H.Res. 1568

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.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 8932, the FAFSA Deadline Act, which would set a firm October 1 deadline for the Department of Education to roll out the Free Application for Federal Student Aid, or FAFSA, form starting in 2025. This bill will help millions of students and families access Federal financial aid in a timely manner.

We know that higher education is a pathway to opportunity, but the rising cost of college has made it out of reach for a lot of students. Federal student aid, including Pell grants and student loans, is essential to making college affordable.

That is why in 2020, I worked with Senator Lamar Alexander to pass the FAFSA Simplification Act, to make Federal student aid easier to access.

Regrettably, last year, technical problems with the newly redesigned FAFSA form delayed the students' access to this vital aid, and as a result, too many students could not submit their applications on time, and many

struggled to get the support they needed to resolve those issues.

When the committee first considered this bill in July, I voted in opposition because I had serious concerns that the implementation deadline may have forced the Department of Education to roll out an incomplete form on October 1 of this year. However, because we are now considering the bill after October 1, the deadline will apply next year, 2025, and that gives the Department ample time to make improvements and fix any lingering issues.

We now have helpful information from the nonpartisan Government Accountability Office that provided specific recommendations in how the Department can continue to improve the rollout and implementation of

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Mrs. Lee Carter).

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

Mr. Speaker, it is no secret that this year's FAFSA process was a debacle. However, we are missing part of the story if we don't at least mention the work the Department has already done to get FAFSA back on track. The college support strategy deployed experts to colleges across the country to help financial aid officers navigate the new processing system.

The system provided one-time grants to school districts, States, and nonprofit organizations to scale up their ability to provide support to students. They had workshops, advising sessions, and media campaigns funded through the strategy to help produce a significant increase in FAFSA submissions throughout the summer.

Additionally, as the Department prepares for the launch of this year's FAFSA form, they are taking great strides in improving transparency and fixing technological issues.

I will include in the Record a document from the Department of Education titled: ``A focus on Improving the FAFSA Experience: Updates, actions, and a path forward for the 2025-26 cycle.'' This document outlines 10 core areas to focus on, making improvements to the FAFSA process for both students and colleges.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter from the National Association of Student Financial Aid Administrators, which says, in part, that ``cementing an October launch date only addresses a piece of the puzzle; consistency is another. Students must be able to trust that the financial aid application process will function as intended and that they will receive clear communication along the way,'' and they wrote otherwise in support of the legislation.

[From NASFAA, July 10, 2024]

NASFAA Statement on FAFSA Deadline Act

Washington, DC.--Republicans in the U.S. House of

Representatives and Senate have introduced a pair of bills

that would ensure the Free Application for Federal Student

Aid, or FAFSA, is made available to students on October 1

each year, ahead of their planned year of enrollment.

The FAFSA form has typically been made available on October

1 each year since 2016, months earlier than the legally

mandated January 1 launch date. This discrepancy between

common practice and law came into play during this year's

turbulent FAFSA rollout, during which the updated ``Better

FAFSA'' became available to students in a limited and

incomplete fashion at the end of December 2023.

In response to this news, NASFAA Vice President of Public

Policy & Federal Relations Karen McCarthy issued the

following statement:

``Codifying the October 1 FAFSA launch date into law has

been a top priority for NASFAA for many years because, when

operating as intended, an earlier release date allows

colleges and universities to provide financial aid

information to students much sooner.

But cementing an October launch date only addresses a piece

of the puzzle; consistency is another. Students must be able

to trust that the financial aid application process will

function as intended and that they will receive clear

communication along the way.

This past year has shown us just how critical it is that

all students are able to complete the FAFSA as soon as

possible. Even today, there are aspects of the 2024-25 FAFSA

system that are not yet functional or working as intended.

However, in the absence of a clear timeline or

understanding from the Department of Education about when the

entire FAFSA system will be available--including the

application itself, the transfer of applicant data to

schools, and the ability for applicants and schools to make

corrections--forcing an October 1 deadline this year does not

guarantee a fully functioning form, and may in fact work

against efforts to release a product that has been tested and

found to run smoothly. We need all stakeholders to work

together in good faith to ensure this year's mistakes are not

repeated.

We continue to urge the Department of Education to ensure

that the entire FAFSA system is up and running as intended as

soon as possible and at the same time the application goes

live and to promptly communicate that timeline.''

