Critical Mineral Consistency Act of 2024

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

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.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

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.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as I may consume. 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.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my amendment into the Record immediately prior to the vote on the motion to recommit.

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 reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

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.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1568, I call up the bill (H.R. 8446) to amend the Energy Act of 2020 to include critical materials in the definition of critical mineral, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous material on H.R. 8446.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 8446, the Critical Mineral Consistency Act of 2024.

H.R. 8446 introduced by Representative Ciscomani would amend the Energy Act of 2020 to add critical materials from the Department of Energy Critical Materials List to the United States Geological Survey's critical minerals list.

Currently, each agency uses different metrics when constructing their respective lists.

DOE's methodology for critical material determination is forward- looking. It accounts for international demand scenarios and growth trajectories specifically for energy technologies.

On the other hand, currently USGS' process only uses historic data to determine supply risk to the U.S. economy and national security.

By law, all the minerals on USGS' list are automatically included in DOE's Critical Materials List. H.R. 8446 would enable the process to work in the other direction by placing critical materials on the critical minerals list.

The Critical Mineral Consistency Act is a straightforward solution that enables each agency to retain responsibility for reviewing minerals under their respective purviews while clarifying persistent confusion over critical minerals versus critical materials. As you can see, even speaking about it on the floor, it is easy to get the two confused.

The bill cuts across jurisdictional red tape while preserving each agency's discretion and expertise in adding items to its list.

Both critical minerals and critical materials are just that, critical. Without reliable access to essential materials such as cobalt and lithium for batteries and copper and aluminum for transmission lines, the U.S. risks failing to meet future economic and energy demands. Such a situation would lead to increased dependence on the market decisions of adversarial nations for critical minerals and materials.

H.R. 8446 passed out of the Natural Resources Committee on a bipartisan vote because both sides of the aisle understand the importance of critical minerals and materials.

I encourage my colleagues to once again come together to support this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. There were a lot of claims made from my friends across the aisle about what this bill does or what its intent and purpose are. I think I need to clarify some of this.

First off, I heard the claim that this bill would cost billions and billions of dollars to the taxpayer. I am not going to ask to submit that for the record because it is already part of the record. It is the CBO score for this bill that says, at most, it is a $2 million cost to administer the program, which actually seems high to me, but it is far from billions of dollars of handouts to anyone. That is what the Congressional Budget Office said. That is what I am repeating here.

Also, a claim was made that we are exporting copper. I include in the Record the link from the U.S. Geological Survey's ``Mineral Commodity Summaries 2024,'' which shows that we import 46 percent of the copper that comes into the country. That is on page 64 of that report. https:/ /pubs.usgs.gov/periodicals/mcs2024/mcs2024.pdf

Mr. Speaker, it was mentioned about the demand for copper, and I do agree with that. We have an insatiable demand for copper. A lot of that is created by some of the massive spending programs that our friends across the aisle passed a few years ago.

There are estimates that say we need to mine more copper than we have mined in the history of the world in the next 20 to 30 years. There is a big demand for copper, and we are blessed in the United States because we have that copper here that we can use to create jobs, grow our economy, and help national security.

This bill is not about copper, but if we want to talk about copper, I think we have a very strong position on our side of the aisle on how we see copper and how copper can play an important role in the economy going forward.

Also, there was talk about DOE's list and USGS' list. I want to clarify that the critical minerals on USGS' list automatically go into DOE's Critical Materials List. This bill would take DOE's Critical Materials List and make it synonymous with USGS' critical minerals list.

By the way, USGS supports this legislation. You would think if this administration's USGS had a problem with doing that, they wouldn't have supported the bill.

I know there were a lot of claims made, but I think it is important that we get the facts out here in the debate.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Ciscomani), the author of this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Again, we are talking about copper. So let's talk about copper a little bit. This chart shows that in 1995, we produced 2.3 million tons of copper, and China produced 0.7 million tons. That is about three times more copper that we produced in the United States in 1995.

In 2020, China was up to 9.8 million tons a year, and we were at 0.9 million tons. You can see our overall production actually went down; China's skyrocketed. In 2020, they were producing 11 times more copper than we produced here in the United States. It is not because we don't have copper deposits in the United States, it is because people don't want copper mining and production in their backyard. However, if you are building a copper mine, you don't get to choose where the copper is located. It has long ago been determined that the copper in these places, sometimes it is on Federal lands, sometimes it is on private land.

