Hearing on Fast Track Expansion, Earth MRI, Quantum Critical Minerals Mapping

The subcommittee on energy and minerals resources will come to order. Without objection, the chair is authorized to declare recess of the subcommittee at any time. Under committee rule four F, any oral oral opening statements at hearings are limited to the chairman and the ranking minority member. I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mister Delusio, and the gentleman from Alabama, Mister Palmer, Without objection, so ordered. I now recognize myself for an opening statement. Thank you all for being here today to discuss these important pieces of legislation. So far this Congress, under the leadership of House Republicans, the Committee on Natural Resources has built upon the Trump Administration's domestic energy and mineral dominance agenda, and has prioritized development of American resources to uh, American resources to increase economic prosperity and strengthen American energy and mineral security. The bills we have before us today build upon this momentum by increasing our knowledge of America's surface and subsurface resources and streamline that permitting process for critical energy, mineral and infrastructure projects. H R eight zero zero three, introduced by Representatives Delusio and Crank, it amends title forty-one of the Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act, or FAST forty-one, to lower the estimated cost requirement for eligible projects from two hundred million dollars to fi- fifty million dollars. This will allow mid-sized infrastructure projects to be eligible for the permitting frameworks outlined in FAST forty-one. This bill would reduce project timelines, decrease adverse costs, and allow for the critical infrastructure that communities and industry rely on to be comple- completed more efficiently. Last month, this subcommittee held an oversight hearing on the US Geological Survey's Earth Mapping Resources Initiative or Earth MRI which is set to expire at the end of this fiscal year. HR ninety-six forty, introduced by Representatives Whitman and Dingell, would reauthorize Earth MRI for another five years, continuing the important work of mapping our nation's surface and subsurface resources. This reauthorization is crucial to continue initial, comprehensive, national, modern, sa- surface and subsurface map and data integration. This reauthorization will also enable us to build upon the progress progress we have made during the first five years of Earth MRI and go back to key geological formations like the Duluth complex in northern Minnesota, to get deeper, a more in-depth view of the geological resources just below our feet. Simply put, the maps obtained through Earth mri research will further strengthen america's critical mineral supply chains to protect our national and economic security while ensuring american industrial competitiveness just last month president trump signed exec executive order fourteen four thirteen ushering in the next frontier of quantum innovation establishing a whole government effort to accelerate us leadership in quantum information science and technology president trump recognizes the importance quantum capability as a strategic driver of of af- economic growth, scientific discovery and national security. H R ninety-six forty-six, introduced by representatives Herd and Carbo-Sol, Carbo-Hall, directs the USGS to establish a quantum enhanced critical mineral survey program, and incorporate the survey data into earth MRI data platforms. This initiative would utilize quantum gravity, uh to produce ultra-high resolution maps of subsurface density variations, which are useful for geologic mapping, mineral exploration and locating uh underground features. HR ninety six forty six would require the USGS to conduct quantum gravity uh gradient gradematric gradi uh metric surveys in uh priority focus areas with critical uh mineral zones for the discovery and characterization of potential mineral deposits in or adjacent to our federal lands. The United States is blessed with an abundance of natural resources. If we wanna secure our critical mineral supply chains, if we wanna grow our economic prosperity, and ensure our national security, it is imperative that we know where these resources are. Earth MRI and a quantum survey surveying are steps in that right direction for our country to understand the wealth that is right underneath our feet. But even when these resources are identified, it is equally as important that we allow businesses and industry to develop these resources. Fast forty-one is a great tool that improves permitting timelines and coordination across federal agencies so we can responsibly develop this country's natural resources. Not only will the bills before us today help us identify and understand our vast natural resources they will also help us responsibly develop these resources, to ensure American can Americans can compete and also win in this twenty-first century. I am excited by this bipartisan support for all three of these bills and I look forward to hearing from our witnesses on these important bills. I will now yield to the ranking member for her opening statement, Representative Ansari.

Thank you, Chair Stauber. I am happy to be here to discuss three bipartisan bills that will help us responsibly develop our public resources and build the infrastructure communities need, without cutting corners, protections for people and the planet. The process for getting permits to build critical infrastructure whether it is housing, bridges, transmission lines, or clean energy, can be too long, too unpredictable, and too difficult to navigate. We all agree there is room for improvement here. But too often the proposed solution is simply to take shortcuts, gut environmental reviews, shut local communities out of decision-making, and close courthouse doors so no one can challenge bad permitting decisions. But we don't have to choose between building quickly and building well. We can protect our lands, air, water, while also delivering projects faster and giving communities a meaningful voice in decisions that affect them. We now have almost a decade of experience showing exactly that. Through the FAST forty-one program, the Federal Permitting Improvement Steering Council has helped improve coordination across agencies, increased transparency, and created a more predictable process for developers and the public alike, while upholding every single one of our bedrock environmental laws. As a result, permitting timelines have been reduced by around eighteen months. And those results come from the ability to bring agencies together, establish clear schedules, provide dedicated resources and expert staff, and make the process clear and transparent. Fast forty-one is by no means perfect, and there is certainly room to improve how project development meaningfully engages with the public, but it demonstrates that we can make permitting more efficient without sacrificing accountability. But as this administration guts our federal agencies and rubber stamps major projects in as little as fourteen days, with no public comment, fast forty-one provides an important measure of transparency and accountability. H R H R eight zero zero three is a common sense move to extend FAST forty one's expedited coordinated review process to mid-size energy and infrastructure projects, so smaller projects that power a neighborhood or bring jobs to a single town can benefit from the FAST forty one review process. It does this by lowering the required investment threshold from two hundred million dollars to fifty million. I am happy to support bill from my colleague, Representative Delusio, but I must say I cannot fully call this a win for the American people as long as this administration continues to weaponize the permitting system to benefit only Trump's chosen developers. Under this administration, there is a noticeable lack of new wind and solar projects getting the FAST-forty-one treatment. Instead of transparency and predictability, clean, affordable energy faces extra red tape and a bureaucratic black box. leaving developers in the dark about the status of their projects. The American people deserve a permitting system that works consistently, not just for President Trump's preferred industries. The other two bills on today's hearing make smart investments in science that underpins responsible public resource management. We have seen time and time again that investing in science and research keeps people safe, and drives American innovation. H R ninety six forty reauthorizes the successful Earth mri geological mapping program. Earth MRI helps us understand what resources lie beneath our feet, from the critical minerals we need for modern technology, to the groundwater we drink and our farmers use for irrigation. Better geologic mapping allows us to make smarter decisions about where development makes sense, while reducing unnecessary exploration and uncertainty. HR ninety six forty nine builds on the success of earth MRI by testing emerging technologies that can map subsurface resources more quickly and efficiently, providing better information to the public while reducing costs and impacts. Together, these bills recognize that better science and more permitting go hand in hand. We can and should be investing in these areas to build the infrastructure that America needs. Thank you, and I look forward to hearing from the witnesses today.

I thank the ranking member for her statement. Uh, I will now begin our member panel. to allow the bill's sponsors to speak on their legislation. I will now recognize representative Herd from Colorado for testimony on his bill.

Thank you, Chairman Stauber, for holding today's hearing and for including HR ninety six forty six, the Quantum Enhanced Critical Minerals Mapping Act. Before we can responsibly develop America's critical minerals, we have to first know where they are. Better decisions begin with better information. earth mri has already transformed our understanding of america's subsurface resources this bill simply asks a straightforward question if new quantum sensing technologies can produce more accurate maps while reducing unnecessary drilling and lowering exploration risk why wouldn't we incorporate those tools into the program this bill directs the usgs to test this technology in partnership with our national laboratories and the private sector to integrate those results into the existing earth mri database make the information publicly available and report back to congress on whether or not it works if the technology delivers what it's developers believe it can america will be in a stronger position to deliver critical minerals discover critical minerals strengthen domestic supply chains and maintain our technological leadership thank you mister chairman again for allowing me to bring this bill up for hearing in this committee, and I yield back.

Thank you very much. Uh, I will now recognize Representative Delusio from Pennsylvania for testimony on his bill.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh, I appreciate the opportunity to speak in front of the committee today in support of, uh, my bill, HR eight zero zero three, expanding the Fast-Track Act of twenty twenty six. I think folks in this room and the committee understand the need for permitting reform and federal permitting logjams in particular have slowed down critical energy and infrastructure projects that could make life better and lower bills to the American people. The Fast Forty-One program could be improved. That's what this bill's about. That program helps projects navigate the complex web of federal permits. Projects that opt into the Fast Forty-One program get permitting decisions nearly eighteen months faster. That's a twenty-three percent shorter timeline. Fast Forty-One participation doesn't guarantee a certain decision or evade any NEPA requirements, it just gets those approvals or deniers, denials, excuse me, faster and more quickly. My bill uh lowers the minimum investment threshold for infrastructure projects to qualify as covered projects under the FAST forty-one program from two hundred million dollars down to fifty million dollars, bringing more projects into the program. It is bipartisan. This idea began as a letter and suggestion from the National Governors Association bipartisan working group. on permitting reform. It includes my home state, Governor Josh Shapiro from Pennsylvania. I thank Mister Crank, Colorado, for for co-leading the effort. Uh, there's a big ten of support here because I think there is a wide understanding that permitting decisions need to move more quickly. So with that, Mister Chairman and the ranking member, I thank you for bringing this up for consideration and hope we can keep productive permitting reform bills moving this Congress.

Thank you very much. We will now begin our second panel, which is comprised of one witness. Let me remind the witness that under the committee

Mister Chairman.

Yes.

Could I come in as a sponsor of that?

Represent representative Crank, yes.

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Mister Chairman. I wanna thank the Chairman for holding the hearing and the ranking member for your kind words as well. And I do wanna thank Mister Delusio for working with us on this. It's great to work in a bipartisan uh fashion with my colleague and to expand eligibility under the FAST forty-one program. Uh, Congress created the Permitting Council to improve transparency and coordination for complex federal permitting decisions. FAST forty-one uh, establishes clear agency responsibilities, coordinated project schedules, and reasonable timelines, while reducing duplicative reviews and uh, providing greater certainty through a statute of limitations on judicial review. Uh, at its core, FAST forty-one is about delivering major infrastructure projects in roughly two years instead of seven or more. And uh, under Executive Director Dominic, the Trump administration has fully utilized FAST forty-one to accelerate American energy, manufacturing, and critical infrastructure projects. And the program demonstrates that we can build projects more efficient efficiently while maintaining rigorous environmental review and stewardship. And by lowering the covered project's uh uh investment threshold from two hundred million to fifty million, Congress has taken important step toward making uh these permitting efficiencies available to more projects. And so uh with that uh, Mister Chairman, I'm I'm uh proud of the work with Mister Delusio and uh I would uh ask that we uh obviously look favorably on this bill. Thank you.

Thank you, Representative Crink. Uh, we will now begin our second panel, which is comprised of one witness. Let me remind uh the witness that under the committee rules they must limit their oral statement to five minutes but their entire statement will appear in the hearing record. Uh, to begin your testimony, please press on, the on button on the microphone. We use timey lights. When you begin the light will turn green, at the end of five minutes the light will turn red. And I will ask you to please complete your statement. I will allow the witness to testify before member questioning. Our witness for this panel is Emily Domenech, who is no stranger to the house. Uh, Miss Domenech serves as the Executive Director for the Federal Permitting Improvement Steering Council. And she is stationed right here in Washington DC. Uh, Director Domenech, it is great to see you again. Uh, you are now recognized for five minutes.

