House Natural Resources Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources (Begich): Legislative Hearing on the following bill

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 4, any oral opening statements at hearings are limited to the chairman and the ranking minority member. I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. DeLuzio, and the gentleman from Alabama, Mr. Palmer, be allowed to participate in today's hearing. Without objections, 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— 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 the permitting process for critical energy, mineral, and infrastructure projects. H.R.

8003, Introduced by Representatives Deluzio and Crank. It amends Title 41 of the Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act, or FAST-41, to lower the estimated cost requirement for eligible projects from $200 million to $50 million. This will allow mid-sized infrastructure projects to be eligible for the permitting frameworks outlined in FAST-41. This bill would reduce project timelines, decrease adverse costs, and allow for the critical infrastructure that communities and industry rely on to be complete completed more efficiently. Last month, this subcommittee held an oversight hearing on the U.S. Geological Survey's Earth Mapping Resources Initiative, or Earth MRI, which is set to expire at the end of this fiscal year.

H.R. 9640, Introduced by Representatives Whitman and Dingell, would reauthorize Earth MRI for another 5 years, continuing the important work of mapping our nation's surface and subsurface resources. This reauthorization is crucial to continue initial comprehensive national modern 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 5 years of Earth MRI and go back to key geological formations like the Duluth complex in northern Minnesota to get deeper, 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 Executive Order 14413, ushering in the next frontier of quantum innovation, establishing a whole-of-government effort to accelerate U.S. leadership in quantum information science and technology. President Trump recognizes the importance of quantum capability as a strategic driver of economic growth, scientific discovery, and national security. H.R. 9646, Introduced by Representatives Hurd and Carbajal, 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 to produce ultra-high-resolution maps subsurface density variations, which are useful for geologic mapping, mineral exploration, and locating underground features.

H.R. 9646 Would require the USGS to conduct quantum gravity gradient— gradient— gradient metric surveys in priority focus areas with critical 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 want to secure our critical mineral supply chains, if we want to grow our economic prosperity and ensure our national security, it is imperative that we know where these resources are. Earth MRI and Quantive 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-41 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— Americans can compete and also win in this 21st century. I am excited by this bipartisan support for all 3 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 Ansara. Thank you, Chair Stauber. I am happy to be here to discuss 3 bipartisan bills that will help us responsibly develop our public resources and build the infrastructure communities need without cutting corners on 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-41 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 18 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-41 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 14 days with no public comment, Fast-41 provides an important measure of transparency and accountability. HR 8003 is a common sense move to extend FAST-41's expedited coordinated review process to midsize energy and infrastructure projects, so smaller projects that power a neighborhood or bring jobs to a single town can benefit from the FAST-41 review process. It does this by lowering the required investment threshold from $200 million to $50 million. I am happy to support this bill from my colleague Representative Deluzio, 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-41 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've seen time and time again that investing in science and research keeps people safe, and drives American innovation.

H.R. 9640 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. H.R.

9649 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.

I will now begin our member panel to allow the bill sponsors to speak on their legislation. I will now recognize Representative Hurd from Colorado for testimony on his bill. Thank you, Chairman Stauber, for holding today's hearing and for including H.R. 9646 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 its 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, Mr. Chairman, again for allowing me to bring this bill up for hearing in this committee, and I yield back. Thank you very much. I will now recognize Representative Deluzio 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 my bill, H.R. 8003, Expanding the Fast Track Act of 2026. 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 for the American people. The FAST-41 program could be improved. That's what this bill is about.

That program helps projects navigate the complex web of federal permits. Projects that opt into the FAST-41 program get permitting decisions nearly 18 months faster. That's a 23% shorter timeline. FAST-41 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 lowers the minimum investment threshold for infrastructure projects to qualify as covered projects under the FAST-41 program from $200 million down to $50 million, 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 that includes my home state Governor Josh Shapiro from Pennsylvania. I thank Mr. Crank of Colorado for co-leading the effort. There's a big tent of support here because I think there is a wide understanding that permitting decisions need to move more quickly.

So with that, Mr. 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—. Mr. Chairman.

Yes, could I come in as a sponsor? Representative Crank, yes. Thank you, thank you, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank the chairman for holding the hearing and the ranking member for your kind words as well. And I do want to thank Mr. DeLuzio for working with us on this.

It's great to work in a bipartisan fashion with my colleague and to expand eligibility under the FAST-41 program. Congress created the Permitting Council to improve transparency and coordination for complex federal permitting decisions. FAST-41 establishes clear agency responsibilities, coordinated project schedules, and reasonable timelines while reducing duplicative reviews and providing greater certainty through a statute of limitations on judicial review. At its core, FAST-41 is about delivering major infrastructure projects in roughly 2 years instead of 7 or more. And under Executive Director Dominich, the Trump administration has fully utilized FAST-41 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, uh, investment threshold from $200 million to $50 million, Congress has taken an important step toward making these permitting efficiencies available to more projects. And so with that, Mr. Chairman, I'm proud of the work with Mr. DeLuzio, and I would ask that we obviously look favorably on this bill. Thank you. Thank you, Representative Crink.

We will now begin our second panel, which is comprised of one witness. Let me remind the witness that under the committee rules, they must limit their oral statement to 5 minutes, but their entire statement will appear in the hearing record. To begin your testimony, please press on the on button on the microphone. We use timing lights. When you begin, the light will turn green.

At the end of 5 minutes, the light will 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 Dominich, who is no stranger to the House. Ms. Dominich serves as the executive director for the Federal Permitting Improvement Steering Council, and she is stationed right here in Washington, D.C. Director Dominich, it is great to see you again. You are now recognized for 5 minutes.

Good morning and 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 H.R. 8003, The Expanding the FAST Track Act of 2026. 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 Permitting Council was established in 2015 by Title 41 of Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act.