The reason our production has gone down is because we can't permit new copper mines. We also can't permit copper refineries. The other side of this story is we have 2 copper refineries in the United States today and China has over 50.

With estimates that we need to produce more copper going forward in the next couple of decades than has been produced in the history of the world, you can see where that production is going to come from unless we

decide to mine the copper in our country, unless we decide to build responsible mines where there aren't human rights violations, where there aren't environmental violations, where we do things better, safer, and more efficient than anyplace else in the world.

Someone who knows how critical these minerals are to our defense and to our way of life here in America is the gentleman from Virginia.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wittman).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I am going to read directly from USGS's testimony on this bill in committee: ``As a possible way to manage the two lists, the USGS supports this bill.''

That is verbatim from their testimony in committee.

Also, we can talk about copper for a long time because it is the poster child of misguided principles and misguided regulations in our country. However, there is more on the list than just copper.

Let's talk about electrical steel. Electrical steel goes into transformers.

Mr. Speaker, if you want to build new transmission lines and transmission systems, then you have to have transformers. You can't build transformers without electrical steel. It is not on the critical minerals list, but it is on the Critical Materials List.

What about fluorine?

Nuclear reactors and electronics depend on fluorine. It is on the Critical Materials List. It is not on the critical minerals list.

Here is a good one: silicon carbide. Congress passed this massive bill to subsidize semiconductor companies to build chips factories here in the United States. Actually it was called the CHIPS bill. We are going to build chips facilities in the United States, but we can't produce the silicon carbide needed to put into those chips facilities.

It is about a lot more than copper, but copper is the big material that is out there that should be obvious to everyone that if we are going to have a more electrified economy, if we are going to build more electronics, and if we are going to have more renewable energy systems and transmission lines, then copper is absolutely critical to it, and that is why there is such a large projected demand for copper.

Fortunately, we actually have copper in the United States.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Stauber) who has I believe the largest copper deposit and largest cobalt and nickel deposits in the world located in his district, but decades of permitting and we are still not producing copper, cobalt, or nickel from those mines. Also I believe they have platinum and palladium.

Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, I am prepared to close, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. LaMalfa).

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman from California (Mr. LaMalfa).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. In closing, I go back to this idea of what mining in America could mean to America. We know that it has national security implications. We know that it has critical implications on being able to grow our energy sector, to grow our economy.

I want to look at just strictly the mining and manufacturing component from mining. I have already submitted this report for the record, page 4, which USGS, along with Commerce, puts out every year. It shows how much material we mine in the U.S., how much we export, and how much we import. The net value last year was $129.7 billion. Of all the ore that we mined and the exports and imports, it was worth $129.7 billion.

That is a lot of wealth, but it pales in comparison to the amount of wealth that is generated when that raw material is converted into a metal. That material was worth $890 billion when it was refined into metal.

When we talk about generating wealth, we are generating income for local communities and American workers not just by mining that ore but by processing it into metal, where we can increase it by eight or nine times the value, which means income for rural Americans.

This same report shows us that $890 billion worth of value created from this material, along with another $102 billion worth of material that we had to import, created an impact on our economy of $3.9 trillion. Think about that.

When we use the resources that we have, it creates jobs in extracting those resources and in processing and refining those resources, and it creates jobs throughout our economy on manufacturing the goods and products that come from those resources.

I don't want it to be lost on anyone that, historically, and this year is no exception, the U.S. Treasury receives about 16.5 percent of the GDP in tax revenue. When we look at budget issues in America, for every trillion dollars we grow our economy, we are creating another $165 billion going to the side of the ledger that we want it to go to, the income side, to help out with our budget.

At the same time, when we are promoting things that create high- paying jobs, we are taking money off of the other side of the ledger through social welfare programs. President Reagan said it best: The greatest social welfare program ever invented was a job.

It is time that we have these jobs in America, using American resources, refining those resources, and manufacturing products from them.

That takes me back to H.R. 8446. Both lists aim to identify vital minerals susceptible to supply shocks. With this bill, each agency will continue to review minerals and materials for redesignation regularly, just as Congress intended.

It was mentioned that there is no science behind this. We are trusting these agencies, USGS and DOE, to go through the same processes they have always gone through, but to put these lists together to have a comprehensive list.

These lists were not meant to be static snapshots of siloed industries. They are meant to be flexible tools that foster collaboration between sectors and agencies to promote the well-being of our ever-changing supply chain.