Good morning. Thank you, Chairman Stauber, Ranking Member Ansari, and distinguished members of the subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources. I really appreciate the opportunity to provide testimony on HR eight zero zero three the expanding the Fast-Track Act of twenty twenty six. As a note, my testimony will be limited only to that bill and to the views of the Federal Permitting Improvement Steering Council also known as the Permitting Council. The Permanent Council was established in twenty fifteen by title forty one of fixing America's surface transportation act commonly referred to as FAST forty one. As Executive Director, I also serve as the Chair of the Permanent Council, which is otherwise made up of thirteen federal agencies, along with the Chair of the White House Council on Environmental Quality and the Director of the Office of Management and Budget. The Office of the Executive Director implements FAST forty one and is primarily focused on improving the transparency and predictability federal environmental and regulatory reviews and authorizations, by coordinating and publicly posting comprehensive permitting timelines for critical infrastructure projects. While our member agencies are regulatory in nature, it is important to note that the permitting council itself does not set or implement regulatory policy. Instead, the agency serves as a project manager to coordinate environmental and regulatory reviews across each federal agency for a given project. And being included on the FAST forty-one dashboard is entirely voluntary for project sponsors. Since my appointment to the Permitting Council last year, our team has worked to ensure the agency adheres to the directives given to us by Congress, while following the clear leadership of the President to ensure an efficient permitting process while fully retaining the environmental and regulatory protections, established in the law. I believe we are operating at the full potential of our authorizing statute for the first time in this agency's history, and are effectively executing on the mission Congress intended. Since the beginning of President Trump's second term, The Permitting Council has added an additional seventy-nine projects to the FAST forty-one dashboard, thirty-nine covered projects, and forty transparency projects. But I'm even more proud of the number of projects that have completed their federal reviews in that same time. Twenty-six FAST forty-one projects have been completed since January of last year, which is about one fourth of the projects that have ever been completed in this agency's history. There are currently sixty-nine active projects on the dashboard in thirty-three states representing thirteen different infrastructure sectors. More projects on the FAST forty-one dashboard translates to more critical infrastructure built in America, more jobs, economic growth, and improved transparency for these projects in the communities where they are being built. Our success is due in part to utilizing the authority to list transparency projects on the dashboard for the first time. This authority was provided to Congress uh, provided by Congress to the Permitting Council in the IJA in twenty twenty one, and has allowed us to add forty additional projects to the dashboard since the start of this administration. While the statute does not provide the same structure in reporting for transparency projects as it does for traditional covered projects, increased transparency in the permitting process is always a positive. Eighteen transparenti transparency projects have already finished the appropriate environmental reviews since being added to the dashboard showing that simple management of timelines and transparency itself does improve the efficiency of our permitting system. H R eight zero zero three would lower the investment threshold for covered projects from two hundred million dollars fifty million dollars starting at the beginning of twenty twenty seven. Since I took on the role of Executive Director, I have heard from numerous project sponsors that the investment threshold is simply too high for their various projects to qualify. These projects span across multiple sectors, from energy and electricity transmission to broad band ports and waterways. Lowering this threshold would allow more project sponsors to utilize the service the permitting council provides, and ultimately means more critical infrastructure built in our communities. However, it's important to note that not every project is appropriate for FAST forty-one. And as the portfolio continues to grow, Congress should consider if the permitting council may eventually require more discretion to select additional projects. Any time the a change in the scope of our statute is proposed, we must consider whether we have the resources to implement those changes effectively. The permitting council currently operates using a number of different funding sources provided by Congress. I spoke earlier about the intense growth in our portfolio. uh over the last year and a half and i'm proud that our team has been able to readily meet that increased demand from project sponsors in addition the inclusion of the transparency projects on the dashboard has changed the equation for what constitutes a fast forty one project because a transparency project already does not have to meet the investment threshold of a covered project we have included far more projects on the dashboard below the two hundred million dollar investment these projects have not taken away from our covered project work and we are still completing both types of projects faster than ever before In summary, the Permitting Council supports H R eight zero zero three as written, and we are well situated to bring additional projects and continue to show that the FAST-forty-one process works for projects of all shapes and sizes. I stand ready to work with this committee on this or future legislation, and I hope as your critical work continues considering legislative permitting reform you will consider the important role that the Permitting Council plays in our federal system. In closing, I just wanna once again thank the Chairman and Ranking Member of this subcommittee, as well as Chairman Westerman and Ranking Member Huffman for their tireless work on this issue, as well as so many others that are necessary and essential for the prosperity of our nation. The work you do here is critical, from ensuring access to our national parks and public lands, to serving as good stewards of the vast natural resources of which this country is blessed. As a long-time congressional staffer who worked closely with so many of the members and staff on this committee, throughout my tenure on the Hill, it is a true privilege to testify before a committee that I hold in such high esteem. I'm grateful for your time and your efforts to advance this legislation, and I look forward to your questions today. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Uh, the chair will now recognize members for five minutes of questions. Um, I I will now recognize myself for five min- uh minutes. Uh, Director Domenech, how have permitting review time timelines for projects improved under the Trump administration compared to the Biden administration?

So, this is a great question and we've started tracking across our entire It's important, you know, we, and we serve nineteen infrastructure sectors, so we wanna look at all of them. Um, the average time on the dashboard for a project that was listed under FAST forty-one uh during the Biden administration was around fifteen hundred days The average time to completion for a project on the dashboard in the last year and a half has been four hundred days. That number is obviously a huge reduction in time, but it's important to note where it comes from. Um, I believe that we're finally reaching that four hundred day timeline because we're actually following

That's amazing, from fifteen hundred days under the prior administration to four hundred under this administration.

And and and that's frankly the the the stats you heard earlier about reducing timelines by eighteen months were from the previous administration. So, we've reduced the timeline to complete a project by about seventy-five percent.

Great. By lowering the threshold for eligibility under FAST forty-one,

Oh.

we're opening these benefits to a broader set of projects, not just the large scale projects we're trying to build across the United States. Can you highlight how enabling a greater number of mid-sized infrastructure

So, it's a great question, and I think where we see a lot of the questions about eligibility come from projects like broadband projects like water resources projects um from uh things that bring online small energy projects or or production in frankly the energy storage space, sometimes can be smaller scale projects. Um, so I my hope is that, you know, when I came in as Executive Director, I really wanted to ensure we were listing a project in every single one of our nineteen sectors, We're at thirteen right now. My hope is that by lowering the threshold to fifty million dollars, we'll be able to bring in more projects. I think a follow-up question there is how have we been utilizing the authorities we already have, which is the transparency dashboard to list smaller, more discrete, at this, at this point only mining projects, but we'd love to use it to serve other sectors as well. Um, so lowering the threshold again I think sends an important message to developers to come and meet with us. We're a voluntary program, and so we can only respond to what developers table. So I I I truly hope that we'll see more things, particularly in the broadband and water resources space, uh, with this bill being enacted.

Uh, so FIPSEA has been high uh highly effective in reducing major infrastructure permitting timelines. Uh, what kind of timing reductions could be expected for these lower cost infrastructure projects?

I I think frankly the smaller projects we should be able to do faster. Um, again, we really are looking to adhere to the timelines established in the Fiscal Responsibility Act for environmental assessments. environmental impact statements, most of your small projects are gonna be environmental assessments in many cases. Um, so we wanna be able to complete them in a year. Um, as I mentioned, you know, we've brought it down to four hundred days on the dashboard, but I wanna get that number closer to a year as we get more projects that are smaller in size and scope. Um, I also think we've seen the ability to, you know, the coordination across the agencies, it doesn't matter how large your project is, it makes a difference. We've s- we've proven that with the transparency dashboard, uh, by, by listing smaller projects.

Great. Um, I want to, I wanted to confirm one thing, a project's inclusion on the FIPC dashboard does not waive any environmental reviews, does it? The requirements are less than any environmental standards. Is that correct?

Not one. Um, it's actually a huge, an important core part of our statute is that we do not change the regulatory process, we do not change how laws are applied, We simply apply them in a more efficient way. Um, there's nothing in the statute that says many of these reviews have to happen sequentially. They just happen sequentially, frankly, because nobody's making them work at the same time. So having a coordinating function, this project management function, allows us to, to have agencies work in parallel, and that's how we save time. We are actually not allowed to list projects that are being served under expedited reviews. It's a core part of our statute. It's part of why, you know, i ironically, the the title of this bill, the fast-track act, made me laugh when I first saw it because I think actually we don't really fast-track anything we just make the process itself more efficient and more transparent.

That's great. Uh, I appreciate your comments. I will now uh recognize uh the ranking member, Ansari,

Thank you so much.

for finance.

Uh, thank you, Miss Dominic, for being here today. I just have a couple of brief questions for you. The Inflation Reduction Act provided the permitting council with three hundred and fifty million dollars for its environmental review, I'd like to ask a little bit about the status of those funds. We know that at least a hundred and sixty million of that funding was approved to be transferred to participating agencies to increase permitting capacity. Of the staff hired with that funding under the previous administration, are you able to tell us how many have since been fired or left through the deferred resignation programs?

So, I don't have a direct answer on any DRP actions that take place at agencies, but I can say for our agreements that are in in process or were actually adjudicated before the end of the previous administration, those agreements still stand. So we have what are called inter-agency agreements that provide for certain requirements from agencies to accomplish tasks. Typically those were not tied directly to hiring particular numbers of people, but they were tied instead to how do we produce metrics that actually benefit not just Fast Forty-one projects, but benefit a broader range of projects by impermitting permanent proof of the process.

S so no no ballpark in the number of of folks.

What I what I can tell you is, I'm happy to come back to you in writing, um unfortunately I don't have a number from the agencies,

I would be very

but what I can say is the places where we provided funding for what is called a fast forty one coordinator, which is someone who does directly work with our projects every day, those positions are all still filled.

OK. We will uh take you up on that and follow up with a request in writing for those numbers. Um, you know, talking about staff capacity, I would say, would you agree that staff capacity is a key way to help make permitting more efficient?

So I think staff capacity is one part of it, but I'm I'm so glad you raised the RF generally because it gives us an opportunity to sort of talk about our perspective on how we can actually improve permitting across the board we sort of have two mission sets at the permitting council. One is to directly support Fast Forty-One projects. That's typically where you see us fund individual staff to say fill a hole where somebody resigned or we need to fill a spot to make sure work is done in a timely manner. But we also look at ways to fund projects across agencies that can generally improve permitting processes. So we've put out in this administration, we put out a little over thirty million dollars in funding, uh, in support of the president's technology action plan in permitting space to to provide for frankly, really basic improvements in technology to make the permitting process faster. And when I say basic, I really mean basic. like going from using a paper PDF form that has to be transcribed by a staffer, to using a fillable Google form that automatically does that process and saves ten hours in the process. So, we're starting with the very basic tools all the way up to looking at case management and places where we can uh incorporate perhaps large models to help us better select the right level of review. We're always gonna need people to do that work, but we wanna make sure that our investments are not just helping fast forty-one projects but are also sort of rising tides lift all boats, making the whole process better.

Yeah, no, I hear you. Um, I'm sure you also recognize how dire the situation is here with our federal agency staff capacity we hear from project developers across the board who are trying to get their projects permitted that they are being held up by offices because their hydrologist took the deferred resignation program or because they don't have a geologist on staff with the necessary expertise. So these are exactly the kinds of problems that an the investments were trying to solve and much of the other funding from the IRA

So about five hundred thousand dollars was provided under that fifteen million dollars in the previous administration for the tribal assistance program.

Mm.

And we're currently going through a re-scoping process to look at both the tribal assistance program and potential state assistance in the future using ERIP funding. Um, uh, however, I would say, I don't think it's slowed down our ability to engage with tribes. We've taken a really conscious effort to focus our tribal engagement on project selection. Um, three of the projects we've finished in this administration are tribal broad band projects that were brought onto the dashboard. We've participated in a number of events with the Bureau of Indian Affairs to encourage, uh, tribes to bring projects to the We really see that as our sort of primary role to bring folks in. Obviously there is a role for funding support if it's necessary. Um, I always tell folks the easiest way for us to put provide funding to the problem you identified with the missing hydrologist or someone in the field who's not available, is to be a Fast Forty-One project, because that then allows us to transfer funding to an agency directly to support that project.

So,

So I I would argue that our perspective on the tribal program

thank you.

is is really to bring more tribal projects into Fast Forty-One.

Okay, so to be clear, there is an intention to extend the program.

We are I I am currently in a position where we are looking at the program and what we think the appropriate scope will be um but there is certainly an intention to continue our engagement with the tribal communities.

Okay. I see I'm I'm over time, so I will yield back.

Go ahead, go ahead, Rick.

Okay.

Go ahead.

Um, uh, next question, the funding was The funding was also authorized to be used for IT updates.

Nice job.

Do you have any updates on

Yeah, so that the first tranche of funding we've sent out on the the technology and modernization side is that thirty three million dollars that I mentioned that we put out in response to the president's technology action plan. Um, that funding went to uh the Army Corps of Engineers, NTIA, uh Department of Interior. We're working with them to to help to coordinate data sets so that we have one data set that we work on as opposed to seven different fragmented efforts. Um, but we really are working really closely with uh, Office of Management and Budget and CEQ to insure that what we fund at agencies are things that are either discrete processes that one agency has to do, so one of the projects we funded was helping the the Coast Guard take their bridge permit process from a paper form to a digital form. Um, you know, it's a seems like a small thing, but it'll improve that process really significantly. Um, and then we're also looking at larger efforts to fund what we call shared services across the federal government. So, imagine, you know, every agency has to go through a section one O six review process in one way, shape, or form.

Thank you. Thank you. The chair now recognizes Representative Crank for five minutes of questioning. The chair now recognizes Representative Crank for 5 minutes of questioning.

Thank you, Mister Chairman. Uh, I think it's important to clarify what happens uh when a project becomes covered under FAST forty-one and the the role the permitting council plays um in facilitating it. Uh, the the permitting council is unique uh, Executive Director Dominic um, because it's an independent non-regulatory entity that reports directly to the president uh rather than being housed within a permitting agency has the independence contributed to the council's success in coordinating agencies and keeping projects on schedule.

