McCollum Opposition to H.R. 8446, Critical Mineral Consistency Act, and H.R. 7409, Harnessing Energy at Thermal Sources Act

Mr. Speaker, the Critical Mineral Consistency Act (H.R. 8446) and the Harnessing Energy At Thermal Sources (HEATS) Act (H.R. 7409) would both limit the ability of the American public to have a say in protecting our public lands and determining how our natural resources are used.

H.R. 8446 gives cover for the copper industry to gain access to tax credits and expedited permitting processes. Only critical minerals on the U.S. Geological Service (USGS) list can access these federal supports, and we should not be playing politics with that process. 

Foreign-owned mining conglomerates stand to benefit the most from this legislation, as they seek to fast-track copper mines like those that threaten the watershed of the Boundary Waters Wilderness in Minnesota, or the sacred site of Oak Flats in Arizona. These companies will have no obligation to contribute to our domestic supply with the minerals they pull out of our public lands. But our surrounding communities will bear the costs of pollution that all copper mines create. The least we can do is ensure the public and our federal government has the full opportunity to review these mines. 

The American public should also not be subsidizing new copper mines when we have secure supply chains that meet our needs, as determined by the USGS. The USGS list of critical minerals intentionally differs in important ways from the Department of Energy’s list of critical materials. Minerals only make it on to the USGS list if their supply chain is at risk of disruption. The tax credits that Congress passed to encourage the development of at-risk critical minerals should not go to support the copper industry, when the U.S. is already a global top-five producer and a top-ten exporter of copper. 

The other bill under consideration today, the HEATS Act, would completely exempt certain geothermal projects that impact subsurface federal resources from the environmental review process if less than half of a geothermal project is non-federal. That means that if a project starts on private land but drills underground into publicly owned areas, it would not have to abide by the federal regulations.

I want to be clear that geothermal is an important renewable energy source, and that advancing geothermal energy is a worthy goal. That is why the House has already passed bipartisan legislation, and the Biden Administration has streamlined the process for certain categories of geothermal projects. I secured community project funding for a Geothermal Heat Pump to replace the inefficient natural gas-based system at St. Paul’s Como Park Zoo and Conservatory. However, we must ensure that when geothermal projects impact our federal resources, they go through our federal review process. The Bureau of Land Management, who overseas our federal subsurface areas, is concerned that this bill would undermine their ability to ensure public safety, to uphold environmental laws, to consult with tribal nations, and to fulfill their core mission of managing our natural resources for multiple use.

I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing both these misguided bills and protecting public review of projects that impact our public resources. Thank you, and I yield back.