Commonly referred to as FAST-41. As executive director, I also serve as the chair of the Permitting Council, which is otherwise made up of 13 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-41 and is primarily focused on improving the transparency and predictability of 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-41 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 79 projects to the FAST-41 dashboard 39 covered projects, and 40 transparency projects. But I'm even more proud of the number of projects that have completed their federal reviews in that same time. 26 FAST-41 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 69 active projects on the dashboard in 33 states representing 13 different infrastructure sectors. More projects on the FAST-41 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— provided by Congress to the Permitting Council and the IIJA in 2021 and has allowed us to add 40 additional projects to the dashboard since the start of this administration. While the statute does not provide the same structure and reporting for transparency projects as it does for traditional covered projects, Increased transparency in the permitting process is always a positive.

18 Transparency, 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. 8003 Would lower the investment threshold for covered projects from $200 million to $50 million starting at the beginning of 2027. 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 broadband, 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-41. And as the portfolio continues to grow, Congress should consider if the Permitting Council may eventually require more discretion to select additional projects. Anytime the scope— 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-41 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 $200 million 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 HR 8003 as written, and we are well situated to bring additional projects and continue to show that the FAST-41 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 want to 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 longtime 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.

Today. Thank you. Thank you very much. The chair will now recognize members for 5 minutes of questions. I will now recognize myself for 5 minutes.

Director Dominich, how have permitting review 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 portfolio. It's important, you know, again, we serve 19 infrastructure sectors. So we want to look at all of them. The average time on the dashboard for a project that was listed under FAST-41 during the Biden administration was around 1,500 days.

The average time to completion for a project on the dashboard in the last year and a half has been 400 days. That number is obviously a huge reduction in time, but it's important to note where it comes from. I believe that we're finally reaching that 400-day timeline because we're actually following Congress's intention established in the Fiscal Responsibility Act to have our environmental assessments take a year and our environmental impact statements take 2 years. If the bulk of our projects are environmental assessments, we should be able to finish most of them in a little over a year. So that's really the number that we're tacking towards, and I think it really shows that we're— we are relying on the underlying statutes to ensure that we're meeting all the requirements that Congress sets, but we're doing it as efficiently as possible.

That's amazing, from 1,500 days under the prior administration to 400. And that's frankly the stats you heard earlier about reducing timelines by 18 months. Were from the previous administration. So we've reduced the timeline to complete a project by about 75%. Great.

By lowering the threshold for eligibility under FAST-41, 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 projects would benefit our rural communities? 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, from things that bring online small energy projects or production in, frankly, the energy storage space sometimes can be smaller-scale projects. So 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 19 sectors. We're at 13 right now.

My hope is that by lowering the threshold to $50 million, 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 discreet, at this point only mining projects, but we'd love to use it to serve other sectors as well. 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 bring to the table. So I truly hope that we'll see more things, particularly in the broadband and water resources sector.

Space with this bill being enacted. So FIPSEA has been highly effective in reducing major infrastructure permitting timelines. What kind of timing reductions could be expected for these lower-cost infrastructure projects? I think frankly the smaller projects we should be able to do faster. 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 going to be environmental assessments in many cases.

So we want to be able to complete them in a year. As I mentioned, you know, we've brought it down to 400 days on the dashboard, but I want to get that number closer to a year as we get more projects that are smaller in size and scope. 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 proven that with the transparency dashboard by listing smaller projects in that space, and I think we can extend it to many more sectors in the covered project space.

Great. Um, I want to— I wanted to confirm one thing. A project's inclusion on the FIPSI dashboard does not waive any environmental reviews, does it, requirements, or lessen any environmental standards? Is that correct? Not one.

Um, it's actually a huge, 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. 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, 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.

I appreciate your comments. I will now recognize the ranking member, Ansari. Thank you so much. Thank you, Ms. Dominich, for being here today. I just have a couple of brief questions for you.

The Inflation Reduction Act provided the permitting council with $350 million for its environmental review Improvement Fund. I'd like to ask a little bit about the status of those funds. We know that at least $160 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 placed at agencies, but I can say for our agreements that are in process or were actually adjudicated before the end of the previous administration, those agreements still stand.

So we have what are called interagency 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-41 projects, but benefit a broader range of projects by imperman— imperman—. So no ballpark in the number of folks? What I can tell you is I'm happy to come back to you in writing. Unfortunately, I don't have a number from the agencies, but what I can say is the places where we provided funding for what is called a FAST-41 coordinator, which is someone who does directly work with our projects every day, those positions are all still filled.

Okay. We will take you up on that and follow up with a request in writing for those numbers. 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 so glad you raised the ARIF 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-41 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've put out a little over $30 million 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 a PDF form that has to be transcribed by a staffer to using a fillable Google form that automatically does that process and saves 10 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 incorporate perhaps large models to help us better select the right level of review. We're always going to need people to do that work, but we want to make sure that our investments are not just helping Fast 41 projects, but are also sort of rising tides lift all boats, making the whole process better. Yeah, no, I hear you. 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 the investments were trying to solve, and much of the other funding from the IRA for individual agencies was clawed back by the Republicans in H.R. 1. But moving on to another question, in addition to the funding for agency capacity, $15 million was set aside for the Tribal Assistance Program. Can you tell us the status of that program and its funding, and does the Permitting Council intend to extend that program and its capacity. So about $500,000 was provided under that $15 million in the previous administration for the Tribal Assistance Program, and we're currently going through a rescoping process to look at both the Tribal Assistance Program and potential state assistance in the future using ARRA funding.

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. Three of the projects we finished in this administration, our tribal broadband projects that were brought onto the dashboard. We participated in a number of events with the Bureau of Indian Affairs to encourage tribes to bring projects to the dashboard. 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. I always tell folks the easiest way for us to 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-41 project, because that then allows us to transfer funding to an agency directly to support that project. So I would argue that—. Thank you. —Our perspective on the tribal program is really to bring more tribal projects into FAST-41.

