well, last night I went onto Congress.gov. The American people can go do this. There are like six different variations of this same bill. Some of them actually specifically name copper and some do not. Guess what? It is the same sponsors, literally the same sponsors of this bill.

I can appreciate and I always try to take my friends at face value. Okay. You are saying this has nothing to do with copper, but I encourage the American people to actually go do their own search because this same bill has many iterations.

Now, let's talk a little bit about the statutory and the cost considerations of this bill. Again, we heard the claim this is just about streamlining definitions, no big deal. Let me repeat: The USGS list not only confers the benefit of billions of dollars in potential tax subsidies and grants under many different Federal programs, which the Department of Energy list does not, but it will permit actual streamlining and reduction of timelines, public review, and judicial review of mining operations, which effectively means for all of you out there who are listening, you don't get a say if this multinational corporation, which the Chinese Government partially holds, gets to put a mine in your backyard.

My friends across the aisle are always asking us to have common sense. Does this make common sense to you out there? Of course not.

The public has a right to comment. The public has a right to be participants in decisions that the Federal Government makes on our public lands.

Tribes have a fundamental right, under the Constitution, treaty, and trust responsibilities, to help inform and decide whether or not we mine our Tribal lands, or lands that are important to our Tribes.

The public has a right to say we don't want this because it is going to impact our future livelihoods.

Our friends claim that, oh, this is just a simple definitional change and streamlining.

It is really about taking away fundamental rights.

Now, I think it is instructive that we had a lot of conversation before the election about Project 2025, and our friends across the aisle kept trying to distance themselves from it and say, oh, we are not actually planning to do that.

However, we printed out some of Project 2025 today, and I want to point you to some of the choice sections on page 376. They want to pursue critical minerals. Oh, yeah, that is right. On page 537, there is a whole section in Project 2025 about opening Tribal lands to critical minerals mining.

Does that sound familiar?

Ironically, also, on page 725 of Project 2025, there is an extensive discussion about how the Chinese Government is plundering mines and critical minerals here in the United States.

It sure does make you wonder why my friends are pushing this in the final hours of this Congress as we are headed toward the closure of this Congress.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. STANSBURY. To my colleagues across the aisle: Absolutely. You are so right. We do want to prevent our foreign adversaries like China from working to out- compete us and to make sure that they do not have access to control our supply chain. This makes it particularly confusing that the bill you are trying to advance today is about copper. I want the public to know that they said that it is not about copper, but they just happen to have all the talking points about copper right there printed out ready to talk about copper.

It is about copper. This is about the copper industry, who has been lobbying for this bill for decades; and, in particular, several large multinational conglomerates, including Rio Tinto, which is one of the largest in the world, which is held, in part, by the Chinese Communist Party who would like to mine on specific sites in the State of Arizona that have already been identified as unsuitable, unsuitable for cultural reasons, unsuitable for Tribal reasons, unsuitable for water reasons, and unsuitable for public lands reasons.

They can say that this is just about harmonizing lists, but the Department of Energy does not have purview over permitting on our public lands. The Department of Energy's legislative mandate as created by this body is to oversee our Nation's energy systems.

The Department of the Interior, where USGS sits, who manages our public minerals and our understanding of them, is the Federal agency that makes the permitting decisions, the legal decisions, the executive decisions, and the Tribal consultations that affect when, where, and how minerals are accessed on our public lands.

This is about a lobbying effort by multinational corporations to move the list in such a manner that it will open up public lands to mining on sites they have already identified in which the public has, in various ways, already said no, no thank you, or they want a process for the public to actually weigh in on.

I hope that my friends across the aisle, because it does sound like we have a lot in agreement, will agree that the Chinese Communist Party is buying up minerals and mining projects around the world. In fact, the Chinese Government has been stockpiling critical minerals for years which has created a crisis for the United States.

Yes, while they are mining copper in their land, we have to ask ourselves: Why is a multinational company that the Chinese Government is massively bought into and trying to open copper mines in the United States getting a free pass by U.S. Congressmen on the House floor?

Mr. Speaker, I really would like to know why this is happening.

I hope that we can agree that we should not be allowing that kind of foreign influence in our permitting decisions.

Mr. Speaker, for this reason, and at the appropriate time, I would like to offer a motion to recommit this bill back to committee.

