Lawmakers, industry warn U.S. lags on critical‑minerals processing; urge permitting reform, funding and traceability

At a House Energy and Commerce subcommittee hearing, lawmakers and industry witnesses said the United States risks its economic and national security because it lacks domestic processing and refining capacity for critical minerals and urged Congress to act on permitting reform, targeted funding and supply‑chain traceability.

The hearing brought industry and policy witnesses before the subcommittee to describe what several testified are choke points in the midstream — the smelting, refining and chemical conversions that turn mined ore into products manufacturers can use — and to press for coordinated federal action. Abigail Hunter, executive director of the SAFE Center for Critical Mineral Strategy, told the committee that “China possesses 65% of global lithium refining, over 70% of battery‑grade nickel and cobalt, and more than 90% of graphite and rare earths processing,” and that Beijing has used export controls and other market tools to exert leverage.

Why it matters: witnesses said extraction alone will not secure U.S. supply chains. Katie Sweeney, executive vice president and chief operating officer of the National Mining Association, said extraction and processing must scale together and criticized multi‑year permitting timelines and litigation as primary barriers to investment. Alexander Hergot, president of the Permitting Institute, argued that slow, fragmented permitting and broad judicial exposure have discouraged private capital and handed strategic advantage to foreign competitors.

Key facts presented

- Dependence and scale: Witnesses cited the U.S. Geological Survey’s Mineral Commodity Summaries (2024) showing the United States was fully import‑reliant for a subset of critical minerals and more than 50% import reliant for many others. Hunter and other witnesses documented recent PRC export restrictions on items such as gallium, germanium, graphite and multiple rare earth elements and said China refines the great majority of some midstream products.

- Timelines and costs: Witnesses described midstream projects and processing plants as long and capital‑intensive to bring online — testimony noted it can take “10 to 20 years” for some processing facilities and that mine development in the U.S. has among the longest timelines worldwide. Casey Hammond, principal at Capital Pillar LLC, added that agencies sometimes take years to complete actions historically done in months, and that unpredictable agency and judicial reviews chill investment.

- Policy levers discussed: Panelists urged a mix of measures, including permitting modernization and clearer, enforceable timelines for environmental reviews; financial incentives such as production tax credits (for example, the IRA’s 45X mechanisms referenced in testimony), loan‑program prioritization and IIJA grant execution; use of Defense Production Act authorities; and international coordination with allies to diversify interim supply.

- Traceability and recycling: David Howell, strategy director at the BAT Coalition, and others supported traceability measures (often called “battery passports”) to document origin and processing, and stressed battery recycling and grid storage as complementary pathways to reduce import dependence over time.

Representative positions and concerns

- Democratic members said the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law and the Inflation Reduction Act created important demand signals and financial tools that attract processing investment, and warned that proposed cuts to those programs would undermine progress.

- Republican members and witnesses emphasized permitting reform, streamlined NEPA implementation and limits on litigation as the clearest near‑term ways to unlock private capital and accelerate domestic processing capacity.

Representative and witness quotations

- “Processing is dozens of steps. Policy cannot stop at extraction,” Abigail Hunter said, urging material‑specific strategies that combine incentives with market readiness.

- “Too many decision makers spread across too many parts of the country ... projects must” be dealt with more efficiently, Alexander Hergot said, adding that faster approvals need not mean weaker environmental protection.

- Katie Sweeney said a missing element is coordination across agencies and that litigation timelines can add decades to permitting processes.

Discussion highlights and examples

Members and witnesses cited several projects and regions as illustrative: the Stibnite/Perpetua project in Idaho (antimony and related byproducts), a large nickel‑copper deposit in Minnesota, and Alaska graphite potential. Witnesses described some projects that have faced multiyear permitting delays despite private capital at risk and said those delays undermine both remediation and new production opportunities.

The committee also discussed market‑based pressures, including examples witnesses described as Chinese market actions that undercut domestic producers’ ability to remain economically viable while they complete permitting and construction.

What the hearing produced

No final votes or committee actions were taken at the hearing. Witnesses and members coalesced around several recurring prescriptions: (1) clearer, enforceable federal permitting timelines and better interagency coordination, (2) targeted federal financial tools and loan‑program prioritization to lower the cost of capital for U.S. processors, (3) traceability and recycled‑materials strategies to expand non‑Chinese feedstocks, and (4) allied coordination to provide interim sources of processed feedstock while domestic capacity is built.

Looking ahead

Multiple witnesses said the United States has a “window” of opportunity to scale midstream capacity and benefit from China’s changing market posture, but that the window could close without prompt congressional action. Committee members from both parties emphasized different immediate priorities — funding and demand signals on the Democratic side, permitting and judicial reform on the Republican side — leaving the path forward subject to inter‑party negotiation.

Ending note

The hearing underscored a consensus among witnesses that raw U.S. resources alone are insufficient: domestic processing, stable policy signals and coordinated federal action are essential to reduce reliance on foreign processors and to shore up both economic and national security.