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

I see I'm over time, so I will yield back. Go ahead. Go ahead, Director Hoover. Go ahead. Next question.

The funding was— The funding was also authorized to be used for IT updates. Do you have any updates on spending on technology and modernization? Yeah. So that the first tranche of funding we've sent out on the technology and modernization side is that $33 million that I mentioned that we put out in response to the President's Technology Action Plan. That funding went to the Army Corps of Engineers, NTIA, Department of Interior.

We're working with them to help to coordinate datasets so that we have one dataset that we work on as opposed to 7 different fragmented efforts. But we really are working really closely with Office of Management and Budget and CEQ to ensure 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 Coast Guard take their bridge permit process from a paper form to a digital form. You know, it seems like a small thing, but it will improve that process really significantly. 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 106 review process in one way, shape, or form. If we could build one tool that was a larger investment that could perhaps support all of that work, we'd save a lot of time at a lot of agencies. Which with a much better return on investment for the taxpayer. So I'd love to come back in and talk to you as we continue to scope that program to tell you a little bit more about the funding we've already provided, but also frankly our long-term effort to ensure we really responsibly use the dollars Congress gave us. Got it, thank you.

Thank you. The chair now recognizes Representative Crank for 5 minutes of questioning. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think it's important to clarify what happens when a project becomes covered under Fast-41 and the, the role the Permitting Council plays in facilitating it. The Permitting Council is unique, Executive Director Dominich, because it's an independent, non-regulatory entity that reports directly to the president 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, I'm very grateful for the hard work from the 13 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. I would also say we're very responsive in that independent role to our project developers. It— because I'm not a regulator, I'm allowed to really serve as a true advocate for that developer inside this complex federal system, and if we were attached to a regulatory agency like Department of Interior or EPA, we would— unfortunately be unable to do that role because we'd be part of a regulatory process.

Does FAST-41 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, 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 are the advantages of qualifying as a covered project under FAST-41? What makes it FAST? So a covered project under FAST-41 has a number of, again, statutory requirements for how we take care of this project. We have, in statute, we have 14 days to tell a project if they qualify for FAST-41.

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 14 days, because that's what's required by the law. We then have 60 days to identify their lead federal agency, their cooperating agencies, any states or tribes that might have a permitting action in that project,, and we convene that group with the project sponsor to develop that comprehensive permitting timetable you see on the permitting dashboard. We have to post that in 60 days.

So these are some pretty tight timelines to coordinate across multiple agencies and states, and it really does force agencies to come to the table, do their work up front, and communicate with that developer. It also, frankly, keeps developers accountable, which I think is an important part that we often miss in the FAST-41 discussion. If you're a developer who wants to come in and cut corners, don't come to FAST-41, because we aren't going to let you do it. So it's important to be able to have that transparency on both sides of the coin. Yeah, I think that's a very important point.

FAST-41, it doesn't waive environmental laws or eliminate permitting requirements, right? It simply improves sort of the coordination, the accountability, and the predictability across the federal government. Do you think there are projects under the $200 million threshold that could benefit from FAST-41 coverage? Absolutely. We hear from them all the time.

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 an opportunity for investment and development. I actually think it could allow us to serve sectors we've never served before. I mean, I think, you know, 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, frankly very local and rural projects on the dashboard.

Yeah, give us some examples. You used water and broadband as examples. Are there other sectors that you think can benefit? I think the energy sector always can benefit. There are always smaller-scale projects that fit into this umbrella.

$200 Million is a large investment. I think about, you know, we're proving this out with our transparency dashboard, but looking 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 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 project in California. But I think honestly, we would see projects in every sector if we were to lower the threshold. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you very much, Chair.

And I'll recognize as the ranking member of the full committee, Mr. Huffman, for 5 minutes. Uh, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Director Dominick. 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-41 process, I actually don't get to pick my projects at all. They're entirely based on who applies for FAST-41. So we evaluate every project based on whether or not it qualifies for the statutory limits set in for FAST-41, and I don't get to choose. As long as you're one of my 19 sectors, you're one of the projects that we will support.

Okay, I want to ask you about capacity as it relates to permitting reform. And, and Ranking Member Ansari touched on this to a degree. Out there 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, 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 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 25% of their entire staff, it's not that surprising that folks who need answers and need approvals and need help moving projects forward are having a pretty hard time right now. Would you agree that capacity is a challenge if our goal is to move projects forward quickly and in an efficient way?

So again, I can only comment on the FAST-41 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— particularly 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-41 dashboard. But that's actually something that's—. So you don't think that 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? Because everyone out there in the real world says it. 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-41 portfolio, which is what I do.

All right, I can talk to you about those. Let's stick to that. I'm happy to do— let's stick to that then, because within your portfolio there's still some political games being played when it comes to clean energy. And we have seen all sorts of barriers thrown in the way of clean energy projects. We have seen, in fact, instead of helping move large projects forward, we have companies that have paid 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.

That is hardly 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 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 friends at the National Energy Dominance Council.

Not everybody does. 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. At a time when Americans are facing rising energy costs, This is especially counterproductive, self-destructive, that we are sidelining the cheapest, fastest, most abundant form of energy 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 projects accessing the benefit of FAST-41 permitting streamlining, but I want to make sure those benefits would actually apply as part of the equation if this became law. And so I want to just ask you, how many renewable energy projects have been added to your FAST-41 dashboard since the beginning of this administration? 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 4 or 5, but what I'll tell you, sir—.

There are 3. Reclaiming my time, there are 3. 2 Solar and 1 non-federal hydropower, zero— zero wind, okay, zero wind, and we are past the 60-day threshold for you to produce the coordinated project plan and permitting timeline for the 2 solar projects, are we not? I mean, you're in violation of your own law when it comes to those projects. So the way that FAST-41 process works is that I go and I identify a lead agency for a project, and then I ask that agency to produce a timetable.