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter from The Hope Center at Temple University. They said: ``Students and their families deserve a form that is available all hours of the day, for all types of applicants, and results in the swift transfer of their information to the States and colleges that will develop their financial aid packages.''

They were ``concerned that implementing a rigid deadline less than 3 months away will force additional technical issues for applicants. Therefore, we request that you amend H.R. 8932 to start the new deadline on October 1, 2025.'' That is exactly what we have done in this underlying bill.

The Hope Center,

July 9, 2024.

Hon. Virginia Foxx,

Chairwoman, Committee on Education and the Workforce, House

of Representatives, Washington, DC.

Hon. Bobby Scott,

Ranking Member, Committee on Education and the Workforce,

House of Representatives, Washington, DC.

Dear Chairwoman Foxx and Ranking Member Scott: The last

nine months have been challenging for students and their

families. Problems associated with implementing the overhaul

of the Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA) have

created significant confusion, frustration, and uncertainty

for many of those applying for the financial aid they need to

succeed in college. Therefore, we thank your Committee for

its continued interest in getting the FAFSA back on track,

especially for the upcoming 2025-26 cycle launching this

fall. We write to comment on H.R. 8932, the FAFSA Deadline

Act.

In normal years, we agree that the FAFSA should be required

to launch no later than nine months before the start of the

next award year--or by October 1--a timeline now made

possible with the use of prior-prior year tax data.

Therefore, we have also joined in coalition requests to the

U.S. Department of Education (ED) asking the agency to do

everything possible to launch a fully functional FAFSA on

time this year. However, it has become clear in recent weeks

that ED continues to confront technical issues that could

interrupt the usability of the 2025-26 FAFSA.

Students and their families deserve a form that is

available at all hours of the day, for all types of

applicants, and results in the swift transfer of their

information to the states and colleges that will develop

their aid packages. We must rebuild trust with applicants,

college access professionals, and financial aid

administrators, all of whom need to see a reliable FAFSA for

them to have confidence in the entire system of financial

aid.

Therefore, we believe it is preferable to have the 2025-26

FAFSA launch be slightly delayed but be fully functional,

over an on-time October 1 launch that comes with technical

issues and glitches, if such a tradeoff is at hand for the

upcoming award year. After the 2025-26 cycle, we support an

October 1 launch date requirement, but we are concerned that

implementing a rigid deadline less than three months away

will force additional technical issues for applicants.

Therefore, we request that you amend H.R. 8932 to start the

new deadline on October 1, 2025 (for the 2026-27 award year)

and avoid legislative changes for the 2025-26 cycle.

Additionally, we request that the Committee require a

public comment process for the 2026-27 award year and beyond

by amending the applicable language in Section 483(a)(4) of

the Higher Education Act (HEA). The public comment process is

a vital opportunity for stakeholders, practitioners, and

students to offer feedback on the design, wording, and format

of the questions and help text. However, on June 17 of this

year, ED announced that no public comment would be offered

for the 2025-26 FAFSA and that the form would instead

``remain consistent'' with the prior year. Given the

outstanding issues that remain with the FAFSA, we understand

this short-term decision, and we acknowledge a more open-

ended Request for Information (RFI) process is expected this

summer. However, an RFI does not have the same requirements

for ED to review each comment, and it should not be the

standard in future years.

One result of legislating an October 1 launch date for

2026-27 and beyond may be that the agency again declines to

offer public comment. We hope that such a result can be

prevented by requiring a public comment process like the one

that exists for other ED forms and significant rules for the

Title IV programs. The Committee may also wish to examine and

strengthen the consumer testing language in Section 483(b)(2)

of the HEA to ensure that it is conducted more frequently,

transparently, and effectively--including by requiring

information on who is involved in such testing and how it

results in updates to the form.

Finally, we note other legislative opportunities to

increase the awareness and uptake of federal financial aid.