Yes, I I believe our independence is critical. Uh, I am very grateful for the hard work from the thirteen member agencies that sit on the permitting council. But if we sat under one of them, it would be much more difficult for us to encourage those agencies to do their work on time and in a transparent way. So I I think our independence is is very critical to being able to accomplish that role. And also, frankly, our role as what I consider to be a the executing arm for the office of the president. So I don't set the policy, I don't as you mentioned, we're not a regulatory agency, I'm not a policy entity, but when we get a directive, we know how to go and get it done. Um, I would also say we're very responsive in that that independent role to our project developers. Um, it because I'm not a regulator, I'm allowed to really serve as an a true advocate for that developer inside this complex federal system. And if we were attached to a regulatory agency like

Mm-hmm.

Department of Interior or EPA, we would unfr unfortunately be unable to do that role because we'd be part of a regulatory process.

Does does Fast Forty-one allow agencies to cut corners on environmental reviews?

No, sir. In fact, I actually think it holds them far more accountable to ensure they are meeting all the requirements of the environmental reviews. If you look at the permitting dashboard, you can see every single review that is required for every single project on the dashboard. Um, whether you are a person in that community or you're a regulator or you're, you know, part of that industry. So I think that transparency function really does force agencies to be honest about what's required of them under their statutory requirements, but also what's required for a project sponsor so they don't have to operate in the dark wondering what's expected of them to get their project completed.

Yeah, and you alluded to this, but I'll ask the question anyway. So, from your perspective, what uh are the advantages of qualifying as a covered project under Fast forty-one? What what makes it fast?

Uh, so a covered project under FAST forty-one has a number of, again, statutory requirements for how we take care of this project. We have uh, in statute we have fourteen days to tell a project if they qualify for FAST forty-one. It's entirely voluntary. I must respond to every single project developer, regardless of sector or size or anything else. We have to respond to them within fourteen days, cuz that's what's required by the law. We then have sixty days to identify their lead federal agency, their cooperating agencies, any states or tribes that might have a Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm. don't come to Fast forty-one because we aren't gonna let you do it. So it's important to be able to have that transparency on both sides of the coin.

Right. Yeah, I I think that's a very important point. Fast forty-one does it doesn't waive environmental laws or eliminate permitting requirements right it simply improves sort of the coordination, the accountability and the predictability across uh the federal government. Do you think there are projects under the two hundred million dollar threshold that could benefit from Fast forty-one coverage?

Absolutely. We we hear from them all the time. Um, a huge part of our work is, again, meeting with potential developers, meeting with folks in the community, meeting with members of Congress to establish where there's a an opportunity for investment and development. Uh, I I actually think it could allow us to serve sectors we've never served before. I mean, I I think, you know, I I use the water resources as an example, but that's a place where you can have smaller scale projects, port developments, things like that. Broadband is another one where we've really only been able to serve those projects under our tribal exemption. So it'd be great to be able to get more of those small scale

Uh.

frankly very local and rural projects on the dashboard.

Yeah, give give us some examples. You've used water and broadband uh as examples. Are there other sectors that you think can benefit?

I I think the energy sector always can benefit. There are always smaller scale projects um uh that fit into this umbrella. Two hundred million dollars is a is a is a large investment. Um I think about um you know we're we're proving this out with our transparency dashboard, but looking for for places where there are you know, discrete developments like geothermal for example. We have one geothermal project on our dashboard today, but it's actually a com it's a combined project. So it's geothermal, lithium mining and processing all in one. If it was just the geothermal piece, it likely wouldn't meet the threshold. So we had to get creative to get it onto the dashboard so that we could support this great par project in California. Um, uh, but I I think honestly we would see projects in every sector if we were to lower the threshold.

Thank you. Thank you, Mister Chairman.

Thank you very much, Chair, and I'll recognize as the ranking member of

My microphone on. Uh, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Director Dominic. Uh, welcome. So, I'm I'm heartened to hear uh many members of Congress, a growing chorus of members of Congress, calling for tech neutral permitting. And I just wanna ask you, do you believe that the administration should pick winners and losers when it comes to permitting?

I think I can say that for the FAST forty-one process, I actually don't get to pick my projects at all. They're entirely based on who applies for Fast forty one. So we evaluate every project based on whether or not it qualifies for the statutory limits set in for Fast forty one. And I don't get to choose. As long as you're one of my nineteen sectors, you're one of the projects that we will support.

OK. I wanna ask you about um capacity as it relates to permitting reform. But and and Frankie, remember, I'm sorry, touched on this to a degree. Um, out there uh in the real world, we hear from Project proponents, developers, all kinds of people who are frustrated by the challenge of moving all types of projects forward right now, uh, not just because of the political filter that's being applied to many of those projects, and I'll ask you about the war on clean energy in a moment, but about the fact that nobody's home to answer the phones, the lights are not on in many of these agencies, and when you have agencies that have lost upward of twenty-five percent of their entire staff, it's not that surprising. that folks who need answers and need approvals and need help moving projects forward are are having a pretty hard time right now. Would you agree that capacity is a challenge if if our goal is to move projects forward quickly and in an efficient way?

So, again, I can only comment on the Fast Forty-one portfolio, but in our experience, capacity has not been a significant challenge for our projects. That said, there have been a few examples where we've had Um, particularly uh the forest service in one case has asked us for support to move a project to ensure they could continue to stay with a timeline that was already established on the FAST forty-one dashboard but that's actually something that's

So you don't you don't think the the diminishment of staffing at all these federal agencies has slowed down permitting and that it's a problem. Are you allowed to say that by the way?

For

Because everyone out there in the real world says it,

For

they're screaming about it, but is this one of those terminal offenses that if you acknowledged it that you know, you'd get in trouble.

Uh, sir, what I know I'm allowed to testify on is the FAST forty-one portfolio, which is what I do.

Okay.

So I can talk to you about those projects?

All right. Let's let's stick to that then.

I'm happy to do it.

Let's stick to that then, because within your portfolio there's still uh some political games being played when it comes to uh clean energy. And we have seen all sorts of barriers thrown in the way of clean energy projects. We have seen um in fact uh instead of helping move large projects forward, we have companies that have hundreds of millions of dollars for offshore wind leases, and instead of helping them move it forward, this administration entered into fake settlement agreements and literally lit a couple billion dollars of taxpayer money on fire to make them go away. Uh, that is hardly um permitting reform. That is taking huge projects that can provide clean, affordable energy and thousands of jobs off the table, I guess sending them to other countries as we surrender uh to them in the war on clean energy. Now we've heard about a couple of solar projects that have been allowed to proceed, I guess because they had uh friends at the National Energy Dominance Council. Not everybody does. Every everything else, when it comes to solar and wind, is stuck in the queue. Secretary of Interior and Energy, both in their testimony to Congress, refused to acknowledge that clean energy has any benefits. They pretend that batteries don't even exist, which is shocking, pun intended, uh, at a time when Americans are facing rising energy costs, this is especially counter-productive, self-destructive, that we are sidelining the cheapest, fastest, most abundant form of energy, uh, for American consumers. So, on this bill that we're talking about here today, I, I would be fine seeing a bill like this move forward under a different administration, because I think it could help with smaller wind and solar

So I've added a number of renewable projects. I need to make sure that I have the number quite right. I believe it's four or five. But what I'll tell you, sir, is that

There are three. Now, reclaiming my time, there are three, two solar and one non-federal hydropower, zero

There's a geothermal project too, so it's

zero wind, okay, zero wind, and we are past the sixty day threshold for you to produce the coordinated project plan and permitting timeline for the two solar projects. Are we not? I mean, you're in violation of your own law when it comes to those projects.

So the the way the FAST forty-one process works is that I go and I identify a lead agency for a project, and then I asked that agency to produce a time table. If that agency does not produce a time table, as you referenced for those two solar projects, I will note that again our geothermal project and a number of transmission projects and energy storage projects have been no

You acknowledge that we've gone past the sixty days.

We w- when we pass the sixty days, our requirement under the statute is to report that project in non-conformance to Congress which is what we have done so we are in compliance with the FAST-forty-one statute I don't actually have the ability to force an agency to give me a time table,

All right, I can re- reclaiming my time and I know I'm out of time,

I just tell them when

Mister Chairman. I just want to point out that the war on clean energy continues, the games are still being played, if you don't have friends at the council, your project, if it's wind or solar, is not gonna happen under this administration. It's hard to have a serious conversation about permitting reform when these games continue to be played. You're back.

Uh, the uh, chair now recognizes representative Hurd for five minutes of questioning.

Thank you, Mister Chairman, uh, Director Domenech, thank you for being here this morning. The permitting council has signed some MOUs with the states of Utah, Alaska, and Idaho, I believe, and those partnerships are vital to making sure that federal and state permitting timelines are aligned and that we're reducing bottlenecks to project timelines. Can you talk a little bit about and maybe highlight some of the successes that the permitting council has seen with these agreements?

Uh, yeah, absolutely, so this is a great example of where we are looking at our underlying statute and making sure that we're using every authority that we do in fact have. So one of those authorities is entering into agreements with states to coordinate the permitting process, and provide resources or or a technical assistant to the state to insure that they're a part of that process. Much like the federal agencies, states tend to wait until all of the federal permitting is complete completed before they start. I don't really blame them. The feds have sometimes a bad track record for finishing projects on time and states have limited resources. What we're doing with these MLU's is getting state governments to commit to one, opt in on the FAST forty-one dashboard. So that means they post all the state permitting actions on the dashboard. Uh, and then also to agree to finish state permitting before the longest federal review is completed. So what that does is put them in that same Gantt chart that shows everything happening in parallel, uh, and we ensure that the state is a part of the process from start to finish. Um, you highlighted our MLU in Idaho. We also have one in Tennessee. We've signed six agreements to date. Um, we have a few more in the queue. We're excited. We'd love to work with all of your state governors to help to coordinate this process. Um, but in in Idaho and Tennessee both, we have projects on the dashboard that incorporate all of the state permitting actions. So when you go to that dashboard, not only do you know what's required from the federal government for that project, but you also know what is required by the state and how long it's gonna take. And if you're in that community, you know what kinds of reviews are being done and what public hearings are happening, and all of that other work that's incorporated. So we really want the states to think of us as a partner to move projects forward. Um, and it also frankly allows us the opportunity to work with governors who are closer to the economic development efforts in their states much like members of Congress. um to allow for us to say hey what projects are in the queue that you're working on that qualify for fast forty one i wanna emphasize something here in order for us to support a project that project has to apply to fast forty one i cannot go and make you do it you have to choose to do it um so we really wanna be able to work with governors and with you with yourself and others to identify those projects and get more of them on the dashboard

great thank you so six states total have MOUs with the permanent council then at this point

yes sir

ok Great. I just wanna make this uh more practical for my constituents and and the other constituents of the of the members here in this subcommittee. Can you talk about how utilizing the permitting dashboard helps lower energy costs for Americans?

I think the permitting dashboard allows us to improve the permitting process overall, um and it allows us to get more energy in multiple sectors online as fast as we possibly can. Um, you know, that's the name of the game is providing more energy resources to to constituents all across the country, uh ensuring we're really utilizing our resources here in in this country, and we're doing it efficiently and and in the the most environmentally responsible way possible. Um that's how we're gonna get the best results in terms of lowering energy costs, and I think I'd go back to you know the statistics I shared with with Chairman Stauber at the beginning of the hearing which is you know if we can shorten the time frame for projects on the dashboard then we can provide more energy to more people. quicker and and more efficiently.

Great, and at a lower cost.

I don't I mean I certainly hope so. If we don't waste a bunch of time on doing a permitting process or frankly, uh wasting time not communicating effectively, then we're gonna save money in the long term.

Wonderful. Uh thank you, Director Domenech, appreciate that, with that, Mister Chairman, I yield back.

Thank you very much, Chair, and I'll recognize this representative for five minutes.

Thank you, Mister Chairman. Hi, good morning, thank you for being here. In previous committee hearings, I've raised concerns about the FAST forty-one permitting dashboard based on my district's experience with FAST forty-one mining projects. That experience has made clear that the dashboard remains flawed and requires improvements to ensure it provides accurate, transparent, and reliable information. Just as importantly, streamlining permitting processes must never come at the expense of conducting a thorough environmental reviews and scientific studies. Robust environmental analysis are essential to understanding potential impacts on communities, water resources, cultural sites, and wildlife before decisions are made. I have a couple of questions for you. Um, as you may know, my district, Arizona seven, is home to the first mining project added to the FAST forty-one permitting dashboard, the South Thirty-two Hermosa project. My constituents have long been skeptical of this process. Thoughtfully permitting a mining project necessitates care, substantial public input, tribal consultation and flexibility to address community concerns as they arise. Fast forty-one does not always allow for that kind of flexibility. There are now over fifty mining projects and mineral processing projects on the dashboard, and I'm highly concerned for each of these communities. Um, will you commit to providing these impacted communities thorough and sufficient opportunities to provide their feedback and insights, to make sure that they that any and all impacts to water, air and land are thoroughly studied and accounted for.