If that agency does not produce a timetable, 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—. You acknowledge that we've blown past the 60 days. We, when we pass the 60 days, our requirement under the statute is to report that project in nonconformance to Congress, which is what we have done. So we are in compliance with the FAST-41 statute. I don't actually have the ability to force an agency to give me a timetable.

I just—. I'm claiming my time, and I know I'm out of time, Mr. Mr. 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 going to happen under this administration. It's hard to have a serious conversation about permitting reform when these games continue to be played.

Yield back. Chair Nala recognizes Representative Hurd for 5 minutes of questioning. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Director Dominich, thank you for being here this morning. The Permitting Council has signed some MOUs with 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, yep, 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 technical assistance to the state to ensure 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 MOUs is getting state governments to commit to one, opt in on the FAST-41 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 MOU in Idaho. We also have one in Tennessee. We've signed 6 agreements to date. 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. But 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 going to 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 states to think of us as a partner to move projects forward. 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, to allow for us to say, hey, what projects are in the queue that you're working on that qualify for FAST-41? I want to emphasize something here. In order for us to support a project, that project has to apply to FAST-41. I cannot go and make you do it.

You have to choose to do it. So we really want to be able to work with governors and with yourself and others to identify those projects and get more of them on the dashboard. Great, thank you. So 6 states total have MOUs with the Permitting Council then at this point? Yes, sir.

Okay, great. I just want to make this more practical for my constituents and the other constituents of the members here in the 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, and it allows us to get more energy in multiple sectors online as fast as we possibly can. You know, that's the name of the game, is providing more energy resources to constituents all across the country, ensuring we're really utilizing our resources here in this country, and we're doing it efficiently and in the most environmentally responsible way possible.

That's how we're going to get the best results in terms of lowering energy costs. And I think I'd go back to the statistics I shared with Chairman Stauber at the beginning of the hearing, which is, you know, if we can shorten the timeframe for projects on the dashboard, then we can provide more energy to more people quicker and more efficiently. Great. And at a lower cost. I mean, I certainly hope so.

If we don't waste a bunch of time on doing a permitting process or frankly wasting time not communicating effectively, then we're going to save money in the long term. Wonderful. Thank you, Director Dominich. Appreciate that. With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.

Thank you very much, Chair. Now recognizes Representative Grajalva for 5 minutes.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Hi. Good morning. Thank you for being here.

In previous committee hearings, I've raised concerns about the FAST-41 permitting dashboard based on my district's experience with FAST-41 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 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.

As you may know, my district, Arizona 7, is home to the first mining project added to the FAST-41 permitting dashboard, the South 32 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-41 does not always allow for that kind of flexibility. There are now over 50 mining projects and mineral processing projects on the dashboard, and I'm highly concerned for each of these communities.

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-41 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-41 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. So whether— again, again, I can't say that I will always list a project that's a project that you or other members of Congress want to see, but you will know more about it because of the FAST-41 process. 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, I will add, ma'am, that I, I believe that the dashboard itself is a little outdated. It's a 10-year-old dashboard. We want to improve it and make it more user-friendly communities. It's an investment we hope to make with the funding through the Environmental Review Fund, and I'd love to meet with you and talk about ways we could make it more accessible, particularly to your constituents. I think that we should, because what's really alarming right now is the FAST-41 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 14 days. With a 7-day tribal consultation process. It's outrageous. So roughly 75% of the U.S. critical minerals reserves are within 35 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 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 $350 million investment in the Environmental Review Improvement Fund to strengthen the implementation of FAST-41. At least $15 million of that is directed to tribal assistance programs, which funded tribes in building capacity to engage the FAST-41 permitting process, and I believe this is an extremely worthwhile use of funds. Can you provide us with a timeline of the rescoping 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 $50 million. There is no threshold for a tribal project. So a huge portion of 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. And we really want to see that direct engagement with tribes as project sponsors and constituents. That's a huge part of our job. I really would love to, again, cooperate with you to try to grow our tribal portfolio and to ensure that not only do they have resources that they need, but also that they're getting to access this tool that can help them build more on tribal land. 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. Thank you very much. If there are no further questions, we will now move to our third panel. But I want to thank Director Dominich.

This is your first time at a hearing. We spoke briefly. You did an outstanding job. Your, your knowledge of the subject matter was exceptional. Thank you very much.

Thank you. 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 5 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 5-minute statement, and to please remember to turn on your microphone. As with the second panel, I will allow all witnesses to testify before member questioning.

Our first witness of this panel is Dr. Rory de Sturet. He is the president of the Association of American State Geologists, rather, and he's stationed in Portland, Oregon. Dr. DeSturet, you are now recognized for 5 minutes. Thank you, Chairman Stauber, Ranking Member Ansari, and members of the subcommittee. Thank you for the opportunity to testify today regarding the reauthorization of the U.S. Geological Survey's Earth Mapping Resources Initiative, Earth MRI.

My name is Dr. Rory Des Stieritz. 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 60 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 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— by geochemical methods.

What makes Earth MRI particularly effective 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 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 2019, Earth MRI has provided $78.6 million directly to state geological surveys. 46 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 complemented significant state investments. In Colorado, Earth MRI partnerships have advanced critical mineral assessments while training the next generations of the mineral workforce. In Idaho and Nevada, important mining jurisdictions, 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 preexisting 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 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. Mr. 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 state geological surveys and the U.S. 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 Mr. Matt Heller. He is the the State Geologist for the Commonwealth of Virginia, and he is stationed in Charlottesville, Virginia. Mr. Heller, you are now recognized for 5 minutes.

Chairman Stauber, Ranking Member Ansari, and members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to submit testimony regarding the Earth MRI Reauthorization Act of 2026. Representative Whitman, thank you for your interest in having me speak today as the leader of a state geological survey in the East Southeast, 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 2019. We've completed 3 projects through the program. We have 3 projects underway, and we have 2 projects that are going to start next year.

