Washington: A sharp partisan divide emerged in the US Congress over how to secure critical mineral supply chains, with lawmakers and industry witnesses warning that China’s dominance poses risks to national security while disagreeing on whether environmental laws are part of the problem.
At a House Energy and Commerce subcommittee hearing, Chairman Gary Palmer said China “has aggressively sought to dominate the global market for critical minerals with dire consequences for our national security,” noting it is “responsible for almost exclusively producing about two dozen critical minerals” vital for defence.
While Republican argued that regulatory uncertainty and outdated environmental laws are slowing domestic mining, processing and recycling, pushing investment overseas, the Democrats countered that weakening environmental protections would not solve deeper structural challenges such as cost, workforce gaps and volatile global prices.
Chris Lehman of Principal Mineral told lawmakers that the United States depends on imports for “over half of its supply of more than 40 critical minerals and is fully import dependent for at least a dozen.”
He stressed that building domestic capacity requires “a coordinated, system wide approach” including regulatory clarity, long-term capital and consistent standards.
Beia Spiller of Resources for the Future outlined four major barriers: higher domestic costs, global price volatility, lengthy permitting processes and workforce shortages. She said, “weakening environmental protections will not create a viable domestic supply chain,” adding that “the binding constraints are larger and more structural.”
Josh Gubkin of Redwood Materials said current rules treat lithium-ion batteries as hazardous waste, forcing lengthy permitting or inefficient handling. “It’s a death knell for innovation,” he said, noting approval timelines can stretch to years.
Gubkin warned that such policies are pushing investment abroad even as China expands its lead. He noted that China “controls more than 80 percent of global lithium-ion recycling capacity,” while restrictive US rules prevent recyclers from distributing recovered materials domestically.
Jane Neal of AMG Vanadium pointed to regulatory inconsistency as a major risk. Despite operating for decades, her company now faces uncertainty due to shifting interpretations of recycling rules. “The core problem is a lack of clarity in the RCRA regulations, not a lack of environmental controls,” she said.
Democrats emphasised that demand-side policies and international partnerships are equally critical. Ranking member Paul Tonko said the US should “reduce our reliance on unreliable foreign supply chains” while raising environmental and labour standards globally.
Spiller also underscored the importance of linking supply and demand, saying stable demand allows long-term contracts that “provide long term price and demand certainty for upstream mineral producers.”
The debate comes as lawmakers increasingly frame critical minerals as central to competition with China, particularly in clean energy, semiconductors and defence systems.
(IANS)