The recipients of public and tax benefit programs--such as

the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program

and Earned Income Tax Credit--would benefit from receiving

information about financial aid and vice versa. The FAFSA

Simplification Act supported such interagency coordination to

raise awareness of federal resources under Sections 483(c)(3)

and 485E(c) of the HEA. Additionally, Section 485E(d)

requires a public awareness campaign about Title IV aid

involving entities such as institutions of higher education,

organizations involved in college access and student

financial aid, local educational agencies, public libraries,

community centers, businesses, employers, workforce

investment boards, and organizations that provide services to

individuals who are or were homeless, in foster care, or are

disconnected youth. However, these sections could benefit

from additional requirements for these plans and campaigns,

including legislative deadlines and additional funding.

Again, we thank the Committee for working to fix the FAFSA.

With amendments to delay the effective date and require

public comment, we could support H.R. 8932, but we have

concerns in its current form. Given the importance of a

functional financial aid system for all students, we also

hope that the FAFSA remains a nonpartisan topic and that the

Committee searches for consensus on this legislation. We

would be happy to discuss the bill further or provide

additional information that may be useful to your efforts,

including suggested legislative language. We look forward to

continuing this critical conversation as you consider other

legislative proposals for the FAFSA and federal financial

aid.

Sincerely,

Bryce McKibben,

Senior Director of Policy & Advocacy,

The Hope Center at Temple University.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter in support from the American Council on Education, a consortium of several national college organizations that are also in support.

American Council on Education,

Washington, DC, July 9, 2024.

Hon. Virginia Foxx,

Chairwoman, Committee on Education and the Workforce, House

of Representatives, Washington, DC.

Hon. Bobby Scott,

Ranking Member, Committee on Education and Workforce, House

of Representatives, Washington, DC.

Dear Chairwoman Foxx and Ranking Member Scott: On behalf of

the undersigned higher education associations, we write to

offer our support for H.R. 8932, the FAFSA Deadline Act,

which the committee will mark up tomorrow. This bill would

move up the statutory date for the annual release of the Free

Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA) from Jan. 1 to

Oct. 1 each year. Making such a change would have significant

benefits for students applying or returning to college each

year and is a priority of the higher education community.

Giving students additional time to fully understand the

financial aid available to them is critical for a number of

reasons. As we noted in our May 22, 2024, letter to your

committee, ``moving the statutory deadline to October 1st

would ensure that students have ample time to complete the

form; give college access organizations and counselors time

to support student completion; and allow institutions to

process aid awards in time for students to make the best

college decisions.'' This year, we have also seen the

unfortunate consequences of delays in that information

reaching students, with a current 11.6 percent decline in

completed FAFSA applications at this point in the process.

We appreciate the effort and attention your committee has

paid to improving the FAFSA process and to meeting the needs

of low-income students. We strongly support the FAFSA

Deadline Act and encourage your members to vote for it in a

bipartisan manner when it is marked up tomorrow.

Sincerely,

Ted Mitchell,

President.

On behalf of:

American Association of Community Colleges.

American Association of State Colleges and Universities.

American Council on Educatio.

Association of American Universities.

Association of Public and Land-grant Universities.

National Association of Independent Colleges and

Universities.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time is remaining.

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

Mr. Speaker, in closing, this bill is about improving the process going forward. Obviously, the FAFSA rollout was a debacle, but even though it was a debacle, the FAFSA Simplification Act has resulted in over half a million more students receiving financial aid. We need to make sure that students and families have the information they need to make informed decisions about their futures.

Since H.R. 8932 will be implemented for next year's form, 2025 and onward, I believe it strikes the right balance between setting a clear deadline and providing the flexibility for the Department of Education to fix any lingering issues as they finish implementing the bipartisan FAFSA Simplification Act this year.

I urge my colleagues to support the legislation to help ensure financial aid is distributed promptly and effectively. I look forward to continuing to improve the FAFSA form and expanding access to financial aid as originally intended in the FAFSA Simplification Act.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise once again in opposition to another Natural Resources bill which, much to my dismay, I would love to have the opportunity to work on, on a bipartisan basis. Unfortunately, this bill is another technical bill that is masquerading as an effort to support energy development on public lands but is another assault on permitting processes, and, specifically, on the National Environmental Policy Act, or NEPA.

Under this bill, a geothermal project that starts on non-Federal surface lands and drills into Federal subsurface would not need a Federal drilling permit if the subsurface makes up less than 50 percent of the total area drilled.