H.R. 8446 allows each agency the latitude to perform its own independent analysis. For example, DOE's most recent iteration of the Critical Materials List contains copper, electrical steel flooring, silicon, and silicon carbide. USGS' critical mineral list does not contain those. These materials are used in power generation, electrical wiring, semiconductors, solar panels, transformers, defense applications, really all over and all throughout our society.

We must continue to find ways to release China's stranglehold on our critical mineral supply chain. They have exploited their position on multiple occasions by instigating commodity dumping to make U.S. and our allied nations' critical mineral production uneconomical.

H.R. 8446 will provide the Federal Government with a clearer and more holistic snapshot of the materials we need to safeguard our economy, energy, and national security.

Mr. Speaker, I again thank Mr. Ciscomani for all of his work on this

legislation, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record letters of support from the following organizations: the National Association of Manufacturers, U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Mint Innovation, and the Copper Development Association.

National Association

of Manufacturers,

Washington, DC, November 13, 2024.

House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Dear Representative: On behalf of the National Association

of Manufacturers, the largest manufacturing trade association

in the United States, representing manufacturers in every

industrial sector and in all 50 states, I respectfully urge

you to vote ``yes'' on H.R. #8446, the Critical Minerals

Consistency Act.

Manufacturers need robust, secure and reliable access to

critical minerals and materials (including lithium, cobalt,

copper, nickel and silicon) to make innovative products that

power modern life, such as computer electronics and cell

phones, batteries for storage, solar panels and household

appliances. The U.S. has enormous mineral wealth, including

some of the world's largest deposits of lithium and copper,

and this legislation will help America remain a natural

resources superpower.

Under the Energy Act of 2020, Congress directed the

Department of the Interior (DOI) to identify and maintain a

list of critical minerals to be routinely updated by the U.S.

Geological Service (USGC) Unfortunately, the items that

appeared on this list did not align with a separate critical

materials list that was established under the same law to be

maintained by the Department of Energy (DOE). This is causing

confusion among producers because eligibility for certain

grant programs, tax credits, loan guarantees or improved

permitting processes are only granted to items on the DOI

list.

This legislation is a priority for manufacturers to shore

up supply chains of key minerals and materials by adding

copper, electrical steel, silicone and silicone carbide to

the national critical minerals list These are materials that

are irreplaceable in crucial energy, technology and national

security applications from electrical equipment and batteries

to grid transformers and semiconductors American

manufacturing is too often reliant on foreign sources of raw

and refined inputs of these materials, when we can and must

be doing more to produce them domestically.

H R. 8446 provides necessary clarity by creating parity

between the DOE critical materials list and the DOI critical

minerals list and ensures that key minerals to America's

national and energy security, like copper, electrical steel

and silicone, are not left out.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,

Chris Netram,

Managing Vice President, Policy.

Mr. Speaker, I also note for the record the support of the following organizations: the Business Council for Sustainable Energy, the National Electrical Manufacturing Association, the Zero Emission Transportation Association, the Transformer Manufacturing Association of America, and the National Mining Association.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I thank the gentleman from Texas for yielding me the customary 30 minutes.

Madam Speaker, before we begin, I want to address the results of last week's election. I congratulate the gentleman from Texas and my Republican colleagues on the results of the Presidential election.

For them, this election was a reason to celebrate. For half the country, it was awful. Like so many people, I am deeply concerned-- concerned about our democracy, concerned that the man who was elected does not care about helping regular people, concerned that people are going to be hurt by his bad policies, concerned that vulnerable populations will become targets, concerned by the President-elect's fascination with Vladimir Putin, concerned that in the face of such a tough reality, many in this country will become disillusioned and disengaged from politics altogether.

Like many people, I am worried, but let me tell you what I am not going to do. I am not going to complain and whine like Republicans. I am not going to deny facts or reality and pretend that the election was rigged against us. I am not going to create fake stories about poll workers stuffing ballot boxes that result in people getting death threats and having to leave their homes.

Democrats aren't going to violently storm the Capitol Building. We are not going to go on TV and spread lies about voter fraud. We are not going to elevate conspiracy theories that point the finger to blame others for the outcome. We sure as hell would have no interest in pardoning people who attacked cops, desecrated this building, and treated our country like garbage.

The truth is that the election this year was free and fair, just like the election in 2020 was free and fair. Republicans were already getting ready to sow the seeds of another big lie until they won. Then, their claims of voter fraud evaporated into thin air.

What you will not see is Democrats try to overturn the election like sore losers. We are not going to act like babies. We are going to take responsibility, and we are going to move forward.