So while I can't promise that the regulatory agencies will do engagement, what I can say is that I actually believe that the FAST forty-one dashboard provides a far more transparent process to communities than exists for any other project. Even if you don't like a project that is listed on the FAST forty-one dashboard, you as a public citizen can go to that website, you can look at every review that is required, you can see public hearing announcements, you can see litigation announcements, You can see every single time there's a delay or a permit completed, the agencies have to provide justification for why they did that work. Um, so whether again, ag again, I can't say that I will always list a project that's a project that you or other members of Congress wanna see but you will know more about it because of the FAST forty-one process. Mm-hmm. That transparency piece is an essential part of our mission and I really truly believe it's the best part of the dashboard. That said, Yeah. I I will add, man, that I I believe that the dashboard itself is a little outdated. It's a ten year old dashboard. We wanna

Yeah, I think that we should, because what's really alarming right now is the FAST forty-one doesn't look like such a bad deal compared to what the Trump administration is doing to erode public processes. This administration just permitted a uranium mine in fourteen days. with a seven day tribal consultation process. It's outrageous. So roughly seventy five percent of the US critical minerals reserves are within thirty five miles of tribal land. And of course, the history of mining in this country is inseparable from the history of dispossessing tribal nations of their lands and resources. Ensuring meaningful tribal consultation and thorough public engagement to address community concerns about the often fragile environmental um and water systems are essential to me and I believe essential to the long-term viability of the mining industry. So as you know the Inflation Reduction Act provided the permitting council with three hundred and fifty million dollar investment in the Environmental Review Improvement Fund to strengthen the implementation of FAST forty-one. At least fifteen million of that is directed to tribal assistance programs, which funded tribes in building capacity to engage the FAST forty-one permitting process. And I believe this is an extremely worthwhile use of funds. Can you provide us with a timeline of the re-scoping of this program?

So that program is currently being considered by OMB. However, I would say I actually don't think I need a specific tribal assistance program to be able to outreach to tribes. We see that as our core responsibility to ensure that when we do that kickoff meeting I mentioned at the beginning of the process the tribal, the tribal entities need to be included in that process. In fact, we often go and participate in events with the Bureau of Indian Affairs and with other agencies to ensure that we are talking directly to tribes, because our statute includes, you know, the bill we're considering today would lower the threshold for a covered project to fifty million dollars. There is no threshold for a tribal project. So a huge portion of our our tribal portfolio is small broadband, small water projects. I actually don't have any tribal energy projects, but I'd love to get one. Um, uh,

Mm-hmm.

and and we really wanna see that direct engagement of with tribes as project sponsors and constituents. That's a huge part of our job.

Mm-hmm.

I really would love to, again, cooperate with you to try to grow our tribal portfolio and to sure insure that not only do they have resources that they need, but also that they are getting to access this tool that can help them build more on tribal lands.

Thank you. I think that this permitting process could actually work under any other administration. But we've seen what's happened under this administration and the abuses, and this gives a green light to more of that, and I yield back.

Uh, thank you very much. If there are no uh further questions, um We will now move to our third panel, but I wanna thank uh Director Dominic. This is your first time um at a hearing uh we spoke briefly. You did an outstanding job. Your your knowledge of the subject matter was uh exceptional. Uh, thank you very much.

I'm sorry. Thank you.

Uh, you are now dismissed. While the clerk resets our witness table, I will remind the witnesses that under committee rules they must limit their oral statements to five minutes. But their entire statement will appear in the hearing record. I'd also like to remind our witnesses of the timing lights, which will turn red at the end of your five minute statement, and to please remember to turn on your microphone. As with the second panel, I will allow all witnesses to testify before a member questioning. Our first witness of this panel is Doctor Rory De Sturette. He is the President of the Association of of American State Geologi Geologists rather, and he is stationed in Portland, Oregon. Uh, Doctor De Sturette, you are now recognized for five minutes.

Thank you, Chairman Stalber, Ranking Member Ansari, and members of the subcommittee. Thank you for the opportunity to testify today regarding the reauthorization of the US Geological Survey's Earth Mapping Resources Initiative, Earth MRI. My name is Doctor Rory Day-Sterritt. I am the President of the Association of American State Geologists. And I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today on behalf of the nation's state geological surveys. My testimony is simple. Earth MRI is working and it deserves reauthorization. Strategic means we want something, and critical means We do not have it. USGS has identified sixty mineral commodities spread across the periodic table, that are at risk of supply chain disruption, or are not produced in the United States. Earth MRI was created in response to this national need. The United States has become increasingly dependent on foreign sources of many minerals, uh, that are essential for manufacturing, technology, energy systems, and national defense. we cannot responsibly develop resources we do not understand. Before minerals can be mined, before private capital can be invested, and before permitting decisions can be streamlined, there must be baseline, reliable, geologic data. While progress has been made, significant portions of the country have not been studied for their geological, geophysical, and geochemical, biogeochemical methods. What makes Earth MRI particularly is that it operates in the pre-competitive space. The program does not subsidize individual companies or or individual projects. Instead, it creates publicly available geologic information that uh reduces uncertainty for everyone state governments federal agencies tribal nations universities, land managers, private industry. We all benefit from the same data. Earth MRI supports critical mineral assessment. but also geothermal energy opportunity, hydrogen fuel prospecting, and infrastructure planning. Publicly available geologic data does broad public good. Since its establishment in twenty nineteen, Earth MRI has provided seventy eight point six million dollars directly to state geological surveys. Forty six states and Puerto Rico have been involved in Earth MRI. I cannot think of another program that has employed so many methods in so many states so quickly. In Michigan, Earth MRI partnerships help support the creation of dedicated minerals program. In Wyoming, federal investments complementing significant state investments. In Colorado, Earth MRI partnerships have advanced critical mineral assessments while trai- training the next generations of the mineral workforce. In Idaho and Nevada, uh, important mining jurisdictions. Uh, Earth MRI data are improving our understanding of critical mineral systems. In California and Oregon, Modern geologic mapping and geophysical investments are improving our understanding of resources that are of national interest. In Alaska, Earth MRI almost doubled pre-existing publicly available data. Importantly, Earth MRI helps reduce uncertainty for private investment and for informed land management and permitting decisions. However, here is the urgent matter before us. The work is far, far from complete. Significant portions of the country remain incompletely mapped for geology resources. Gaps in geological mapping and geophysical surveys remain, and we know how to fill them. Reauthorization is therefore more about, more than uh than continuing an existing program. Reauthorization will provide the continuity necessary to maintain momentum, preserve partnerships, and continue building the geologic knowledge base that supports the nation's long-term economic competitiveness. Mister Chairman, Earth MRI is exactly the kind of federal investment that deserves continued support. It is efficient, collaborative, science-based, and nationally beneficial. It is a strategic investment in knowledge that reduces uncertainty, informs both public and private sector decisions, and creates lasting value beyond the single product or commodity. I look forward to the continued partnership between stage illogical surveys, and the US Geological Survey. On behalf of the Association of American State Geologists, I strongly support the reauthorization of Earth MRI and thank the committee for its leadership on this important issue. And I look forward to answering your questions. Thank you.

Thank you very much for your testimony. Our next witness is Mister Mat Heller. He is the State Geologist for the Commonwealth, Virginia. And he is stationed in Charlottesville, Virginia. Mister Heller, you are now recognized for five minutes.

Chairman Starber, uh, Ranking Member Ansari, and members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to submit testimony regarding the Earth MRI Reauthorization Act of twenty twenty six. Representative Whitman, thank you for your interest in having me speak today as the leader of a state geological survey in the east and as a member of the Association of American State Geologists. Virginia has been an active participant in Earth MRI since it was first launched in twenty nineteen. We've completed three projects through the program, we have three projects underway, and we have two projects that are gonna start next year. Two of our completed projects have investigated areas with heavy mineral sand deposits that are important sources of titanium zirconium and rare earth elements. For these projects, we have created maps showing the geology of six hundred square miles, and we've collected more than one hundred samples for geochemical analysis. Our work has identified the formations that are more likely to host valuable sand deposits and the potential The resulting maps and reports are published as pre-competitive data that encourages private sector exploration. Mining and processing of heavy mineral sands has resumed in Virginia, and industry stakeholders have expressed gratitude for this foundational data. The third project we have completed through EarthMRI used LIDAR imagery and historical mining records to ab- identify abandoned mine waste stockpiles in areas with critical minerals. We have located more than one hundred large stockpiles and we're now sampling some of them to estimate the mineral resources that each contains. Locating critical minerals in mine waste creates a double opportunity by strengthening domestic supply chains and offsetting the cost of addressing legacy environmental liabilities. Virginia is also collaborating with North and Ca- South Carolina on an Earth MRI project that involves sampling regolith, which is soil and weathered rock above granite in the Piedmont Province. Our work may identify rare earth element deposits like those being mined today in other parts of the world. This type of collaboration allows smaller geological surveys to share expertise and resources and it's one of the defining strengths of Earth MRI. Mineral systems do not follow state or political boundaries, and neither should the scientific studies conducted to understand them. We have also supported the USGS in neighboring states in designing four geophysical surveys that cover more than ninety thousand square miles, including twenty thou- twenty-two thousand square miles in Virginia. Preliminary data from the most recent survey reveal previously unknown intrusions of igneous rocks that may host critical minerals and other valuable resources. Virginia has already proposed a project to map these intrusions and sample in the areas of greatest potential. Geophysical surveys are making new discoveries of regular occurrence at state geologic surveys even beyond mineral resources. For example, South Carolina has identified geologic structures in two separate areas that are spatially associated. Such discoveries add to our broader understanding of the nation's geology, promoting economic development, environmental protection, and public safety. Virginia's experience is not unique. Thirty-two mapping and sampling projects have been funded by Earth MRI in thirteen states east of the Mississippi. These diverse projects have provided new data about more than thirty critical minerals in targeted areas. Seven eastern states have also participated in the Earth MRI mine waste program and at least eight projects are underway. focusing on eleven different critical minerals. North Carolina just published a report on their assessment of tailings at the Tungsten Queen mine where significant amounts of tungsten, fluorine, manganese, and zinc were discovered. Not every resource identified through Earth MRI is economically viable today, and that should not be viewed as a limitation of the program. Mineral processing technologies are evolving rapidly, including important work underway at Virginia Tech. Additional deposits discovered through Earth MRI can encourage domestic processing to further reduce cost. Geology does not change in the way that our capabilities and interests do, and that is one reason the data produced by Earth MRI will remain valuable over time. In summary, Earth MRI is working and demonstrates what can be accomplished when state and federal geological surveys work together towards a common national objective even in the east we are making uh we are discovering new resources and adding value to mining by-products once regarded only as waste. Just as importantly, we are creating publicly available geoscience information that will support decisions for decades to come. I ardently support reauthorization of Earth MRI through House Resolution ninety-six forty. Thank you for the opportunity to provide this testimony and for the committee's leadership on an issue of national importance.

I thank the witness for his testimony. Our next witness is Mr. Eric Badel. He is the Federal Strategy Director for the for the Environmental Science Associates, and he is stationed in Savannah, Georgia. Mister Badel, you are now recognized for five minutes.

