Ideological divisions mark members' approach to mineral crunch

E&E News
By Manuel Quinones
July 24, 2014

House Natural Resources Committee Republicans yesterday urged the Senate to take up legislation to promote the domestic supply of important minerals for economic growth and clean energy development.

But their pleas, made during a hearing of the Energy and Mineral Resources Subcommittee, came one day after the House voted down Democratic legislation meant to do just that.

The developments are emblematic of the growing differences of opinion on how to deal with American dependence on countries like China for resources like rare earth elements.

Subcommittee Chairman Doug Lamborn (R-Colo.) said the bills represent "two approaches to reforming problems in America." One involves cutting red tape, the other creating "another government program," he said.

Lamborn and other GOP leaders on the Natural Resources panel are partial to Nevada Republican Rep. Mark Amodei's H.R. 761 to streamline mine permitting and cut down on litigation. It passed the House last year.

"Our foreign dependence is a choice. And the freedom from that dependence is a choice, as well," Lamborn said. "We are still waiting for the Senate to take action. From past experience, it may be a long wait."

While not a member of the panel, Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-Calif.) sat through yesterday's hearing in an effort to defend his bill, defeated Tuesday in part because of conservative opposition (E&E Daily, July 23).

Swalwell's H.R. 1022 would have authorized programs, largely already underway, to promote research and federal coordination on mineral issues.

Swalwell blames certain groups, including Heritage Action for America, for putting forward "myths about the bill that did not exist." Subcommittee ranking member Rush Holt (D-N.J.) said defeat of the bill "doesn't reflect well on this body" and added that mining is "one piece of what should be a comprehensive strategy."

But Republican lawmakers point to testimony from business leaders and analysts, who say regulatory hurdles are hurting U.S. competitiveness.

SNL Financial metals consultant Mark Fellows testified that there is a "gross structural mismatch" between what the United States produces and what it uses.

"It is a shame that mining activity in the U.S. is handicapped by a permitting system which severely hampers the development of a sustainable mining industry in the U.S.," Fellows said.

Jerry Pyatt, CEO of the Doe Run Co., a lead industry giant, cited U.S. EPA pressure for having to close the last primary lead smelter in the country, which had long been under the microscope of regulators and environmental advocates.

Pyatt said the company now ships lead overseas for processing. And he said the company has put off plans to build a cleaner processing system because of regulatory uncertainty. "It forces companies like Doe Run to be very conservative," he said.

While some Democrats have expressed an openness to studying mine permitting issues, party leaders have been against reforming environmental laws. Republicans retort that reforming doesn't mean weakening.

Anthony Ku, senior scientist for General Electric Co.'s GE Global Research, said efforts aimed at securing mineral supplies "should not weaken existing environmental protections."

Careful not to wade into policy issues, Ku focused on highlighting efforts at GE to reduce or manage dependence on key minerals. "There's a suite of approaches that need to be taken to secure the supply chain, in the experience of GE," he said.

Eric Peterson, a Critical Materials Institute researcher at the Idaho National Laboratory, took a similar approach, touting efforts to improve the recycling and reuse of minerals. Asked by Swalwell whether the government could do better, Peterson replied, "Yes, we can do better."