It was noted a moment ago that USGS supported this bill. I want to tell you all that we contacted USGS last night based on the testimony that they submitted. While they said that they agreed with concepts in the bill, that it needed technical changes in order for them to actually support it.

If the House rules permitted, I would have offered a motion with an important amendment to this bill.

My amendment, my motion to recommit, is common sense. It would prohibit any Federal benefits associated with being on the critical minerals list, what this bill is trying to accomplish, from going to our foreign adversaries, including companies they own and the subsidiaries of these companies.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. STANSBURY. Mr. Speaker, I sincerely hope that my colleagues will join me in voting for the motion to recommit so that we can protect our Nation's natural resources and our supply chain from our economic adversaries abroad.

Mr. Speaker, I stand here, once again, today to oppose H.R. 8446, a bill that ignores science, ignores the facts, and would add copper to the critical minerals list to help wealthy multinational corporations, some of which are held by our foreign adversaries, to gain critical benefits, Federal tax breaks, and access to our Federal lands and Tribal sacred sites.

There have been some claims today about the Department of the Interior and the USGS's stance on this bill. I want to be clear that while the USGS did respond to the bill and share information about how to harmonize the list, they identified specific issues with the bill about its scientific integrity.

Let's be clear. USGS scientists used peer-reviewed methodology to determine whether or not copper or any other mineral here in the United States should be considered a critical mineral and be given the benefits that come along with being included on that list.

Now, while copper and many of the minerals discussed here are important to our economy, they are important to our national security, and they are important to the future of this Nation, they do not currently have the same supply chain vulnerabilities that other minerals on that list have and, therefore, do not qualify for the permitting and subsidy benefits that come with being included on that list.

I think that the American people would agree with all of the things that my colleagues said, that we should not be giving giveaways to our foreign adversaries who are trying to stockpile these minerals right now.

Why on Earth would we advance a bill that would give companies that the Chinese Government holds financial interest in access to copper and other critical minerals here in the United States?

It is crazy.

Designating copper as a critical mineral will divert precious resources and attention away from other critical supply chains that need it critically right now. It will open permitting, environmental review processes, and Tribal consultation. We know from history because it has told us in every chapter and every generation that it is our most vulnerable communities without power, influence, and money who will suffer the consequences, and, in this case, particularly our Tribal communities who have sacred lands that they have protected for countless generations.

While my colleagues may claim that this bill is necessary to support and build up our domestic supply chain, we have already seen how foreign influence is trying to grab a hold of U.S. copper. There are no safeguards in this bill, and I cannot emphasize it enough: This bill will allow foreign actors through their financial holdings, including our adversaries, to benefit from the U.S. public lands and resources and materials that they are trying to take and stockpile, and it will leave our communities with pollution and devastation.

We just heard an argument that everything is going to change on January 20. If my colleagues don't know, January 20 is Inauguration Day.

Project 2025, it turned out, was real: critical minerals, opening public lands, opening Tribal lands, not protecting sites that we already knew were precious for sacred and other reasons.

We just heard it right here on the floor: It is all going to change on January 20.

Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues: Who is going to benefit? At what cost to our communities? At what cost to the American people?

Mr. Speaker, there were claims made on this floor today about Democrats not caring about our supply chain and about our people. We have one of the largest copper mines in the United States in New Mexico. We support our miners. We support our laborers.

I would not be standing here on the House floor if my mother had not been one of the first women operating engineers to work at a coal-fired power plant in New Mexico.

Mr. Speaker, I do not appreciate the assertions that we have heard here today that we are trying to attack workers, that we are trying to attack American sovereignty and national security, and that we don't care about our economy and supply chain because we are here fighting for the people. We are fighting for our communities. We are fighting for our Tribal nations.

Mr. Speaker, we will see changes on January 20. That is why we have to stop this bill, so that it doesn't give carte blanche to Chinese financial holdings to mine with impunity on our public lands.

That is why I oppose this bill.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. STANSBURY. Mr. Speaker, I believe that we have thoroughly debated the merits and significant impacts of this bill on the American economy and national security, as well as our communities. I point out that my colleague started this debate by saying this is not about copper and ended this debate showing us it is, indeed, about copper and the companies that own them.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for the spirited debate. I hope we will protect our national security. I hope we will pass my motion to recommit. I hope we will stop this bill and the devastating impacts that it will bring.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. STANSBURY. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. STANSBURY. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

The yeas and nays were ordered.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source