Thank you, Chairman Stauber, Ranking Member, I'm sorry, and members of the subcommittee. Appreciate the opportunity to testify today on HR eight zero zero three, expanding the Fast-Track Act of twenty twenty six. My name is Eric Badel. I serve as a Federal Strategy Director, Environmental Science Associates. Before joining ESA, I serve as the Executive Director of the Federal Permitting Improvement Steering Council. Over the past twenty-five years, I've worked on federal permitting as a policymaker, consultant, and agency executive. That experience informs my testimony today in support of H R eight zero zero three, which would lower the cost threshold for FAST forty-one program eligibility from two hundred million to fifty million. Lowering the threshold would allow smaller but regionally impactful projects to access the same permitting support offered to our largest projects. That means more projects are actively managed, spurring additional innovation and broader exposure to permitting best practices. More than a decade after its enactment, FAST-forty-one has matured into a proven governance model for delivering complex infrastructure projects. During that time, the Permitting Council has grown into a small but highly effective organization, providing hands-on permitting coordination and project oversight to a subset of our nation's most complex infrastructure projects. HR Hzero eight zero zero three, takes the next logical step to invite more projects into this proven program. When I served as Executive Director, I embraced the role Congress established for the Permitting Council in the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act as a center for permitting excellence not simply a project management office. That meant our mission extended beyond coordinating individual projects, to promoting the permitting practices that made those projects successful and advancing their adoption across the federal government. We measured success not only by the projects in our portfolio, but also by whether permitting strategies like active management, transparency, accountability, and inter-agency coordination became standard throughout government. H R eight zero zero three builds on that vision by expanding the portfolio of proven projects that can benefit from and help inform those proven practices. The question before Congress is not whether Fast-forty-one works. The question is whether the benefits of that approach should be limited to only the very largest projects. Lowering the eligibility threshold is a common sense reform to answer that question and extend the program benefits to more projects and the communities they serve. It allows more project sponsors to benefit from actively managed permitting timetables, earlier inter-agency coordination, transparent timelines, and timely issue resolution. It also means the community is weighting on regionally significant investments, from drinking water improvements and broadband deployment to electric transmission, flood resilience, and other critical infrastructure. can benefit from the same disciplined permitting approach that has already proven successful on much larger projects. Importantly, H R eight zero zero three does not weaken environmental protections or circumvent environmental review. Fast forty-one does not change the substantive environmental laws that govern federal decisions. Instead, it changes how government manages the permitting process. Better coordination, clear lines of accountability, stronger schedule discipline, and greater transparency enable agencies to make better, and more timely decisions while fully complying with existing environmental requirements. I suggest that Congress should view H R eight zero zero three as the next step, not the final step, in strengthening FAST-forty-one. The program has produced valuable lessons that should inform additional improvements and reforms. We should continue expanding the permitting timetables, strengthening permitting governance across agencies, investing in agency capacity, and making better use of permitting data and technology to identify bottlenecks and improve performance. More broadly, I encourage Congress to look to Fast-forty-one as a model to inform ongoing permitting reform debates. The success of the permitting council demonstrates that meaningful improvements often come not from rewriting environmental laws, but improving how government manages the process. I hope that Congress will build upon the governance principles that have made Fast-forty-one successful and encourage agencies across the federal government to adopt those same approaches. In closing, H R eight zero zero three is more than an expansion of eligibility. It's an opportunity to extend recognized benefits to more projects, more agencies, and more communities. Over years of implementation, FAST-forty-one has demonstrated that meaningful improvements in permitting do not require choosing between environmental stewardship and infrastructure delivery. They require disciplined coordination, greater transparency and stronger accountability, and a commitment to continuous improvement. I believe HR eight zero zero three moves us in that direction, and I appreciate the committee's leadership on this issue. I look forward to your questions.

Thank you very much. Our last witness is Mister Matthew Kinsella. He is the CEO of Inflection, and he is stationed in Louisville, Colorado. Uh, Mister Kinsella, you are now recognized for five minutes.

Chairman Stauber, Ranking Member Ansari, and members of the subcommittee, thank you. for the opportunity to testify today on the quantum enhanced critical minerals mapping act, introduced by representative Jeff Hurd of Colorado. My name is Mat Kinsella, and I was the founding investor in Inflection in twenty eighteen, and have served as CEO since twenty twenty four. I respectfully request that my full written testimony be entered into the record, and in the interest of time I will use my oral remarks to summarize its key points. Inflection is an American quantum technology company headquartered in Louisville, Colorado, with operations in Chicago, Illinois, Madison, Wisconsin, and allied nations, including the United Kingdom and Australia. Our company was built on more than two decades of cold atom physics research, pioneered in Colorado's world-leading atomic physics community. And we have spent those decades turning Nobel Prize-winning science into deployable solutions. We build a suite of quantum products, all based on quantum chips similar to the one I hold here, including precision atomic clocks, sugar cube sized radio frequency sensors for the Department of Defense, quantum computers, and the quantum gravity sensing systems before the committee today, turning American quantum innovation into fieldable technology manufactured in America by American workers. The message I hope to leave the subcommittee today is simple. You cannot find or secure what you cannot see. That's the position America is in today with our own critical minerals. We continue to depend on foreign adversaries above all the People's Republic of China, for the rare earth elements that power our defense systems, our semiconductors, our energy technologies. Yet some of the richest mineral deposits in North America lie beneath American soil, undiscovered because the mapping tools available today cannot see clearly enough to find them. Quantum sensing changes that. Inflection builds quantum gravity radiometers, instruments that use atoms, cooled to temperatures colder than deep space, to measure how gravity changes from one point to the next. Density shapes that signal, and or bodies have density. That lets us detect mineral deposits with a resolution and confidence classical instruments cannot match in a single survey pass without ever breaking ground. And this is not speculative technology. Inflection was first to establish quantum sensing in space, in twenty eighteen, and our hardware has operated aboard the International Space Station ever since. And we are now partnering with NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory on the Quantum Gravity Gradiometer Pathfinder mission which will deploy the first space-based quantum gravity sensor in a satellite to measure Earth's gravitational field with unprecedented precision. The technology for mineral mapping specifically is real and it's advancing fast. What's already proven and ready today, is Earth MRI itself. The established USGS program, this bill builds on, with existing data platforms, state partnerships, and users across industry and academia. This bill puts our instrument to work inside that proven program, directing the USGS to fly quantum gravity surveys over priority mineral zones, compare the results head-to-head against classical methods, and make all of it public, fueling private investment without a new authorization of federal spending. I'd ask the subcommittee to understand this in the context of two competitions with China at once, the competition for critical mineral supply chains and the competition for quantum technology leadership. Independent analysts estimate China's government investment in quantum technology at roughly fifteen billion dollars, alongside a separate one hundred and thirty-eight billion dollar state-backed fund for emerging technologies. Leadership in emerging technologies isn't kept by inventing first, though. It's kept by adopting first. This is also a conservation bill. The most environmentally disruptive phase of mineral exploration is not knowing where to drill. Every unnecessary borehole means access roads, habitat disturbance, and reclamation costs, often on the federal lands Americans hunt, fish, graze, and treasure. In Colorado, we know how much these lands matter to my colleagues at Inflection and to my own family. Fewer dry holes mean a smaller footprint and exploration concentrated only where deposits actually exist. And the benefits extend well past minerals. Because this bill requires the data to be public, every gravity map it produces becomes a permanent scientific asset, useful for mapping aquifers in the water-stressed west, identifying geological hazards, and giving research a data set, researchers a data set they'll draw on for decades, the same way scientists still rely on aeromagnetic surveys flown generations ago. The technology is real and it's advancing fast. The program is proven and it's ready. The need is plain, strategic, economic and environmental. I respectfully urge the subcommittee to advance this legislation, and I look forward to your questions. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Um, the chair will now recognize members for five minutes of questioning and I will recognize myself for five minutes. Uh, Mister Heller, in your written testimony you note how the Earth MRI program has evaluated and surveyed legacy mine tailing tailing from mining operations. which in some cases have ceased operations like many decades ago. Can you expand upon how this program can be leveraged, not only for new development of our mineral resources, but also to address abandoned mine lands and remediation of other legacy mine sites?

So I think I think this uh mine waste program has benefits for both uh abandoned older sites as well as new sites there are by-products uh currently being produced at mine sites that uh have not been fully

i have um uh for some time now i've never called it a waste rock i wanna change it to uh stuff on top. Because uh, that waste rock from sixty years ago in the mines in northern Minnesota, we're getting more ore out of that right now with the new technology, the twenty-first century technology. And I'm sure you're seeing that as well. Great. Uh, so this is gonna be a win-win. Earth MRI is helping us properly address legacy mine sites while getting more out of projects we initially expected uh cease their value years ago. It's getting uh, there's more economic value in some of the rock uh that we're they're looking at. Um, as a State Geologist, I imagine your office is constrained by a smaller budget than that of the USGS. Can you speak to how Earth MRI's investment at the federal level is helping enable work by your office, uh, which you otherwise couldn't conduct if it were not for this partnership at the federal level?

Yes, we have several successful programs administered by the USGS, including Earth MRI, and they really do support our staff. Um, some of the programs require matching funds, so we put in our part and and the USGS uh program uh provides additional funding. And then uh Earth MRI doesn't fully require a match, but we do put state resources into the effort too because we also recognize the great value of the work that we're doing. But we've been able to hire new staff.

Mm-hmm.

Uh, we we bought a geo probe using state funds, but we're leveraging that as match on federal projects. And so that's a way for us to grow our program. without necessarily getting more state appropriations.

So that partnership is working.

Yes.

Um, uh, Doctor Desteret, in the first few years of the Earth MRI program, we've done a good job of getting a broad overview of our geolo geological resources across our country, in a way I see akin to initial overpass. In the next five years of the program, how can Earth MRI be further leveraged in order to get a more complete understanding of our geology under our feet? including prior priority geological uh formations where the program previously identified likely large deposits of critical and other key minerals.

Thank you. Thank you, Chester. Uh, there's been significant progress since twenty nineteen. However, continued geo airborne geophysical geophysical surveys are necessary to fill in the gaps. Uh, the the USGS defines mineral systems, we need to refine the boundaries of those mineral systems, which is a combination of the airborne geophysics but on the ground verification, and geochemical analysis and geologic mapping. So, significant progress has been made. We have plenty more to do.

So if um, if you're going to, if we've mapped the country, but now these formations, if we we look more intensely at them, I think it will bring uh uh better economic value and better a better idea where we want to mine or what have you. Would you agree with that? We have rather than drilling fifty test holes, for example, uh Earth MRI can give us a a better location in these in these uh geological finds like uh Duluth complex, for example, up in northeast of Minnesota.

Indeed, historically mining focused on one primary commodity, uh, a lot of the elements that are critical are by-products of uh of mineral processing. So now this program is allowing us to look at a mineral deposit in a more holistic way, and instead of saying we just want copper or nickel out of a deposit, we may be extracting other elements that are of strategic importance. So, co-product uh identification early allows uh an opportunity, secondary opportunity to develop.

Thank you very much. I will now recognize uh Representative Lee for five minutes of questioning.

Uh, thank you, Mister Chairman. Uh, it's not every day that we get to consider smart, straightforward, and genuinely bipartisan permitting reform in this committee. But I'm pleased today is one of those days, and I wanna thank Representatives Delusio and Crank. Uh, their bill expands eligibility for projects participate in the fast forty-one program. And the bottom line is we're gonna see more projects get federal permitting decisions in a more timely manner. This would also provide project developers and stakeholders with all of the built-in transparency of the fast forty-one process, a key component that has helped this bill earn the endorsement of the legal conservation voters. Put simply, it's a bill I hope this uh committee will support unanimously. But I wanna address a concern I have moving forward, and I'd like to ask you, mister uh, Baytal. The Interior Department is continuing to insist that every solar and wind energy permit in its purview must receive the personal approval of the secretary, uh, Doug Burgum, a requirement that you've called quote unquote a clear attempt to use the process to kill projects. Would solar and wind projects newly eligible for the fast

I appreciate the question, and I I think the answer is is difficult to to say for sure, because the the FAST Act requires that agencies prepare permitting timetables and they adhere to them. And if they do not adhere to them, then they are deemed to be in non-conformance. And we've seen on the dashboard now that there are already renewable projects that are in non-conformance. When I was the executive director, we worked very hard with the agencies to ensure that they got out of non-conformance or at least uh were able to update and show progress on, on the permitting progress there. And I don't know that that is happening with the solar and wind projects with this administration. So, while it does provide accountability, it does not provide the sort of teeth that would ensure that these projects move forward. And I think that that is it's a weakness in the process, but it also assumes a good faith effort on all parts.

Uh, well, thank you for that. You know, I've long advocated for permitting parity at the agency levels, uh, particularly at the Department of the Interior. Uh, given your past leadership of the permitting council, is there anything that you would recommend for Congress to do specifically to uh prevent this type of situation and enable the council itself uh actively insure a such parity across agencies. Like what is it we could do to give you the teeth you need?

The the permanent council is structured to improve coordination, but it has no regulatory or uh uh other statutory authority to insure any sort of an outcome. I think the the best that we can do is to provide the executive director with coordination with the council environmental quality and the director of office management and budget, to actually require agencies to move on these projects. I think the, you know, this whole process that the department of interior has undertaken to funnel these reviews through the secretary's office is a, it's a bureaucratic step to slow the process. And and if they're going to be a fast track, or a fast act covered project, there needs to be an ability for the director to force some action on the part of the agencies, and right now that that authority doesn't exist.

OK, thank you. Uh, you know, last month the corporate energy buyers association released an analysis which found that the constraints on these new projects solar and wind could add about eighty-two billion dollars in household energy bills over the next seven years which translates uh to about six hundred and twenty-five dollars out of my constituents' pockets during that uh period. Commercial and industrial consumers across the U. S. are also project projected to pay an additional forty billion dollars in electric costs alone through twenty thirty three. Uh, you've previously warned against rewriting the rules of federal permitting to pick winners and losers. Would you agree with me that at the end of the day it's our businesses and families already having to deal with the rising costs of everything from gas to groceries who stand to lose most from the the unprecedented amount of new red tape that has this administration has deliberately wrapped around two of our cleanest, cheapest sources of American-made energy.

I would agree that the need for clean energy is paramount, and we should be looking at solutions that are tech neutral, that that deal every deal with each project the same way.

Thank you. I yield. Thank you.