2 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 600 square miles, and we've collected more than 100 samples for geochemical analysis. Our work has identified the formations that are more likely to host valuable sand deposits and the potential bedrock sources of these minerals. 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 Earth MRI used LiDAR imagery and historical mining records records to identify abandoned mine waste stockpiles in areas with critical minerals. We have located more than 100 large stockpiles, and we're now sampling some of them to estimate the mineral resources that each contains. Locating critical minerals and 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 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 and neighboring states in designing 4 geophysical surveys that cover more than 90,000 square miles, including 20,000— 22,000 square miles in Virginia. Preliminary data from the most recent survey revealed 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 with earthquakes. 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. 32 Mapping and sampling projects have been funded by Earth MRI in 13 states east of the Mississippi.

These diverse projects have provided new data about more than 30 critical minerals in targeted areas. 7 Eastern states have also participated in the Earth MRI Mine Waste Program, and at least 8 projects are underway focusing on 11 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— we are discovering new resources and adding value to mining byproducts 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 9640. 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 Biddle. He is the federal strategy director for the, for the Environmental Science Associates, and he is stationed in Savannah, Georgia.

Mr. Biddle, you are now recognized for 5 minutes. Thank you, Chairman Stauber, Ranking Member Ansari, and members of the subcommittee. Appreciate the opportunity to testify today on H.R. 8003, Expanding the Fast Track Act of 2026. My name is Eric Bettle.

I serve as a federal strategy director, Environmental Science Associates. Before joining ESA, I served as the executive director of the Federal Permitting Improvement Steering Council. Over the past 25 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. 8003, Which would lower the cost threshold for FAST-41 program eligibility from $200 million to $50 million.

Lowering the threshold will 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-41 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 8003 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 interagency coordination became standard throughout government. H.R. 8003 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-41 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— they serve. It allows more project sponsors to benefit from actively managed permitting timetables, earlier interagency coordination, transparent timelines, and timely issue resolution. It also means that communities waiting 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. 8003 Does not weaken environmental protections or circumvent environmental review. FAST-41 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.

Performance. I suggest that Congress should view H.R. 8003 As the next step, not the final step, in strengthening FAST-41. 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-41 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-41 successful and encourage agencies across the federal government to adopt those same approaches. In closing, HR-8003 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-41 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 H.R. 8003 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 Mr. Matthew Kinsella.

He is the CEO of Inflection, and he is stationed in Louisville, Colorado. Uh, Mr. Kinsella, you are now recognized for 5 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 Matt Kinsella, and I was the founding investor in Inflection in 2018 and have served as CEO since 2024. 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. Inflexion 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 2 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 gradiometers, 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 ore 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 2018, 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 $15 billion, alongside a separate $138 billion 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 dataset— researchers a dataset 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.

The chair will now recognize members for 5 minutes of questioning, and I will recognize myself for 5 minutes. Mr. 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 mine waste program has benefits for both abandoned older sites as well as new sites. There are byproducts currently being produced at mine sites that have not been fully explored to see what valuable minerals might be present and not aware— the operator may not be aware they exist. But then yes, for abandoned mine sites, you know, the goal of Earth MRI is to sort of provide an initial assessment of what is potentially there, and then the private sector could come in and more fully explore those waste piles. I have for some time now, I've never called it waste rock. I want to change it to stuff on top, because that waste rock from 60 years ago in the mines in northern Minnesota, we're getting more ore out of that right now with the new technology, the 21st century technology.

And I'm sure you're seeing that as well. Great. So this is going to be a win-win. Earth MRI is helping us properly address legacy mine sites while getting more out of projects we initially expected, uh, ceased our value years ago. It's getting, uh, there's more economic value in some of the rock that we're really— they're looking at.

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 staff. Some of the programs require matching funds, so we put in our part and, and the USGS program provides additional funding. And then 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. We bought a geoprobe 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.

Dr. Desteret, in the first few years of the Earth MRI program, we've done a good job of getting a broad overview of our geological resources across our country in a way I see akin to initial overpass. In the next 5 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 priority geological formations where the program previously identified likely large deposits of critical and other key minerals. Thank you. Thank you, Chair Stubbe. There has been significant progress since 2019.

However, continued airborne geophysical surveys are necessary to fill in the gaps. 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, if you're going to— if we've mapped the country, but now these formations, if we look more intensely at them, I think it will bring 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 50 test holes, for example, Earth MRI can give us a better location in these— in these geological finds like Duluth Complex, for example, up in northeastern Minnesota. Indeed. Historically, mining focused on one primary commodity.

A lot of the elements that are critical are byproducts of, 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 the deposit, we may be extracting other elements that are of strategic importance. So co-product identification early allows a secondary opportunity to develop.

Thank you very much. I will now recognize Representative Lee for 5 minutes of questioning.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 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 want to thank Representatives Deluzio and Crank. Their bill expands eligibility for projects to participate in the FAST-41 program, and the bottom line is we're going to 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-41 process, a key component that has helped this bill earn the endorsement of the League of Conservation Voters. Put simply, it's a bill I hope this committee will support unanimously. But I want to address a concern I have moving forward, and I'd like to ask you, Mr. Batal, 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, 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-41 under this expanding the Fast Track Act somehow be able to get around this bad faith bureaucratic brick wall, or could they still be stalled and perhaps even stopped outright by the Interior's ongoing weaponization of the permitting process? I appreciate the question, and I, I think the answer is, is difficult 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 nonconformance. And we've seen on the dashboard now that there are already renewable projects that are in nonconformance. When I was the executive director, we worked very hard with the agencies to ensure that they got out of nonconformance, or at least 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. Well, thank you for that. You know, I've long advocated for permitting parity at the agency level. Particularly at the Department of the Interior. Given your past leadership of the Permitting Council, is there anything that you would recommend for Congress to do specifically to prevent this type of situation and enable the council itself actively ensure such parity across agencies?