If your eyes crossed when you heard me describe that technical language, let me explain. The Federal Government manages our Federal lands on the surface. That is where the soil, the trees, and all of that is. There is a separate permitting process for the subsurface. That is where we find oil and gas, other valuable minerals, and, in this case, geothermal resources that we may want to develop for energy sources. They are two different permitting processes.

What this says is if you have a power plant or some other energy source on a piece of private land that is adjacent to or nearby Federal lands, you don't have to go through the permitting process to figure out whether or not the drilling from here down, across, and under our Federal lands would be harmful. That is crazy.

Mr. Speaker, wouldn't we want to know as a scientific basis and a community basis whether or not the drilling under our Federal lands would be harmful for our communities? Of course we would. That is why we have Federal permitting laws. That is why we conduct scientific assessments on whether or not drilling or permitting of resource extraction in the subsurface is a good or bad idea.

As we have seen in some cases, it can cause seismic activity with certain oil and gas operations. In other cases, it can cause contamination of groundwater. In other cases, it can cause subsidence of the surface which could damage a national park or some sort of sacred site for a community or just your viewshed.

Taking away the permitting process means that folks can do things on private lands, using our Federal resources, without having to ask the public if they think it is a good idea. I am a fan of geothermal. It is a great energy resource. There is nothing wrong with geothermal, but all of our energy resources have a footprint. They all look like something.

In this case, as you can see in this picture, geothermal is also an industrial activity. So what we are talking about is building these kinds of facilities which might be an energy facility on a piece of private land, next to your favorite national park, next to your favorite BLM lands where you like to go fishing, next to Tribal lands that are sacred and important to our Tribal communities.

Don't you want the ability to weigh in with the Federal Government about whether or not you want this to be happening in your backyard? Again, it is just common sense. Why are we running bills that are trying to take away commonsense protections for our public and for the communities that would be impacted by them?

Mr. Speaker, I have great respect for Representative Kim. We have worked on a bipartisan basis on many issues including fire and science. Like I said, I am a fan of geothermal. In fact, we have been working on a bipartisan basis with our Republican colleagues on a number of geothermal permitting bills. In fact, there are two of them that passed by voice vote here on the House floor.

Representative Curtis' GEO Act supports efficient approval of geothermal permit applications without sacrificing environmental and community review. A lot of Members on this side of the aisle think that is a good idea. Why are we not trying to pass that bill? Maybe it has something to do with what was said during the last debate about what happens on January 20.

Representative Steel's H.R. 6474 would create a narrow categorical exclusion--again, more technical language--for geothermal exploration and development in recently studied or developed areas, giving geothermal parity with oil and gas development. Again, going back to the science, if we have already done an assessment of subsurface and we know it is not going to have impacts, maybe it makes sense to have some sort of streamlined purpose.

Mr. Speaker, to give carte blanche to private entities that might want to use Federal resources without creating a process to look at the scientific integrity, the potential environmental impacts, the potential community impacts, to not provide a legal process for communities to weigh in and potentially hold them accountable just doesn't make sense.

We do have a problem with this particular approach. We would support responsible, well-balanced stewardship of our geothermal resources that do protect the public interest and do protect our Federal lands. This bill is not really about that.

Mr. Speaker, while I have great respect for the intent, which I hope is good, behind this bill, we do need to protect the public interest as we develop these large-scale projects, big or small, that are adjacent to and that would impact the Federal subsurface.

No matter what, we are seeing time and time again in the final waning hours of this Congress that our friends are trying to advance bills that we know are really a setup for the next administration. I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill. We have other bills that would address the needs of this industry.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I will start by agreeing with my colleague across the aisle. We do not live in a Utopia where energy just magically appears.

I completely agree that we are in a massive transition where we have to explore all options to produce and to supply the energy needs that our Nation needs in order for people to survive and to thrive, as long as it is done in a way that informs the community, it is done in a responsible, environmentally friendly way, and a way that does not affect climate. Of course we want our communities to have a say in what we do.

I want to address what we heard: Well, it will be protected under the States. We are not talking about State resources. We are talking about Federal resources. The United States public lands belong to all of us. The surface, our national parks, our favorite streams on BLM lands and in our national forests, the subsurface belongs to the American people.

All of the things that we have been talking about today are the American people's resources. The minerals that will be mined are the American people's minerals. The geothermal resources are the American people's resources. Even the oil and gas are the American people's resources.