I think the most important thing we can do right now is listen to our friends, our neighbors, and our fellow Americans because obviously things need to change, but I also want to say this loud and clear to everyone listening who is upset by the outcome of this election: Please don't give in to despair. We cannot change the past. All we can do is to help shape the future, and the hard work of protecting this country from the potentially devastating effects of a second Donald Trump Presidency starts today.

We can take heart in our small victories. We have new voices joining our ranks in the Senate and in the House, many of them historic and ready to push for change. As our party recalibrates--and let me be clear, we must recalibrate--we will need every one of these new voices on our side.

While we still await the final determination on who will be in charge of the House of Representatives, let me just say that if Republicans hold onto control, we will show up. We will show up for every single fight and every single vote. We will minimize the damage where we can, and while we may not always win, we will slow down the destructive forces that could arise from total Republican control in Washington.

Madam Speaker, if the Republicans keep the majority and the next 2 years are like the last 2, maybe we will have little to worry about. This Republican majority has been the most ineffective body in history. They have accomplished nothing. They don't know how to govern.

It really has been a disgrace, a national disgrace, but rest assured, we will raise our voices, the voices of the people who sent us here to speak for them, the people who do not agree with Republican policies and who voted for us to make sure someone would fight back.

Democrats may have lost some races, but we are not defeated. Our values are strong. We know what to fight for because we know what we stand for: an economy that works for working people, a government that serves everyone regardless of their background, and a vision for a brighter future that addresses the urgent challenges that people care about, like the cost of living, hunger, and climate change.

Let me just say, Madam Speaker, this is the beauty of democracy. No defeat is final, and where we can find common ground with our colleagues across the aisle and with the President-elect, we will work together to make progress because our side is interested in helping improve the quality of life for the people of this country. Where we cannot find common ground, we will stand firm in defense of our values.

The work goes on, and we will fight for all those who placed their hopes and dreams in our hands.

Now, if we are talking about the bills that this rule would bring to the floor, H.R. 8446 politically interferes in a science-driven process and potentially siphons needed resources away from at-risk supply chains. H.R. 7409 undermines our environmental laws and blocks public input in the permitting process, which could lead to irreparable damage to our lands.

While H.R. 8932 offers a pragmatic solution to ensure student aid reaches those who need it, let us pray that, despite Trump's promise to dismantle the Department of Education, the agency that oversees FASFA survives the next 4 years so that this measure can actually benefit American families.

Madam Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to bring up H.R. 12, a bill that would ensure that every American has full access to essential reproductive healthcare, including abortion care.

Since the Dobbs decision, every State in the Union has taken action on abortion in some way. Many enacted laws to either ban some or all abortion. Republicans have reiterated time and time again that this is their goal. They want to take away women's reproductive freedoms.

The abortion access landscape is more fractured since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade. We continue to face the devastating consequences of abortion bans and restrictions on both patients' health and the greater healthcare ecosystem. We have heard in recent weeks the heartbreaking stories of women who have died because of these abortion bans.

H.R. 12 ensures every American has full access to vital reproductive healthcare and will stop the devastating health consequences for women when abortion access is banned or limited.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my amendment into the Record, along with any extraneous material, immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. Pettersen) to discuss that proposal.

Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Colorado.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, there is no way to sugarcoat this. We have 2 long years ahead of us. For Republicans, that likely means facing the challenges of governing. I wish them luck. I hope they can figure out how to govern. They haven't been able to demonstrate that up to this point. For Democrats, it will mean we will have time to reflect, learn, and grow stronger from this election.

We know we need to become better listeners and better communicators, and we know we need to engage more with people on the issues that matter most to them. We will do that.

It also means finding common ground with those we disagree with when it comes to helping regular people. I hope that there will be occasions when there can be common ground achieved and reached so we can actually move things forward. If, in fact, the Republicans win the House and they control this Chamber, I hope that they will move away from the practice of constantly leaning on the most extreme Members in their Conference for guidance on what should be discussed on the House floor.

When it comes to when our values don't align, it will mean us calling out poor policy for what it is and pushing back with every single tool at our disposal to slow the damage.

We will show up. We will show up. We will use our voices. We will stand up for the people and against anything that would do them harm.

It will be a long 2 years, but we are in this fight. I have never felt a greater sense of purpose than I do at this moment because so much is at stake. Things that matter to the people I represent are under threat by the President-elect and his policies.