Like, what is it we could do to give you the teeth you need? The, the Permitting Council is structured to improve coordination, but it has no regulatory or other statutory authority to ensure any sort of an outcome. I think the best that we can do is to provide the executive director with coordination with the Council on 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 to funnel these reviews through the Secretary's office is a— it's a bureaucratic step to slow the process. And if they're going to be a fast-track or 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 authority doesn't exist. Okay, 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 $82 billion in household energy bills over the next 7 years, which translates, uh, to about $625 out of my constituents' pockets during that period. Commercial and industrial consumers across the U.S. are also projected to pay an additional $40 billion in electric costs alone through 2033. You 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 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 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 5 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 I think you lead the nation in how Earth MRI is being applied. And what you've done is to demonstrate what Chairman, uh, Starbird 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 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 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 Starburst'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, because I think this, this system has, uh, has implications well beyond what we think, you know, just 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 decision-making standpoint? Sure, if I— if you don't mind, I can talk a little more broadly about how we contribute to Virginia's, uh, state government and benefiting our citizens. We do geologic mapping, which has multiple benefits for public safety, mineral resources, economic development, but also environmental protection. We are sort of the stewards of geological information for the state, and that includes maps maps and reports, but also things like existing drill cores that can be used to study new resources.

With Earth MRI, we have been focusing primarily on the resources we think have the greatest potential initially, and that's those heavy mineral sand deposits, those sources of titanium, zirconium, rare earth elements. These are resources that we are already producing in Virginia, at least the titanium and the zirconium, and, and we're hopeful that the rare earth element production can begin soon. So the way that we contribute, I think, is by informing not just particular site or property. We do these resource assessments over larger areas, and then the companies that are involved with 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 technology there that senses things like plaster deposits of titanium and others. So really, really exciting work. Let me ask about another emerging resource, and that is geologic hydrogen. And geologic hydrogen obviously is going to play a bigger and bigger role in this nation's energy needs going forward. 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 can maybe provide an initial explanation. I have a much better expert in that area sitting right next to me, but geologic hydrogen naturally occurring would be a cheaper resource for us to get to, and it's certainly a really strong potential energy resource for us in the future, and there is some potential in West Virginia. Westernmost Virginia especially for that resource.

You talked a little bit about, you know, identifying some of these deposits, especially these plaster deposits that are not hard rock. They're much easier to get to, much easier to process, the permitting process is easier too. 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 exploits human beings around the world in mines and destroys the environment.

Explain how this database will help us not only identify these resources 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 it across the country and 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, you know, and understand what it means quickly. The maps also are in a standardized format. And being publicly available, it gives everybody an even chance to kind of, you know, look on the horizon and see what might be out there.

Very good. Thank you, Mr. Heller. Mr. Chairman, I yield back. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I'll recognize as the ranking member of the full committee, Mr.

Huffman. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Baitle, I want to start with you. And you said in response to my colleague from Nevada's question that as good as these laws may be, this legislation may be, it presumes good faith.

And right now it sure looks to me like we don't have good faith. From this administration. I'm someone who supports this bipartisan legislation moving forward, but as we go forward, I think we've got to find ways to either legislate good faith, which itself is 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, administration, just 2 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 11 months for the second, and we've blown past the 60-day deadline to get that, that planning process rolling. That suggests to me that, you know, this is very much an active war on clean energy.

Would you agree, and do you think that We've got to 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 think that it's, it's clear that there is some obstruction occurring on the clean energy projects. 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 data dashboard have not fulfilled their permitting timetables on the timeline that is required also indicates that there is a lack of motivation, at least, to move forward on them. Um, you know, the, the question as to whether or not we— there is more that we can legislate to ensure good faith is a difficult one.

I agree, it's difficult 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 looks to at least once a decision is made, not go back on it. But I think 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, uh, have you learned from your work in this space? I mean, the drive to make permitting reform— permitting more efficient and effective, um, is important. This is going to 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. 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. In parts of the FAST Act's 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 treated as an option. And I think that's, that's a, that's a risk that we face of cutting folks out of the process. 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 25% of your staff and told the ones who are left, focus on fossil fuel and ignore everything else, you are not going to get the benefit of the legislative promise, right? I believe that is definitely a risk for sure.

Are there certain programs or aspects of FAST-41 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. Thanks, Mr. Spade. Yield back.

Thank you. The chair now recognizes the chair of the full committee, Representative Westerman, for 5 minutes. Thank you, Chairman Stauburn. Thank you to the witnesses for being here today. I've been very intrigued by the new technology that we have to be able to assess our resources.

And Dr. Deister, you mentioned in your testimony and highlighted that one of the defining features of the Earth MRI program is the cooperative agreement model. I think 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 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.

The program is, what, 6 years old? 46 States have participated and Puerto Rico. Each state is providing access or work in 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 endowment which we haven't fully investigated, and that's true across most states. So it's a very effective model where the USGS provides the framework and the states enact on that framework.

Thank you. And speaking of new technology, Mr. Kinsella, in 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 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 technical version would be like. So how do you— 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 versions 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 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, Mr. Hiller and Dr. Deister. Again, as we consider the authorization of this legislation, What characteristics of Earth MRI do you like the most, and what suggestions do you have us on, 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 we need to go and ground truth what we are sensing with airborne geophysics and other methods. And so it's that holistic approach to understanding what the nation's mineral endowment is. And so it's a total government approach to understanding what we have.

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

Chairman. Mr. Chair, since you asked a question, would you make sure that Mr. Kinsella gives us a half a credit continuing education for that, right? The chair now recognizes Ranking Member Ansari. Thank you so much.

Mr. Biddle, you have been involved with FAST-41, the permitting council, and its predecessor efforts for more than a decade. Can you tell us more about why FAST-41 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 FAST-41 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 interagency focus and cooperation would enable these important projects to move forward at pace.