The reason why we have permitting processes is because the American people get to decide: Do we want to give the great riches of this Nation over to private companies who want to provide a good or service to the American people? The American people get to decide because those are our resources.

Mr. Speaker, that is why we have Federal processes to determine, one, if it is a good idea from a scientific and engineering standpoint; and two, to decide if it is going to impact our communities adversely.

Imagine going to your favorite stream to go fishing and find out that a permit for subsurface materials had caused the bottom to drop out and a land subsidence that destroyed your favorite fishing spot and nobody ever told you because the geothermal plant had gone in a few miles away and drilled underneath it.

That is why we have Federal permitting processes. It is so that the American people can decide if this is what we want to do with our precious lands, our precious resources, and the things that belong to all of us.

Mr. Speaker, there are solutions here in Congress. There are solutions that are supported by the vast majority of Members across the aisle that would protect the public interest, that would protect the environment, and would protect American interests in our resources.

Unfortunately, permit streamlining that does away with subsurface permit authority and public comment of our democratically owned natural resources is not the solution. For these reasons, I oppose this bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. While I appreciate that part of the debate has been framed as a difference in perspective, it is actually a difference in the actual facts on the page of what the bill says.

Let me read to you from the bill that is being proposed to be passed right now.

In General, the Secretary--they are talking about the Department of the Interior--shall not require an operator to obtain a Federal drilling permit for geothermal exploration and production activities conducted on non-Federal subsurface estates.

I know this is confusing. They are talking about those lands that the Feds manage for the American people. The claim that was just made was that, oh, this isn't about exempting Federal permitting, that is what the bill says. Mr. Speaker, I am reading from their bill.

Now, it has the specific reasons under which the permit would be allowed to be excluded, and, as was stated, it says: ``The United States holds an ownership interest of less than 50 percent of the subsurface estate. . . .''

Now, I love when my colleagues across the aisle claim that industry is so confused and that is why we have to streamline these bills.

I ask the American people: When you hear this language, does it sound streamlined? I don't think so.

Mr. Speaker, I have a very high-tech drawing I will use to help the American people understand what they are talking about here.

You have got this geothermal energy producer. Here is a good example of a power plant using geothermal. If they are taking subsurface geothermal resources from private lands, let's say this side, and over 50 percent of their geothermal resources are coming from the private side, they are saying, if you drill down underneath this plant and go under your favorite national park, your favorite stream on BLM lands, your favorite place to go fishing on public lands, they don't have to get a permit. They can just do it. That is what the bill says.

This isn't a difference of perspective, it is literally what the bill is trying to do, and that is to exempt Federal permit requirements on the Federal subsurface estate adjacent to private lands.

The claim that State permitting would apply is not true. State permitting only applies to private lands. State permitting requirements do not apply to Federal lands. Even if you have a State permitting regime like States that protect the environment, it is not going to help you over here on the Federal estate.

If you live in a State where there are not State environmental protections for the environment, then guess what? You are screwed.

That is why we are trying to protect the Federal estate and the community and environmental interests here. We are not trying to stop geothermal. As I said, we are fans. Let's do this, but let's do it in an environmentally responsible and community-informed way.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I will go back to the language of the text. As I read the text as it appears on the page as introduced, it is seeking to exempt Federal permitting requirements for the subsurface estate, so that means Federal resources.

They are saying, if it is private land on top but public on the bottom, you don't have to get a permit. That is what they are saying.

Now, I know that boggles the mind for some folks, but that is essentially an American resource. The people of this country should have a say as to whether or not they want an energy plant to go in, for drilling to happen under their lands, for resources to be extracted. It is just common sense.

Mr. Speaker, I will also make the point that there were some comments

made about the administration trying to restrict geothermal. That is just patently untrue.

This is not about trying to restrict or trying to stop geothermal; this is just about maintaining the existing requirements that we have in protecting American resources in the subsurface so that the taxpayers get a fair shake and that the American public can say whether or not they think it is a good idea to have a private company drilling and removing resources under our feet. It is common sense.

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

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 7409 is another loophole disguised as permitting reform and streamlining. It would create a path for geothermal projects to bypass critical environmental and community reviews based on arbitrary line drawings and new convoluted, not streamlined, language regarding the Federal subsurface estate.