Thank you very very much, the chair now recognizes representative Whitman for five minutes.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'd like to um for just a moment recognize Mr. Heller and thank you so much for your leadership. You've done an incredible job there in Virginia. In fact, I think you lead the nation in how Earth MRI is being applied. And what you've done is to demonstrate what Chairman uh Starbur talked about, and that is that federal-state partnership that I think has really done more than just identify mineral resources, but it's also created a very firm scientific foundation uh to support private investment. to look at things like infrastructure planning, groundwater research, and future discoveries that I think will be the benefit for many places across this country for for years and years to come. And I think your experience puts you in a very unique position to speak about the uniqueness of this public-private partnership and the relationship, too, between states and the federal government and things that we can accomplish. And I wanted to get you to drill down a little bit. Chairman Starber's question asked about that partnership and your viewpoint on that. I wanted to get get you to give us some some examples about what you've been able to do with Earth MRI in Virginia as it relates to identifying these resources, as that scientific information has led to proper decision making, whether it's by state government or local governments and things. Cuz I think this this system has uh has implications well beyond what we think, you know, just at a at a localized level. So I'd love to be able to get your your viewpoint on that and how it's it's lended both itself to the commonwealth economically, but also from environmental good uh decision making standpoint.

Sure, if uh if you don't mind, I can talk a little more broadly about how we contribute to Virginia's uh

Please. Yes.

state government in benefiting our citizens uh we do geologic mapping,

Mm-hmm.

which has multiple benefits for public safety, mineral resources, economic development, but also um

Mm-hmm.

uh environmental protection. Um we uh are sort of the stewards of uh geological information for the state and that includes maps and reports, but also things like uh existing drill cores that can be used to to study new resources. Um with earth MRI uh we have been focusing primarily on the resources we think have the greatest potential initially and that's those uh heavy mineral sand deposits of sources of titanium zirconium or earth elements.

Mm. Yeah.

These are resources that we um uh are already producing in Virginia, at least the the titanium and the zirconium and and we're hopeful that

Yeah.

uh the rare earth element production can begin soon. Um so the the way that we uh contribute I think is by informing uh not just particular site or property we we do these resource assessments over larger areas. And then the companies that are involved with uh uh either exploring for or extracting those resources, they use our maps, they use our reports, they use our data, and that helps them target their investigations for future work.

That's great. Yeah, I know it's a lot of exciting uh technology there that senses things like plaster deposits of of titanium and others. So really, really exciting work. Let me ask you about another emerging uh resource, and that is geologic hydrogen.

Hmm.

And geologic hydrogen obviously is gonna play a bigger and bigger role in this nation's energy needs going forward. Uh, for those that may not be familiar with it, could you explain geologic hydrogen, the significance that it has as a geologic resource, and then how this plays into earth mri identifying those resources.

Sure, I I can maybe provide an initial explanation. I have a a a much better expert in that area sitting right next to me, but geologic hydrogen naturally occurring is would be a cheaper resource for us to, to get to.

Mm-hmm.

And uh it's certainly a a a really strong potential energy resource for us in the future and there is some potential in western most Virginia especially for that resource.

You talked a little bit about, you know, identifying some of these deposits, especially uh, plaster deposits that are not hard rock. They're much easier to get to, much easier to process. The permitting process is easier too. Uh, but the data that's developed through your efforts in Earth MRI is publicly available. So I talked about that public-private partnership. Give me a perspective about how this publicly available information will help in developing the mineral resources that we will need, those critical minerals that we'll need in order to compete against China, that unfortunately human beings around the world in mines and destroys the environment. Explain how this database will help us not only identify these resources,

Sure.

but very responsibly develop them.

Sure. You've hit on a great strength in my opinion of Earth MRI, which is that we're providing data, we're sampling stockpiles in the same way across the country, and we're we're providing data in a consistent way that it will be readily available to a company that's looking to explore in Texas or Oregon or Virginia. They can access similar data, uh, you know, and understand what it means quickly, the maps also are in a standardized format. And being publicly available, it gives everybody an an even chance to kind of uh, you know, look on the horizon and see what might be out there.

Very good. Thank you, Mr. Heller. Mr. Chairman, now you're back.

Thank you very much, your chair, and I'll recognize as the ranking member of the full committee, Mr. Hoffman.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. uh, Betel, I I wanna uh start with you. And uh, you uh said in response to my colleague from Nevada's question that um as good as these laws may be, this legislation may be, it presumes good faith. Uh, and right now it sure looks to me like we don't have good faith from this administration. I'm someone who uh supports this bipartisan legislation moving forward, but as we go forward, I think we've gotta find ways to either legislate good faith, which itself is uh a a tricky proposition, or get some meaningful course correction from this administration, Because when I look at the paucity of renewable projects that have been added to the dashboard under this administration, just two solar projects, and then I look at the fact that it was more than a year ago that one of them was added, coming up on eleven months for the second, and we've blown past the sixty day deadline to get that that planning uh process rolling, uh that suggests to me that uh you know this is very much an active war on clean energy. Would you agree? And do you think that uh we've gotta do more than just pass legislation in order to achieve the benefit that we think we're getting with a bill like this?

Yeah, I I think that it's it's clear that there is some obstruction occurring on the clean energy projects. We we've seen that without without question, that the the process that the Department of Interior is undertaking is going to slow that process down and the fact that these projects that have been posted to the dashboard have not fulfilled their permitting timetables on the timeline that that is required, also indicates that there is a a lack of uh motivation, at least, to to move forward on them. Um, you know, the the question as to whether or not we there's more that we can legislate to insure good faith is a difficult one, I agree. It's difficult to to legislate that. But I do think that there are um, you know, there have been permitting reform uh bills that have been introduced such as the Certain Act that that looks to at least once a decision is made, not go back on it. But I I think the the problem that we face is how do we legislate a way to ensure that you meet your early commitments before the decision is even made? How do you follow through the process on a timeline that is acceptable? And the FAST Act was set up specifically to achieve that, but if it's not used to its full potential, then it will fail.

Yeah. And you agree that when it comes to solar and wind, the FAST Act is simply not being used as written.

It does not appear to be.

Thank you. What lessons um have you learned from your work in this space? Uh, I mean the drive to make permitting reform permitting more efficient and effective, um, is important. This is gonna be an ongoing conversation. It should be and can be bipartisan. But what has your experience taught you about how we can improve predictability, certainty and transparency, not just for project sponsors, but for the full community of stakeholders, tribes, local governments, and others who are impacted by these projects.

I think the most critical thing is to ensure that there is an opportunity for them to engage on the project. Um, you know, what we've seen recently with the rescission of CEQ's NEPA regulations and the optionality of actually circulating environmental draft documents for public comment, it reduces the opportunity for people to meaningfully engage in the process. And parts of the FAST Act's, uh, judicial review provision, it limits the standing to those who have meaningfully engaged and provided a substantive comment on the draft document. But that assumes that there's an opportunity for that comment to occur. And right now, we're not seeing that. It's it's treated as as as an option. And I think that's that's a that's a risk that we face of of cutting folks out of the process.

Mm-hmm.

More importantly, I think active project management, which does not require legislation, it requires staff capacity and a willingness to engage on the project, to hold agency staff, but also project proponents accountable to the timelines that they've committed to, to ensure that we are actively managing resources, allocating staff where they need to be to be able to be responsive to permit allocation or permit applications and resource studies, is a critical part of maintaining project progress. Everybody in the private sector manages to a schedule. There's no reason why the federal government shouldn't as well.

Right. And if you slash twenty five percent of your staff and told the ones who are left focus on fossil fuel and ignore everything else, uh, you are not gonna get, uh, the benefit of, uh, of the legislative promise. Right?

Uh, I believe that is, uh, that is definitely a risk, for sure.

Are there certain programs or aspects of FAST-forty-one you'd like to see expanded?

I think the, the provision of posting project schedules to the dashboard should be expanded to all EAs and EISs. I think all projects would benefit from a public transparent timetable so that everyone can see where we are in the process and when they can expect an opportunity to engage.

Alright. Thanks, Mr. Bale. Yield back.

Thank you, the chair, now recognizes uh the chair of the full committee, uh representative Westerman for five minutes.

Thank you, Chairman Stauburn. Thank you to the witnesses for being here today. I've been uh very intrigued by the new technology that we have, uh to be able to assess our resources and Doctor Deist, right, you uh Mentioned in your testimony and highlighted that one of the defining features of the Earth MR MRI program is the cooperative agreement model. I think uh you've worked on or the state of Arkansas has worked with with USGS on this. But how's the collaboration between USGS and state geological surveys and private contractors contributed to the success of Earth MRI, and how can we enhance that going forward?

Yeah, thank you for the question. So, um, USGS is providing the framework. And the airborne geophysics is flown under contract. And the state geological surveys are the ones on the ground, picking up the rocks and performing the on the ground activity. I would say it is an extremely effective model. Um, the program is, what, six years old? Forty-six states have participated, and Puerto Rico. Uh. each state is providing access or or working the program at the levels that they're available to. My state, the state of Oregon, we are significantly involved in Earth MRI. We have a significant mineral, Adalman, which we haven't fully investigated. And that's true across uh most states. Uh I so it's a very effective model where the USGS provides the framework and the states uh enact on that framework.

Thank you. And speaking of new technology, uh, Mister Kinsella, in uh layman's terms, can you explain what quantum gravity radiometry is?

Yes, sir. Great question. What we do is we trap atoms inside of these quantum cells, and we use lasers to cool these atoms to temperatures that are colder than the temperatures found in outer space. And the question is, how do you do that at room temperature? And it's all about what is the definition of cold? Cold is the lack of motion of atoms. And so we use lasers to hold these atoms in place. So as if they're moving so little, they become colder than outer space. They then start to form together in something called a Bose-Einstein condensate, which is a fifth form of matter. And when they are in that form of matter, they become very sensitive to the forces in the world around them, including gravity. And so if we can take two measurements of gravity, we can sense the change in those measurements or the gradient. And you can then use that change in gravity to identify mass. And things like uranium that have a lot of mass, and start to explore under the earth's surface with significantly more precision than we've been able to do with classical technologies.

So if that was the layman's version, I don't I can't imagine what the uh the technical version would be like. Yeah. Uh, so how do you how how is that how does that work with earth MRI?

It would effectively take the technologies we're using currently with Earth MRI, and we will compare the quantum versions of those technologies to see that quantum outperforms, and then start to deploy the quantum version of those technologies to sense things underneath the Earth's surface with with more gravity. And maybe to put it in really layman's terms, historically it's been like throwing darts at a dartboard, and now we can make bullseyes, uh, more consistently.

So it's not new sensing technology, it's just analyzing the data that's coming from the existing technology.

It would be taking the existing gravimetry technology that we have, and call it, making it quantum capable, so introducing capabilities that are at the quantum level of precision. So, taking the existing technologies and making them significant significantly more sensitive, is what quantum would be doing.

Thank you. Uh, Mister Hiller and doctor de s. serra again as we consider the authorization of this legislation um what characteristics of earth mri do you like the most and what suggestions do you have us um or do you have for us as far as changes to the program

thanks for the question i think the model is working to my prior comment i think it is incredibly important that the on-ground elements remain that uh we need to go and ground verif ground truth what we are sensing with, uh airborne geophysics and other methods. And so it's that holistic approach to understanding what the nation's mineral endowment is. And it's so it's a it's a total government approach to understanding what we have.

Yes, I I really like the cooperative aspect of it, working closely with USGS, but also leveraging the local expertise of the state surveys. Um, that's been a great model. And we're also, as I think I mentioned earlier, the the consistent approach to how we're characterizing deposits and how we're, we're even creating our maps so that somebody can pick up a map from anywhere in the country if they're they're used to working with those and they don't have to learn a whole new method of uh reading the geologic information.

Thank you very much. I'm out of time, Mr. Chairman.

Uh, Mr. Chair, since you asked a question, would you make sure that Mr. Kinsella gives us a half a credit continuing education? Education for that, right? The chair now recognizes uh ranking member Ansari.

Thank you so much. Uh, Mister Batel, you have been involved with FAST forty-one, the permitting council, and its predecessor efforts for more than a decade. Can you tell us more about why FAST forty-one was created in the first place? What challenges was it designed to solve and how have those challenges evolved?