And from that, it built some momentum. There was a model of an interagency group that was formed with the White House leadership, and from that, Senators Portman and McCaskill saw the, the value in that interagency group and legislated to make it permanent. And from there, it was originally a, a temporary— it had a sunset clause that would have expired prior to IIJA. IIJA 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 accountability to the process and that provides project sponsors that same accountability so that they have certainty in the process, 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, 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. 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 applaud the committee's leadership on that. I do think that there are more ways for us to strengthen the Permitting Council, to provide it more authority, to provide more teeth to these timetables, as we've had questions on that. So 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 project sponsors and the public? One of the key things as part of that accountability is, 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, it differs from different administrations as how you treat that sort of accountability. Clearly, during this administration on the renewable energy projects, that missing timelines is not as 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 project schedules. Again, I think there, there is an opportunity to strengthen the teeth 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 environmental 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. The front-facing, the public-facing, needs improvement. You know, it's old, the— it doesn't really provide as much data as perhaps 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 timetables. 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 agencies or the permitting council need additional resources or support to make this happen? Well, we have the, the IRIF and the $350 million from 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-41 program to pay into the permitting support that they receive. Got it.

Thank you so much. I yield back. Chair now recognizes Representative Begich for 5 minutes. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My first question to Mr. Heller. Your testimony describes how Earth MRI turned pre-competitive geoscience into resumed heavy mineral sand mining in Virginia. Alaska has the opposite scale problem. Alaska, 365 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 does Posit was actually discovered by a geologist working for our survey, although not, not recently. It was discovered in the 1980s, and 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. Economic conditions caused that company eventually to go out of operation, but it just coincidentally has restarted in the last few years as we've been focusing on our exploration for new deposits, not just of titanium and zirconium, but also these rare earth elements which have not been produced in Virginia in the past. Yes, in terms of scale, I'm not sure I'm qualified to really tell Alaska how they might go about it, but I think the cooperative nature— we have great relationships with industry and with our mining 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.

And, you know, I know in Alaska they have a great relationship with the USGS there. So yeah, I'd be happy to talk to anybody if they were interested. Thank you. My next question for Mr. Kinsella. You describe 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 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 a smaller exploration footprint directly reduces 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 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 10 to 100 1000x in terms of precision improvement that we can receive, which I don't know if that would directly lead to orders of magnitude less drilling, but it should lead to significantly— the need to do significantly less and help with all the different things that you mentioned. Thank you. Final question for Dr. Day-Stuart.

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 think 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 as for continuity with Canada, there is obviously a a necessity to speak to Canada. They are a premier mining jurisdiction. They approach this problem in a similar way to the United States. Thank you.

And I see I've got 30 seconds left. Just going down the panel here. Yes or no, do you believe Earth MRI is critical for unlocking Alaska's unknown resource potential? Yes. Yes.

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

Yes. Thank you very much. Mr. Beggars, can I have your last 7 seconds? Yes. Same question for the state of Minnesota.

Yes. Yes. Yes. You skipped. I repeat, I don't think I'm qualified to answer.

Okay. With that, I yield back. Thank you very much. Representative Grahalva for 5 minutes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Um, thank you to all the witnesses for being here. Um, Mr. Batal, as I mentioned during the first panel, my district is home to the first mining project added to FAST-41 permitting dashboard, the South 32 Hermosa project, which I have to say was not a great experience for my constituents. My constituents felt that their voices were not heard in their request 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?

First, I'd like to apologize for the experience of your constituents. I don't think that that was what I understand, you know, after the fact, because that issue was raised after the request had been made and denied. The Forest Service and any agency has the opportunity to extend the permitting timetable if they need to. And this seems— 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 this goes back to responses to prior questions, having the executive director have a little bit more authority to direct action on the part of the agencies and to be a sounding board for project proponents, I think would be helpful. Director Dominich, you know, mentioned that, you know, she and 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 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 greater transparency and engagement on the part of the Permitting Council with the communities where these projects occur, but also a greater visibility on the part of the permanent council into the on-the-ground actions would be helpful. Yeah, thank you. The landscape has changed significantly since then with the Trump administration actively eroding our environmental laws and cutting the public and tribal communities out of opportunities, out of any opportunity they can get. By comparison, FAST-41 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 requirement to have public comment. Um, right now that is as an option, as I mentioned earlier. So 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 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 think that is the missing piece right now that we are seeing really risk increase. And 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, and that diminishes the opportunity 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 have— they're asking nonprofits 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 for cleanup or for improvements.

So under your leadership, the primary— the permitting council directed $15 million to the tribal assistance program. Can you please tell us why you saw that as a necessary use of funds and describe some successes with it? Yeah, we, uh, and, you know, Director Dominich had provided some response to that. I think we expended somewhere around $500,000 to $700,000 of that. It was just 3 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 burden to them. 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 Director Dominich's statement that they don't need money to engage, they just need to reach out, and that they don't need the assistance fund to actually actually engage. I don't believe that's necessarily true because the tribes are asked to engage on a number of projects, and those resources facilitate that engagement. Yep. Actually, I disagreed with her as well, 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— we unfortunately, uh, 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 Hurd for 5 minutes.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Cancel, it's great to have you here. Great to have a Colorado company as part of this panel. Can you— going back to Chairman Westerman's question about how to explain quantum, the way that I've, in 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— 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 an honor to be here, Representative Hurd, and yes, that's a fair analogy. Okay, um, that's one great way for me to, to think about it.

One of the things that I like about my bill, the Quantum Enhanced Critical Minerals Mapping Act, is that it's not about subsidizing any 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 my bill 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 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 greater levels of precision, 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 fruitful efforts. And so what I see is a, 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 more efficiently and in greater quantities. So investors are often reluctant to finance early-stage mineral exploration because of uncertainty.