We will stand up for our values. We will stand up for the people in this country who now feel threatened because of the election results. We will stand up, as Ms. Pettersen just talked about in her remarks, for women's reproductive freedoms. Women should decide what is best for them, not Members of this Chamber, and not the President of the United States.

Again, we have a lot of challenges ahead, but I will tell my friends on the other side of the aisle, we are ready. We are ready to come together when we can find common ground.

This is just a promise, but we will fight you with every ounce of energy we have if you bring up policies that we have strong disagreements with. We will not rally or roll over in the face of policies that we deplore.

Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1568 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

General Leave

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

Madam Speaker, last week, the American people spoke forcefully against what we have seen for 4

years out of the Biden-Harris administration and their whole-of- government assault over individual freedom, economic prosperity, and limited government.

For 4 years, the Biden-Harris administration and their allies here in Congress had the opportunity to show the American people their vision of our country and their vision of what role the Federal Government might play in shaping it, 4 years of drastic expansion of Federal budgets, 4 years of regulatory regimes, and 4 years of hazy interpretations of the constitutional separation of powers.

Look, votes are continuing to be counted, but it is already clear that the American people spoke to the need for an equally drastic course correction right here in Washington, D.C., and, subsequently, the direction our country is headed.

This week is perhaps the opportunity to bind the wounds for a nationwide healing experience over what has been suffered for the last 4 years: crippling inflation, rampant crime, and a bureaucratic state that has squeezed out every ounce of productivity from this country. Do you know what? We have left our adversaries a lot of room to run.

The good news for the gentleman from Massachusetts is that the measure before us can and should be bipartisan. House Resolution 1568 provides for consideration of three pieces of legislation to make targeted adjustments to a bureaucracy aimed at making American lives better, less expensive, and more productive. Each piece has or should receive bipartisan support. Each piece speaks to issues that have received bipartisan praise or concern.

This week, we can unify under the mandate of the American people and continue the body of work that will begin today and continue into next year.

First, the rule provides for consideration of H.R. 8932, the FASFA Deadline Act, under a structured rule, with 1 hour of debate equally divided between the chair and the ranking minority member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce and provides for one motion to recommit.

Second, the rule provides for consideration of H.R. 7409, the Harnessing Energy At Thermal Sources Act, or the HEATS Act, under a closed rule, with 1 hour of debate equally divided between the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Natural Resources and provides for one motion to recommit.

Third, the rule provides for consideration of H.R. 8446, the Critical Mineral Consistency Act of 2024, under a closed rule, with 1 hour of debate equally divided by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Natural Resources and provides for one motion to recommit.

Madam Speaker, each of these bills takes a scalpel to the government bureaucracy to make American lives easier, more affordable, and more productive.

The FASFA Deadline Act ensures that the Biden-Harris administration-- man, their rollout of the updated FASFA forms has been a disaster. We are going to make sure that that does not happen again. The delays, the mistakes, and the glitches resulted in 430,000 fewer students filling out a student aid application for the 2024 fall semester and the steepest drop in first-year college enrollment since the pandemic.

Madam Speaker, it begs the question: How are you going to forgive student loans if you don't allow them to be made in the first place?

The FASFA Deadline Act would force future administrations to prioritize this important process over illegal and constitutionally questionable student loan bailout schemes.

The HEATS Act eliminates the redundancy in Federal permitting for clean, geothermal energy production, lessening the paperwork burden for developers, lowering energy costs, and hastening a growing and important part of our domestic energy portfolio.

Finally, the Critical Mineral Consistency Act resolves a disparity between two agencies responsible for green-lighting our domestic mineral production, ensuring that we can mine the minerals for vehicles, cell phones, and lifesaving technology, not just for today but for generations to come.

Affordable energy, abundant natural resources, and economic opportunity, what is not to like? That is what these bills achieve, and in doing so, they make commonsense, targeted reforms to fix real problems the American people face.

That is what the House majority has promised to the American people. That is what this body can do today. That is what Republicans can work toward in the years to come.

Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the rule and the underlying bills, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, prior to coming to Congress, I was a medical doctor. In fact, I still have an active medical license. I feel like I should go back and seek a designation as a specialist in treating Trump derangement syndrome, because after 10 years on the Rules Committee, I really feel that I have earned that.

Several years ago, the columnist George Will opined that--this was in the Clinton administration. I was just a regular guy. I wasn't in political office, had no aspirations to be in political office. George Will opined that the country was evenly divided, he said, but fortunately it is not sharply divided.