It sets a dangerous precedent. I know they keep saying this is about streamlining and making it easier. This bill is not common sense when you read it. It would allow more energy projects to move forward without community input and oversight.

We have already worked on bipartisan solutions. We already have some bills that we all agree on, but here we are debating, in the final hours of this Congress, a bill that would do away with just basic, commonsense public input through the process.

We didn't spend a lot of time talking about it today, but the Federal agency that manages our subsurface, the Bureau of Land Management, has raised legitimate concerns about this bill, opposes this bill, and has warned that it would undermine our ability to enforce safety regulations, to uphold environmental laws, to do Tribal consultation, and to ensure that these projects are aligned with our multiple-use mandate, meaning we can protect our public lands for other uses.

As experts on the process, we have to listen to these folks. This is what they do every day.

We understand that there are opportunities to improve permitting. It is part of why we passed the Inflation Reduction Act. It is part of why we are making an over $1 billion investment in expediting the permitting process and helping to get energy projects on the ground.

We are in the middle of a major energy transition, but we can't do that in an irresponsible manner by fast-tracking projects that need public input.

All energy projects have impacts, and this bill takes away the opportunity to just take a look and give the opportunity for the public to weigh in.

We have to keep this in mind as we move forward and work to build a more just and sustainable future where our communities continue to have a say in what we do with the Federal estate, whether it is on the top or it is underneath our feet.

For these reasons I urge a ``no'' vote on H.R. 7409, and 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. 7409) to amend the Geothermal Steam Act of 1970 to waive the requirement for a Federal drilling permit for certain activities, to exempt certain activities from the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, 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 include extraneous material on H.R. 7409.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 7409, the Harnessing Energy At Thermal Sources Act, or the HEATS Act.

First, I thank the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Kim), my friend, for being a leader on this issue and working with my staff and me to bring this bipartisan bill to the floor.

H.R. 7409, the HEATS Act, is a commonsense bill that would expedite the development of geothermal energy on non-Federal lands containing Federal minerals.

Currently, geothermal operators on non-Federal land producing any amount of Federal resources must abide by all Federal laws and permitting processes, even if the share of Federal minerals is minuscule.

Under this bill, such projects would still undergo a rigorous State permitting process but would not be bogged down by duplicative and burdensome Federal permitting processes.

H.R. 7409 stipulates that geothermal wells on non-Federal lands are not subject to NEPA, ESA, or NHPA if the United States holds an ownership interest of less than 50 percent of the geothermal estate and the operator receives a drilling permit from the respective State.

Notably, the bill would not impact the royalty paid to the Federal Government. Therefore, it would not reduce the Federal revenues generated by geothermal production. In fact, it would actually increase Federal revenues by reducing the administrative responsibilities of Federal agencies and expediting the permitting process for geothermal development.

Enhanced geothermal systems, or EGS, are created by injecting fluid deep underground in carefully controlled conditions to create new fractures and causing preexisting fractures to open, increasing permeability below the surface. The process employs established technology already commonly utilized in the energy sector, and the DOE estimates that EGS could generate 60 gigawatts of electricity by 2050, which represents 8.5 percent of the U.S. generation capacity.

The best geothermal reservoirs suitable for EGS are located in States with Federal minerals, including Colorado, California, Utah, Nevada, Idaho, New Mexico, and Oregon.

Mr. Speaker, Federal streamlining efforts like this bill will be necessary to realize EGS' full potential. Federal minerals, however, come with red tape.

This bill provides a rational approach to streamlining the development of a proven renewable energy source. This commonsense bill will help spur geothermal energy development and promote American energy independence as part of an all-of-the-above energy strategy. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this bill.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, if we lived in a place called Utopia, a lot of this might be possible. I come from an engineering background. Some of the things I remember from those classes long ago, laws like energy can't be created or destroyed, it just changes form.

It would be nice if we could get electricity in the wire without a geothermal plant or to mine coal or to mine gas or to build the solar farm. We haven't figured out how to do that yet.

If we want energy, we are going to have to use the sources that we have got where they are. If we want minerals, we are going to have to get them out of the ground. That can be a good thing because that can create jobs, that can create economic growth. We can do it in a responsible way.