How much of exploration risk is the lack of information versus the lack of permitting or something else? And how does better mapping reduce that uncertainty? I don't know. 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 upfront and make them less speculative by nature. Okay.

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 Inflexion is headquartered in my home state of Colorado, 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 10, 100, 1,000 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 in the San Luis Valley is, is the aquifer is that is going down and we're trying to see 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, Mr. Consella, for being here. Mr. Chairman, my time has expired. Thank you very much, Chair. And I'll recognize Representative Rivas for 5 minutes. Thank you, Mr.

Chair. Mr. Beto, one of my top priorities this Congress has been fighting to ensure that those who are often underrepresented have a seat at the table in federal decision-making. And that means having opportunities to participate directly and making sure that there's accountability when the federal government gets it wrong. Um, can you talk about some of the benefits of a robust public input process? Yeah, 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. So cutting the public out of the process does not result in a better project. It actually increases risk potentially. So I think that there is, there's more benefits than that.

But in the interest of time, I'll just say that it produces better outcomes. No, I agree with you. And I'm glad you brought up that it increases risk, which someone building or in construction probably wants to minimize risk. Absolutely. In a big— especially these big projects.

You know, there have been several legislative proposals this Congress that attempt to take voices away especially from working families, by gutting the public input process and blocking access to the courts. 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 is just— we've seen that over both administrations, Democrat or Republican.

Things, mistakes are made occasionally, and the courts have a role to play to ensure that those mistakes are rectified or there's consequences for them. There has to be a deterrent 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 41.

Is a successful program designed to streamline and accelerate environmental reviews of major infrastructure. Uh, FAST-41 changes how people can sue covered projects under NEPA by shortening the statute 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-41 is able to balance robust public participation within those limitations? And does the process allow affected 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.

We had never— no one had sued using that particular window. They'd sue under other operative laws, whether it be Clean Water Act or, or something else. So, and, and further, the FAST-41 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 output 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. That's great. You know, thank you for sharing that.

You know, my district's saw this firsthand with various infrastructure projects such as the Metro East San Fernando Valley Transit Corridor. And I represent a northern part of Los Angeles, um, 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. While this is being built.

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 5 minutes. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you for including the Earth MRR Reauthorization Act that I co-lead with Representative Whitman in today's legislative hearing.

The U.S. Geological Survey's 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 to continue to build on the success of the program and ensure mapping continues as we work to rebuild domestic supply chains, keep the U.S. competitive, and help communities, land managers, and businesses make informed decisions. Before I get to my questions, I would like to ask unanimous consent to enter into the record this letter from Third Way in support—. Without objection.

—Of the legislation. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to thank Dr. Heller and Dr. DeStaurat for being here to support this legislation to reauthorize the Earth MRI program. Let me start with both of you, Dr. Heller and Dr. Deserat. Can you both talk about why this is such a good program? And because taxpayers want to know what their money's 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 that this is a mineral resource assessment 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 that data is in the public domain, it's available to everyone. And so essentially the value is that it is public information.

Yes, I like the program a lot because it's focused on outcomes, practical outcomes, you know, new resources being developed, economic development, etc. As a state geological survey, we're focused on doing public good, you know, both from an economic development standpoint but also environmental protection and public safety. And the products that we're producing, the maps and the geophysical surveys that are very high resolution, those are really transformational in terms of allowing people to make good decisions, not just for mineral resources, but for a variety of public goods. Not everybody understands that. In January 2025, 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. Dr. Desira, 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 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 going to go back to both you and Dr. 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 further the reach of this program, and whichever one of you wants to go first. Sure, I can go first there.

I think what 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 practical aspect to our work focused on outcomes. The USGS brings expertise that an individual state survey could never have, you know, geophysics, geochemistry, people who can determine how old ROCS are, you know, they just bring a lot of resources to the table that we can use to leverage the on-the-ground work we're doing. And I think, you know, we have great relationships with us at the staff level 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 very closely on.

Thank you. I'm out of time, so I'm going to yield back, but I hope my colleagues will join us in supporting this common-sense bipartisan reauthorization and yield back, Mr. Chair. Thank you very much, Chair. Now recognizes Representative Palmer for 5 minutes.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for inviting me to wave on.

Dr. De Sura, 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. Can you talk specifically about geochemical data, how much of that we've collected so far?

I think I'd like to get a written response to exactly how much has been acquired. I can say that there are a number of different geochemical databases that are available. 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 any mineral prospect, 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. As the 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 unique aspects of Earth MRI is the ability to integrate data from multiple sources, and HR9640 adds the 3D hydrography program.

Could you comment or explain the advantages of this data integration, how it facilitates a comprehensive approach to mapping and building upon previous mapping efforts? So in the title of the bill, the word is mapping. This is essentially plural. We are not bringing one map to the problem, we're bringing multiple maps to the problem. So the 3D hydrography 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.

Mr. Kinsella, there's a lot of discussion going on right now about artificial intelligence, quantum computing, data centers, and your company is developing quantum technologies. How important are these capabilities 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 are 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 part of our economic security and national security effort to, to bring these, these quantum technologies into play here, and particularly in regard to mapping 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 own our own destiny on that front and not rely on 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 how, how accurate do you think our, our current mapping is right now in terms of our geologic survey in identifying mineral resources.

So the current program for airborne geophysics is a trade-off between aerial 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 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 an intellectual compromise on perfection, but it gets us towards what we need to do. Okay. Mr. Chairman, my time has expired. I yield back. Thank you very much.

I want to thank the witnesses, all the witnesses, for your valuable testimony and the members for their questions. The members of the subcommittee may have some additional questions for the witnesses, and we will ask you to respond to these in writing. Under Committee Rule 3, members of the subcommittee must submit questions to the subcommittee clerk by 5 PM on Friday, July 24th. The hearing record will be held open for 10 business days for these responses. If there is no further business, without objection, this Subcommittee stands adjourned.