Now, since then, we have seen a country that has evolved and become more and more and more sharply divided. That is too bad. That is a shame. It robs us of some of the ability we have to get things done when our divisions are so deep and divisive that we simply cannot overcome them.

Last week, I felt as if the national fever had broken. It broke because President-elect Donald Trump won the election. He won it decisively. There is no further contest that is to be had over the Presidential election because it is done. The American people spoke and they spoke clearly.

Why did they speak clearly? They spoke clearly because they felt they had not been listened to and they had not been heard. I mean, the gentleman brought up that the country had been hurt by the policies. Oh, my gosh, your own Democratic economic expert said don't do the American Rescue Plan, don't do the Inflation Reduction Act, you are going to kill people with crippling inflation, Steve Rattner, the former Secretary of the Treasury, when you were doing your reconciliation bills last Congress, and it all fell on deaf ears.

Then what happened? Inflation shot up to 9 percent. Although in recent months you say, oh, well, it is back down to 2 percent, I am sorry, eggs are still at their peak that they were at the time of that 9 percent inflation. You don't get to walk the prices back down just because you have kept the inflation rate down for a particular month.

Madam Speaker, the American people did speak, and they spoke the need for a new direction, a direction for this country where economic prosperity, limited government, and opportunity are once again the three cornerstones of the American Dream.

Today begins a new chapter by considering measures that thoughtfully solve the very real challenges created by the Federal bureaucracy.

Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this rule and the underlying legislation. Let's get back to work on improving the lives of the American people. Our long national fever has broken. Let's get to work. Let's get on with the future.

Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. Speaker, hailing from the great State of Minnesota, Minnesota has the most mineral wealth of any State in our Nation with the exception of Alaska.

I have heard my colleagues on the other side of the aisle talk about how they support mining. I disagree that they support mining.

Do you know why, Mr. Speaker?

It is because this administration, Mr. Speaker, hasn't opened up one mine and, again, not one mine in the United States of America under the Biden administration. They say they support mining so long as it never happens.

Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, any mining done in the United States of America must follow our environmental standards and our labor standards.

It was mentioned moments ago about the Chinese Communist Party. I want to bring one more mineral. It is antimony. One month ago, the Communist country of China stopped exporting antimony to the United States, antimony that is made for semiconductors, antimony that is used in our explosive devices for our military, antimony that is used for our medical instrument devices manufactured here in the United States.

We have antimony mines in the United States potentially if we are allowed to mine them.

Furthermore, in the Inflation Reduction Act, the $7.4 billion, Mr. Speaker, that was put toward electric charging stations, we have got 11 of them. The government has actually installed 11 charging stations for EV vehicles across this Nation. They were $7.4 billion.

Furthermore, the Democrats and this administration have removed the Buy American requirements for those charging stations.

Do you know why, Mr. Speaker?

It is because they won't let us mine here, and the percentage of minerals needed to meet the IRA demands can't be met unless we mine here in the United States of America.

Mining is our past, our present, and our future. Mr. Speaker, not only has this administration stopped mining in Minnesota, but they have stopped it in North Dakota, South Dakota, Montana, Wyoming, Nevada, Washington, Oregon, New Mexico, California, and Pennsylvania. The list goes on and on.

This is the most antimining administration in the history of this country, and we are going to suffer for it. Right now, we need antimony to replenish our ammunition. We are struggling right now. That is why the Biden administration's USGS supports this H.R. 8446, the Critical Mineral Consistency Act introduced by my good friend, Mr. Ciscomani from Arizona. He understands.

We have to have the political will in this country, Mr. Speaker, to be able to mine here safely under our regulations. We need permitting reform, which is going to allow us to mine here, process here, and manufacture here, right here in America using our jobs, our economy, and our workers, which is going to benefit our economy, our communities, and our strategic national security.

Why would anybody not want to mine in this country using the best environmental standards and the best labor standards in the world?

They are caving to the radical left, the antimining stance of their party. On January 20, the Americans are going to see a different attitude toward extracting these minerals that we are blessed with in this great country. We are blessed with these minerals.

No other country is like us, no other country. If we have the political will to meet these needs, then we can do it.

Mr. Speaker, I stand strongly in support of H.R. 8446. I stand strongly in support of domestic mining.

Again, Mr. Speaker, I want to remind you and others this is the most antimining administration in the history of this country, and it is going to end. We have to hold our strategic national security in the palm of our own hands. I will be doggone if I am going to allow China to control our destiny or other foreign nations.