Mr. Speaker, this bill does not remove all permitting. It requires landowners to still get permits from States. It has protections built in for the environment. It gives States and local communities a bigger seat at the table than to rely on some permit coming out of Washington, D.C., to develop a project that has a slight interest in Federal minerals.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Kim) and commend her for bringing this bill forward.

Mr. Speaker, I guess things depend on the perspective from which you look at them. They took the geothermal plant picture down that was up on the other side of the aisle, but I will point out that if that plant were to be built on Federal lands, it would go fully under Federal permitting process.

We are talking about facilities that are built on State or private lands that are close to Federal lands. What we are really talking about is not what is on the surface; it is what is below the surface.

If the geothermal energy that is going to this facility, if 50 percent or less of that is coming off of the Federal estate, then the developer would not have to go through the Federal permitting process but would go through the State permitting process.

They would still pay the Federal Government the royalty for the geothermal energy that is coming off of the Federal estate, but they just wouldn't have to go through the Federal permitting process.

You can look at that and say, oh, they are being exempted from the Federal permitting process, but if you look at it from the other perspective, why should a State or private landowner be subject to the Federal permitting process on their private or State land just because less than half of the energy that is going into this facility is coming off of the Federal Government?

Should the Federal Government be dictating to States and private businesses and private landowners what gets developed on their land?

Again, I guess it is just the perspective of how you look at it, but the one thing we know is, you can't harvest and harness this renewable geothermal energy that could make up 8\1/2\ percent of our electricity generation without getting it out of the ground and having a facility to utilize that.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Stauber).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I appreciate the gentlewoman pointing out the language on page 3 of the bill. I will point that out too because it says, ``The Secretary shall not require an operator to obtain a Federal drilling permit for geothermal exploration and production activities conducted on a non-Federal surface estate. . . .''

I think most people would agree that we don't want the Federal Government telling States and private landowners that they have to obtain a Federal permit to extract energy off of their land. That is exactly why we are proposing this bill, and it is not coming from the standpoint that the government knows best, that somebody sitting here in D.C. in a nondescript cubicle should be telling somebody thousands of miles away how to develop their land. No.

We shouldn't require Federal permitting on State and private land, which is what we are talking about. That is what this bill would do. It is only in the case where when you get below the surface, if more than 50 percent of the geothermal energy is coming off of Federal land, then you still have to go through the Federal permitting.

If it is less than 50 percent, then the State permitting would rule. It is a commonsense bill. It would promote economic development. It would promote renewable energy development. It is a bill that needs to be passed.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Duarte), who also worked closely on this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

In closing, I would like to urge my colleagues to vote in support of H.R. 7409. The HEATS Act would expedite geothermal energy production by removing the requirement that geothermal operators receive a Federal drilling permit for wells on State and private lands where the subsurface geothermal estate is less than 50 percent Federal.

Operators would still be required to receive State permits and approval but would be exempt from Federal permitting regulations like NEPA, the ESA, and section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. That is a mouthful of words, but let's look at in practicality.

We are talking about a geothermal production facility that is going to have a footprint on the surface of the land. It is going to be on the surface of State or private land. Then we are going drill a hole thousands of feet into the ground, an 8- to 12-inch in diameter hole that is going to go a mile or so deeper, maybe 2 miles deep into the ground. Then it is going to turn horizontal, and it is going to start picking up geothermal energy from a large area.

What my friends across the aisle seem to want to do is to invoke a NEPA permit on a hole in the ground 2 miles deep. They want to be able to implement the ESA because of a hole in the ground 2 miles deep. They want to do a National Historic Preservation assessment because of a hole in the ground 2 miles deep.

What they really want to do is be able to link this private facility on State or private land back to the Federal Government so they can use these laws that are well-intentioned, well-meaning laws to stop that facility from being built on State or private land.

There is no environmental benefit of doing an ESA analysis on a hole in the ground 2 miles deep. There is no historical preservation that is going to be improved by permitting a hole 2 miles deep, not when this has already been through a robust State permitting process and these States have requirements and regulations for developing energy resources within their borders. What this does is it eliminates duplicative bureaucracy at the Federal level that has no intent or purpose other than to impede geothermal energy development.

This bill will lower emissions and energy costs for American families and strengthen U.S. energy independence. Accelerating renewable geothermal production and deployment is a win for our economy, our national security, and the environment.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.