Yeah, I appreciate the question. So the FAST forty-one uh originated out of basically a pilot project during the Obama administration where we selected high priority projects in response to a presidential memorandum that to see if really dedicated inter-agency focus and cooperation would enable these important projects to move forward at pace. And from that, it built uh some momentum. There was a a model of an inter-agency group that was formed uh with the White House leadership and from that Senator's portman McCaskill saw the the value in that, inter-agency group and legislated to per make it permanent. And from there, it was originally a uh a temporary. It had a sunset clause that would have expired uh prior to IAJA. IAJA made the agency permanent. And we've seen that this focused coordination among agencies and leadership to ensure that projects receive the attention that they deserve, that the transparency is there to provide the public with some predictability and accountability to the process and that provides project sponsors that same accountability so that they have certainty. in the process so that they can know what to expect. They can plan for a timeline of when projects will be approved and they can move to construction and start to deliver on the promise of that project. I think over the t- over the evolution of this program, we've seen it grow. We've seen additional authorities be provided from Congress. And I think the Permanent Council has matured in a way that that makes it ready now for this lower threshold. Mm-hmm. It is no longer an experiment. It is now a proven governance model that we should be leveraging for more projects. And so I think, you know, this legislation in lowering the threshold provides that opportunity for more projects to be included. And I I applaud uh the committee's leadership on that. I do think that there are more ways for us to strengthen the permanent council, to provide it more authority, to provide more teeth to these timetables as we've had uh questions on that. Um so I I won't go into that any further, but I do think that we are at a point now where it is appropriate for us to expand and build out the permitting council's authorities.

Thank you. One of the key benefits of a project being on the dashboard is that it provides a higher level of transparency into the permitting process. How is this transparency requirement change how agencies operate, and what has it meant for projects, sponsors, and the public?

One of the key things as part of that accountability is uh, is a requirement to meet those timelines. And if you do not, you have to provide a justification for why those timelines have been met. And those, it is, you know, in, it it differs from different administrations as how you you treat, uh, that that sort of accountability. Clearly, during this administration on the renewable energy projects, that missing timelines is not as, uh, much of a deterrent as it has been in the past. But it is a deterrent. You know, it's it's basically shaming agencies into conformance to ensure that they are meeting their their project schedules. Again, I think there there is an opportunity to strengthen the teeth of of an enforcement action on that. Um, you know, we've looked at other opportunities to either institute financial penalties for missing deadlines, but that undermines, you know, the staff capacity question. So I don't know that that's the right answer, but there are ways for us to consider strengthening the role of the executive director and the permitting council itself to force action to ensure that we are adhering to these timelines.

In your testimony, you suggested that you suggest requiring all major projects, those that go through an assessment or environmental impact statement to come up with a permitting timetable, and post it to the dashboard. Based on what we've heard today, that alone would lead to massive improvements in permitting coordination and transparency. If we made that change today, do you believe that the permitting council and federal agencies could successfully implement permitting timetables for all major projects?

I think there are some additional investments that would need to be made to, build out the capacity of the of the dashboard. Um, the front. facing the public facing needs improvement. Um, you know, it's it's old, the it doesn't really provide as much data as perhaps it should. But more importantly, the back-end where the agencies are actually inputting data and how they are coordinating, that is grossly outdated, uh, and needs to be improved to ensure that there is compatibility among the agencies, it's more accessible to staff, and that it doesn't add an additional burden to staff to develop these time tables. I do think that it's reasonable to expect us to have permitting timetables for all projects. It's it's a standard of basic project management.

And where might our federal agencies or their permitting council need additional resources or support to make this happen?

Well, we have the the ERIF and the three hundred fifty million from the the Inflation Reduction Act. I I'm there's a fair balance of that left there. That resource is available to invest in these sorts of things. But I also think that, you know, the fee authority exists that has not been tapped, that would be an opportunity to collect fees from participants in the FAST forty-one program to pay into the permitting support that they receive.

Got it. Thank you so much. I'll be back.

Sure, and I'll recognize this representative Begich for five minutes.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. My my first question uh to Mr. Heller. Your testimony describes how Earth MRI turned a pre-competitive geoscience into resumed heavy mineral sand mining in Virginia. Alaska has the opposite scale problem. Three hundred and sixty-five million acres, most of it federally managed with vast interior regions never mapped by modern methods. What lessons from Virginia's sequencing of geophysical surveys, geochemistry, and field verification would you apply to a coordinated Alaska mapping effort, and how should reauthorization ensure Alaska's scale is met with commensurate investment?

Well, in terms of lessons, uh, this deposit was actually discovered by a geologist working for our survey, although not not recently, it was discovered in the nineteen eighties. Um, and uh, initially with some geochemical sampling and that was published, made publicly available, and that really encouraged a lot of people to start taking a look. Companies came out and started exploring and they found the resource, and that site developed uh, economic conditions uh, caused that company eventually to go out of operation. Uh, but it just coincidentally has restarted in the last few years as we've been focusing on our uh, exploration for for new deposits, uh not just of titanium and zirconium, but also these rare earth elements which have not been produced in Virginia uh in the past. Um yes I I in terms of scale, I'm not sure I'm I'm qualified to to uh uh really uh tell Alaska how mu they might go about it, but I think uh the cooperative nature, we have great relationships with with industry and uh with our mining uh inspector communities, and that's what gets us in the door sometimes to sample in places that we might not otherwise be able to do. Um, and uh, you know, I know in Alaska they have a great uh, relationship with the USGS there. So, um, yeah, I'd be happy to, to talk to anybody if they were interested.

Thank you. Uh, my next question uh, for Mister Kinsella. Um, you described quantum gravity gradiometry as a conservation solution, non-invasive surveys that dramatically reduce dry holes, access roads, and drill pads. That calculus is amplified in Alaska where every acre of subsurface and surface disturbance uh, triggers extensive federal review and remote logistics make each borehole extraordinarily expensive. What magnitude of drilling and surface disturbance reduction have you seen or modeled and how transformational could that be for Alaska projects where smaller exploration footprint directly reduces both permitting risk and cost?

Thank you for the question, Representative. The purpose of this bill would be to compare the quantum technologies versus the classical technologies side by side. and see what benefits that we are getting from um the quantum versions. What i can say from experience though is that usually we see orders of magnitude improvement when doing things with quantum technologies. And so we're talking ten to one hundred to a thousand x in terms of precision improvement that we can receive. Which, i don't know if that would directly lead to orders of magnitude less uh drilling. But it should lead to significantly the need to do significantly less and help with all the the different things that you mentioned.

Thank you. Uh, final question for Doctor Day-Sterritt. Um, AS AASG emphasizes that mineral systems cross state boundaries. Alaska has natural geological continuities across enormous districts with adjacent Canadian terrains. And Alaska Division of Geological and Geophysical Surveys is a critical partner on every federally supported effort in the state. How should the bill's federal state provisions be structured to strengthen Alaska's DGGS leadership role on Alaska scale mapping? And what governance features would ensure, in your view, Alaska's coverage priorities are set collaboratively with the state rather than solely from Washington?

Thank you for the question. I I think um in response to one of your earlier questions, Alaska is approaching this minerals problem from the correct direction. It is starting with the airborne geophysical data, which is allowing the DGGS to go on the ground and verify and create high resolution geological maps in the classic way that all state geological surveys do. And then, uh, as for continuity with Canada, there is obviously a a necessity to speak to Canada. They are a premier mining jurisdiction. Uh, they approached this problem in a similar way to the United States.

Thank you. And I, I see I've got thirty seconds left, just going down uh the panel here. Um, yes or no, uh, do you believe Earth MRI is critical for unlocking uh Alaska's unknown resource potential?

Yes.

Yes.

I don't think I'm qualified to answer.

Yes. Thank you very much.

Mister Benckerts, can I have your last seven seconds?

Keep it that. Yes.

Same question for the state of Minnesota.

Yes.

Yes. Yes.

You skipped.

I repeat, I don't think I'm qualified either.

With that, I yield back.

Thank you very much. Uh, representative Gerhal Gerhalva for five minutes.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, thank you to all the witnesses for being here. Um, Mister Batel, as I mentioned during the first panel, my district is home to the first mining project added to FAS forty-one permitting dashboard the South Thirty-Two Hermosa project. which I have to say was not a great experience for my constituents. Uh, my constituents felt that their voices were not heard in their requests for extended public comment periods or for the baseline studies on water quality and resources. Do you have anything to share on lessons learned from this experience from your perspective?

Well, first, I'd like to apologize for the, for the experience of your constituents. I don't think that, that was, uh, what I understand you know, after the fact, uh, because that, that issue was raised after the, the request had been made and, and denied. The Forest Service, and any agency, has the opportunity to extend the permitting timetable if they need to. Uh, and this seemed with, seemed like a just cause to do so. So that, that was a missed opportunity, and I think that that is unfortunate. What I would also say, and, and this goes back to responses to prior questions, having the executive director have a little bit more authority to direct action on part of the agencies and to be a sounding board for project proponents, I think would be helpful. Um, Director Domenech, you know, mentioned that, you know, she and I, I perceive my role in the same way, you know, we can be an advocate for projects, but also for the communities where they serve. We can be uh the liaison between the agencies and the project proponents and the communities where these projects occur. So I think that there is an opportunity for um, greater transparency and and engagement. um, on the part of the permanent counsel with the communities where these projects occur, but also a greater visibility on the part of, um, the permanent counsel into the the on the ground actions would be helpful.

Yeah. Thank you. Um, the landscape has changed significantly since then with the Trump administration actively eroding our environmental laws and cutting um the public and tribal communities out of opportunities um out of any opportunity they can get. By comparison, FAST forty-one sets a higher bar for transparency, but that's far from saying the system is working well for the public. Looking into the future, how could you design a permitting system that better listens to the concerns of impacted communities?

I think the first and simple step would be to legislate a a requirement to have public comment. Um, right now that is uh is an option, as I as I mentioned earlier. So I I think that is the most direct and simple solution is to mandate an opportunity for the public to engage on a project and to review project reports, whether it be a draft an environmental impact statement or a draft environmental assessment, legislate that requirement in into an amendment of NEPA, or however you chose to address it. I I think that is the missing piece right now, Mm-hmm. um, that we are seeing, really, risk, uh, increase. And that it's a risk not only to government but also to the project sponsor. They're losing the opportunity to get that feedback on their project, Mm-hmm. uh, and that's diminishes the opportunity to to improve the project.

Yeah, that's what I hear all the time from constituents, it's like, we don't know what our baseline is, they ha- they're asking non-profits and other small groups to try to get water sampling, to try to understand and be able to document the changes and it almost feels as if these projects don't want to document those changes, because then someone is held responsible um for clean up or for improvements. So, under your leadership the permai the permitting council directed fifteen million dollars to the tribal assistance program. Can you please tell us why you saw that a necessary use of funds and describe some successes with it?

Yeah, we uh, and you know, Director Domenech had provided some response that I think we expended somewhere around five to seven hundred thousand of that. It was just three tribes, they were in the northeast. They were being asked to consult on a number of offshore wind projects, all within their territory. And we saw that as a a burden to them. They they did not have the capacity to effectively engage, to travel to the meetings, to have access to consultants, to be able to do their own studies. So we saw the tribal assistance program as an opportunity to provide additional resources to the tribes so that they can meaningfully engage. I would disagree with uh Director Dominich's uh statement that they don't need money to engage they just need to to reach out and that they don't need the assistance fund to actually engage I don't believe that's necessarily true, because the tribes are asked to engage on a number projects and those resources facilitate that engagement.

Yep. Actually, I disagreed with her as well, so so I'm glad to hear that I wasn't the only one. Um, I think that how would how did those resources strengthen the permitting council's overall work and what are local improvements you saw due to that investment?

It was too uh we unfortunately uh our our term ended before we saw the full uh full results, but it was definitely well received and very much appreciated by the tribes because it gave them resources to do the sort of work they were trying to do.

Thank you. Thank you. I yield back.

The chair now recognizes representative Herd for five minutes.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Quintel, it's great to have you here. Great to have a Colorado company, uh, as part of this panel. Uh, can you, uh, going back to Chairman Westman's question about how to explain quantum, the way that I've, is my simple mind trying to think of it or understand it is imagine you're walking across a wooden floor. You can't see beneath it, but you can kind of tell by where you're standing if the, where the floor feels solid and where it feels hollow. Quantum works similarly. It detects tiny differences beneath the earth that tell us something about what's below the surface without having to dig. Is that a fair analogy?

Well first of all it's uh honor to be here, representative Herd, and yes that's a fair analogy.

Okay. Um, that's one great way for me to to to think about it, well one of the things um that I like about my bill, the the Quantum Enhanced Critical Minerals Mapping App Mapping Act is that it's not about subsidizing a particular company it's about improving public knowledge. It's like about it's like having it's like how weather maps better weather maps help everyone make better decisions and geologic better geologic maps do the exact same thing can you explain how making this information publicly available which is what um my bill is would accomplish how making that information publicly available changes the way that companies like yours explore for critical minerals

once we're able to map the gravity, create the gravity maps of, at a quantum level of precision, and those become publicly available. That will help, not companies like Inflection, because we would just be supplying the technology to, you know, do the type of mapping and the type of exploration. But types of companies that are doing critical minerals exploration will change the way they do things they will be able to operate with significantly, uh, greater levels of precision, uh, decreasing the need to do test digs. and be able to focus their energies on the areas where they have higher confidence that there will be um fruitful um efforts. And so what I see is a um a more environmentally friendly way of of getting our critical minerals but as importantly having an understanding where they are and being able to get them uh more efficiently and in greater quantities.

