Bruce Westerman

Mr. WESTERMAN

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

Mr. WESTERMAN. 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. WESTERMAN. 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. WESTERMAN. 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. WESTERMAN

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

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

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

Mr. WESTERMAN. 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. WESTERMAN. 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. WESTERMAN. 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. WESTERMAN. 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. WESTERMAN. 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. WESTERMAN. 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. WESTERMAN. 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. WESTERMAN

Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Speaker, the Federal Government is long overdue in doing the work needed to bring its permitting processes into the 21st century. The bill before us instructs the Secretary to create an electronic permitting system to accept, process, and record applications for any permitting process under the Department's jurisdiction. Mr. Speaker, even though the gentlewoman from California opposed my commonsense, straightforward forestry bill earlier today, I do recognize, commend, and support Representative Porter for her work on this legislation, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, Representative Porter's bipartisan legislation directs the Secretary of the Interior to design and deliver electronic permitting systems for permits, forms, and other required paperwork to the extent practical. Republicans have long supported streamlining and simplifying the permitting process. Additionally, the minority worked with us to address a concern raised with the legislation and how it would interact with recent changes to NEPA enacted under the Fiscal Responsibility Act. These discussions led to changes to Ms. Porter's legislation to clarify that any permitting system related to NEPA be consistent with the priorities identified in the FRA's NEPA provision. This legislation aims to streamline the management of operations of the Department of the Interior, improving access to our public lands and Department facilities. Modernizing the permitting process is an overdue task needed to increase departmental efficiency and improve transparency. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. LaMalfa).

Mr. WESTERMAN

Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 7370, the Geothermal Energy Opportunity Act. Geothermal power has serious potential for growth in this country. In fact, DOE estimates that next-generation geothermal technologies, like enhanced geothermal systems, could provide up to 90 gigawatts of reliable baseload energy by 2050. The best geothermal resources are located out West on Federal lands, and we must do all we can to ensure that bureaucratic red tape does not hamper the development of this resource moving forward. H.R. 7370, the GEO Act, introduced by the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Curtis), requires the Bureau of Land Management to process geothermal permits and authorizations unless a Federal court says otherwise. In some cases, the Biden administration has stopped processing permits and authorizations for geothermal and oil and gas projects solely because of the threat of litigation or because they have unilaterally decided to wait for the appearance of new information. Often, this delay tactic is meant to appease radical special interest groups who wish to stop all energy development on Federal lands and whose former employees have infiltrated the Department. Simply put, agencies should continue to move projects forward until they are directed otherwise by a court, and agencies should defend their work in court. Geothermal energy is becoming easier to produce every day, thanks to enhanced geothermal systems and the advanced methods these developers have borrowed from the oil and gas industry. We cannot allow the mere threat of frivolous litigation to hamper domestic energy production. This bill would address concerns voiced by the Bureau of Land Management during our hearing to ensure they can comply with existing laws. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I commend the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Curtis) for working on this commonsense piece of legislation. Again, I urge my colleagues to support the bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WESTERMAN

Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from Virginia (Mrs. Kiggans), who is the sponsor of the bill.

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

Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Speaker, coastal barriers are important for the protection of coastal communities and for wildlife habitat. The BEACH Act balances these two needs by reauthorizing and amending CBRA to recognize the changes to coastal barriers that have taken place over time. The bill would also benefit coastal communities by providing much-needed transparency. Mr. Speaker, I commend my colleague, Mrs. Kiggans, for her great work on the bill. I urge my colleagues to support the legislation, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WESTERMAN

Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Speaker, the ohia tree is important to Hawaii's ecosystem, people, and the economy. This legislation will help focus Federal and State resources on conserving one of the most important tree species in Hawaii. Mr. Speaker, I recognize and support my colleague Ms. Tokuda's work on this issue, and I yield back the balance of my time.