So investors are often reluctant to finance early stage mineral exploration uh because of uncertainty. How much of explore exploration risk is the lack of information versus the lack of permitting or or something else? And how does better mapping reduce that uncertainty?

I don't know um the ratio between the two particularly, but I will tell you that with greater certainty through these maps, or just the ability to explore with greater precision, that would de-risk the projects up front and uh and and make them less speculative by nature.

Okay, and uh in layman's terms, when you say de-risk, what do you mean by that?

Give you higher confidence that what you're looking for is actually where you're going to start drilling.

Great, and that it makes sense to invest there.

Correct.

I'm really proud, as I mentioned before, that Inflection is headquartered in my home state of Colorado. Um, and we've become one of America's leading centers for quantum research. Beyond mineral exploration, what other industries do you see benefiting from the United States continuing to lead when it comes to quantum sensing?

The way to think about quantum sensing is it replaces many of the things we do with classical technologies with versions that are ten, a hundred, a thousand times more precise than what we have with our existing technologies. And so that proliferates across a number of different use cases, but let's use timing as one example. So in the same way we can build quantum gravity gradiometers, we can build quantum clocks that allow significantly greater precision levels for distributed systems like the electricity grid. like the RF networks, like data centers, like the financial markets, to synchronize better and perform more effectively. And importantly, continue to perform when they lose access to GPS, which provides currently the timing signal that allows them to synchronize. So, the fortification and the enhancement of our critical infrastructure is one area. In terms of the ability to synchronize and communicate on the battlefield as well, quantum gives an enormous tactical advantage. For a couple of reasons, very similarly, if you were to lose GPS, you would lose the ability to synchronize or navigate. Quantum can help you do that in absence of the GPS signal, and also do it with significantly greater precision. So, huge use cases both here for our critical infrastructure, as well as in the battlefield.

So there's a national security aspect for sure.

Absolutely, yes.

Is there also a use case to be made for looking underground to see where water resources are or might be located or. Why we might have and one of the issues that we have in Colorado and the San Luis Valley is, as the aquifer is is going down and we're trying to see.

Yes.

What is causing that, where the water is. Is that another potential use for quantum sensing?

It is, and that's core to the work we're doing with NASA right now as part of the QGG pathfinder mission. We are sending our quantum gravity gradiometers up into space to reside in a satellite. To take larger measures of gravity. and changes in gravity, and that can start to pick up things like aquifers being depleted. And so this is another use case for the technology, absolutely.

Wonderful. Thank you so much, Mister Kinsella, for being here, Mister Chairman. My time has expired.

Thank you very much, Chair, and I'll recognize as representative Rivas for five minutes.

Thank you, Mister Chair. Uh, Mister uh, Betel. Uh, one of my top priorities this Congress has been uh fighting to ensure that those who are often underrepresented have a seat at the table and

Yeah, a public input is critical to informing the design and development of a project. There are many local conditions that may not be readily apparent to the regulators or to the project proponents that local communities would be able to share. And what we've seen, you know, over the course of my career is the Project designs are going to evolve and they're going to modify in response to public comment as you hear from communities as to where impacts may be located, or where there's opportunities to make things better. Um, so cutting the public out of the process does not result in a better project. It actually increases risk potentially. Um, so I think that there is uh, there's more benefits than that, but uh, in the interest of time, I'll just say that it it produces better outcomes.

No, I agree with you and I'm I'm glad you brought up that it increases risk which someone building or in construction probably wants to minimize risk,

Absolutely.

right, in in a big especially these big projects. Uh, you know, there've been several legislative proposals this Congress that attempt to take voices away, especially from working families, um, by gutting the public input process and blocking access to the courts. Um, can you talk about why having judicial review as an accountability mechanism is essential to the process?

I think it it's simply there are potential for political pressures to force actions that would occur on a faster track perhaps than you would like and sometimes there are going to be corners that are cut and there has to be some accountability. That that is just we've seen that over both administrations uh D- Democrat or Republican things mistakes are made occasionally and the the courts have a role to play to ensure that those mistakes are rectified or there is consequences for them. there has to be a deterrent for that sort of for that sort of action. So it's critical that the courts have a role to play after the fact to ensure that the process is adhered to.

Yeah, so FAST forty-one uh is a successful program designed to streamline and accelerate environmental reviews of major infrastructure. Uh, FAST forty-one changes how people can sue covered projects under NEPA by shortening the statue of limitations, and I know you just talked about that. uh, and allowing only individuals who participated in the public comment period to bring forth a suit. How do you believe FAST forty-one is able to balance robust public participation within those limitations, and does the process allow effective communities to engage along the way?

So, to my knowledge, and we we did uh kind of a retrospective when I was at the council, that provision that that provision of statute of limitations has not ever been used. Uh, we had never, no one had sued using that particular window. They'd they'd sue under other operative laws, whether it be clean water act or or something else. So, and and further, the FAST forty-one does not dictate the way that the agencies will do public outreach. It just says that you must provide a substantive comment. And I think in a prior response I mentioned, because there is not a guarantee of public out or public outreach uh on draft documents now there may not be an opportunity. for someone to provide a substantive comment and so they would be necessarily cut out of the opportunity to challenge under that structure. So I think that is a that provision was written and it referenced CEQ regulations in statute which have now been rescinded. And so there is an opportunity now perhaps to revisit the way that language is structured to ensure that there is a mandated opportunity for public review of draft documents or other public engagement opportunities.

Great, you know, thank you for sharing that. You know, my district saw this firsthand with various infrastructure projects, such as the Metro East San Fernando Valley transit corridor, and I represent uh northern part of Los Angeles, uh which transport that has never had um transportation um access, and now these are opportunities for us. Of course we want this built as quickly as possible, but you know, the public comment and input is very important to our communities um while this is being built uh uh so i really appreciate those comments and i yield back

thank you very much last but not least my good friend and colleague representative dingell for five minutes

thank you mister chair and thank you for including the earth mir reauthorization act that i with representative whitman in today's legislative hearing surveys, earth mapping, resource initiative, also known as earth MRI as witnesses know, has been a critical resource of public geologic data, not just for scientists, but also for private sector investment and public planning. Earth MRI improves our understanding of critical minerals, groundwater resources, geologic hazards, geothermal, and geologic hydrogen potential. Congress needs

Without objection.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Uh, I wanna thank Doctor Heller and Doctor uh Desirat for being here to support this legislation to reauthorize the Earth MRI uh program. Let me start with both of you, Doctor Heller and Doctor Desirat, can you both talk about why this is such a good program, and because taxpayers wanna know what their money is getting, what is the return for taxpayers? Whichever one of you wants to go first.

Thank you for the question. So, the long-term value of geologic data is, it compounds into the future. So we gather something today, we will use it into the future. In my remarks I discussed, uh, that this is a mineral resource assessment, uh, opportunity. However, we as geologists don't look at geology under one lens. We look at it for geothermal, we look at it for geologic hydrogen, and for other uses. And so while that, so if if that data is in the public domain, it's available to everyone. And so essentially the value is that it is public information.

Yes, um, I I like the program a lot because it's focused on outcomes, practical outcomes, you know, uh, new resources being developed, economic development, et cetera. Um, as a state geological survey we're we're focused on doing public good, you know, both uh from a economic development standpoint but also environmental protection and public safety. And the the the products that we're producing, the maps and the the geophysical surveys that are very high resolution, those are really transformational in terms of allowing people to make good decisions, um not just for mineral resources but for a variety of public uh goods.

Not everybody understands that. Um, in January twenty twenty five, the United States Geological Survey published a map estimating the potential reserves of geologic hydrogen across the country. As hydrogen continues to be explored as a promising zero emission fuel, this potential geologic hydrogen is particularly exciting because extracting it requires only a fraction of the energy required to produce hydrogen through industrial processes. Just personal, Michigan was a bright spot on the map and the state is eager to explore these reserves. Doctor Desirat, can you tell us if the Earth MRI program has looked at mapping, geologic hydrogen resources, and what opportunities do you think are in this space?

There are significant opportunities in this space. The overlap between certain uh critical mineral focus areas and areas that are potential for geologic hydrogen are very high. Essentially, you produce geological hydrogen when you have an iron-rich rock in the subsurface. Well, Earth MRI is also looking for those for other reasons. So, yes, there is significant overlap.

Then I'm gonna go back to um both you and Doctor Heller for a second. If you can talk a little more about the partnership process that you have. What are some examples of how the USGS partnerships have been able to do further the reach of this program and whichever one of you wants to go first?

Sure, I I can go first there. I I think what s- state surveys bring to the table is local expertise. We have pretty well established connections with industry and academics within our states. And we have a, you know, just a prac practical aspect to our work, focused on outcomes. USGS brings expertise that the an individual state survey could never have, you know, geophysics, geochemistry, um, people who can determine how old uh rocks are, you know, they they just bring a lot of resources to the table. that we can use to leverage the the on the ground work we're doing. And I think uh, you know, we have great relationships with us at the staff level with with folks at USGS. It's just been a really great partnership, not just through Earth MRI, but we have two other programs we work with them uh very closely on.

Thank you. I'm out of time, so I'm gonna yield back, but I hope my colleagues will join us in supporting this common sense, bipartisan reauthorization, and yield back, Mister Chair.

Thank you very much, Chair, and I'll recognize as representative

Thank you, Mister Chairman, thank you for inviting me to wave on. Uh, Doctor De Surat, despite the work done so far by Earth MRI, there's still a sizable amount of data to be collected and analyzed in our surface and subsurface to properly account for the natural resources that the US has. Uh, can you talk specifically about uh, geochemical data? How much of that we've collected so far?

I think I'd like to get a uh written response to exactly how much has been uh acquired. I can say that there are a number of different geochemical databases that are available. Uh, I don't off the top of my head know the the specifics, so I'd like to submit that into the written record.

Can you talk about what the benefits of that would be?

Certainly. So um any mineral prospect uh in order to make a financial investment decision you need to understand what is there and so you essentially at some point generate geochemical information uh as the uh financial investment decision increases the you have to put more data to the problem as the risk needs to be reduced by that information

You're also, one of the uh unique aspects of Earth MRI is the the ability to integrate data from multiple sources. And HR ninety six forty adds the three D uh h uh hydrography program. Uh, could you comment uh or explain the advantages of this data um integration help facilitates a comprehensive approach to mapping and building upon previous uh mapping efforts?

So in in in the title of of the bill, uh the word is mapping, this this is essentially plural. We are not bringing one map to the problem, we're bringing multiple maps to the problem. So the three D hydrography uh map is important for many many things. So there's been discussions of permitting here today, without an understanding of where surface water goes, there's not going to be any permitting. It's incredibly important to have that surface information, understanding topography, hydrology, mineralogy, elemental distributions. It's bringing everything together into one place so that we can make informed decisions, such that capital investment is de-risked.

Ken Sell, uh there's a lot of discussion going on right now about artificial intelligence, quantum computing, data centers. And uh your company is developing quantum technologies How important is are are these capabilities uh that they be developed here in the US rather than overseas?

Thank you for the question, representative. I believe it's critical that we develop these capabilities here in America. China has made quantum a focus area for investment and our um putting a lot of capital behind quantum. And we need to make sure we maintain our leadership here in America for not just quantum gravity gradiometry, but the broader capabilities that quantum can bring to the nation.

Does this become uh part of our uh economic security and national security effort uh to to bring these these quantum technologies into play here in rega- and particularly in regard to mapping our our mineral resources?

I believe they have both, economic and national security implications. Yes, it will allow us to fortify our critical mineral supply chain and um own our own destiny on that front and not rely on um other nations, in particular adversaries. And that has both the implications across national security and economic security.

And this is a question for the entire panel. Just uh how um how accurate do you think our our our current mapping is right now in terms of our geologic survey, uh and and identifying mineral resources.

So the current program for airborne geophysics is a trade-off between aerial exp- ex- extent and the resolution of the data available. So we're making some trade-offs. For geologic mapping, we are mapping at a scale that is agreed upon nationally as an appropriate level to get as much information as possible. over a over an area. And for geochemical sampling, of course, you can do thousands of samples, it's a question of time and budget. So everything we are doing is a intellectual compromise on perfection, but it gets us towards what we need to do.

OK. Uh, Mr. Chairman, my time has expired, I yield back.

Thank you very much. I wanna thank the witnesses, all the witnesses for your valuable testimony and the members for their question. Questions. The members of the subcommittee may have some additional uh questions for the witnesses, and we will ask you to respond to these in writing. Under committee rule three, members of the subcommittee must submit questions to the subcommittee clerk by five PM on Friday, July twenty fourth. The hearing work record will be held open for ten business days for these responses. If there is no further business without objection, the subcommittee stands adjourned.