The bill
Critical Materials Future Act of 2025
S. 596, 119th Congress — read as touching Defense Contractors.
Sponsored by
Sen. Hickenlooper, John W. [D-CO]
ID: H000273
Follow the money
The bill
S. 596, 119th Congress — read as touching Defense Contractors.
The sponsor
Every bill has someone who introduced it. That name is where the paper trail starts.
The money
23 itemised contributions to this sponsor, pulled from FEC filings.
The alignment
This bill's text tracks the "Introduction" section, p. 410-412 of the Mandate for Leadership.
Track this bill's progress through the legislative process
Latest Action
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Hearings held. Hearings printed: S.Hrg. 119-46.
March 11, 2025
📍 Current Status
Next: The bill moves to the floor for full chamber debate and voting.
1. Introduction: A member of Congress introduces a bill in either the House or Senate.
2. Committee Review: The bill is sent to relevant committees for study, hearings, and revisions.
3. Floor Action: If approved by committee, the bill goes to the full chamber for debate and voting.
4. Other Chamber: If passed, the bill moves to the other chamber (House or Senate) for the same process.
5. Conference: If both chambers pass different versions, a conference committee reconciles the differences.
6. Presidential Action: The President can sign the bill into law, veto it, or take no action.
7. Became Law: If signed (or if Congress overrides a veto), the bill becomes law!
Another brilliant example of legislative theater, courtesy of Senators Hickenlooper, Graham, Coons, and Young. Let's dissect this masterpiece, shall we?
**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The Critical Materials Future Act of 2025 aims to establish a pilot program to support domestic critical material processing, because, you know, the US can't rely on those pesky foreign nations for its strategic interests. The objectives are to provide financial stability, attract private investment, and reduce supply chain vulnerabilities. How original.
**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill creates a pilot program within the Department of Energy, which will support at least three domestic critical material processing projects. It also defines various terms, such as "country of risk," "critical material," and "reliable source." Oh, and it gives the Secretary of Energy some fancy new powers to enter into "other transactions" and appoint temporary personnel without regard to those pesky civil service rules.
**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The usual suspects are involved: mining and critical material processing industry representatives, financial experts, academic researchers, and, of course, the Department of Energy. I'm sure they'll all have a say in how this pilot program is implemented, because that's exactly what we need – more bureaucratic input.
**Potential Impact & Implications:** This bill is a classic case of "solution in search of a problem." The real issue here is not the lack of domestic critical material processing, but rather the fact that it's often cheaper and more efficient to import these materials from other countries. By creating this pilot program, the government is essentially subsidizing an industry that can't compete on its own merits.
The potential impact? A bunch of taxpayer dollars will be wasted on a program that might not even work as intended. The implications? More bureaucratic red tape, more opportunities for corruption and cronyism, and a further erosion of the US's competitive edge in the global market.
In short, this bill is a perfect example of legislative malpractice. It's a Band-Aid solution to a non-existent problem, designed to appease special interests rather than address any real issues. Bravo, Senators! You've managed to create a bill that's both pointless and counterproductive. Now, if you'll excuse me, I have better things to do – like diagnosing the terminal stupidity of our elected officials.
Sen. Hickenlooper, John W. [D-CO]
Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle
No PAC contributions found
No committee contributions found
This bill has 3 cosponsors. Below are their top campaign contributors.
ID: G000359
Top Contributors
10
ID: C001088
Top Contributors
10
ID: Y000064
Top Contributors
10
Hub layout: Politicians in center, donors arranged by type in rings around them.
Showing 46 nodes and 32 connections (58 secondary connections hidden)
Total contributions: $109,583
Showing top 16 donors by contribution amount
Which industries are materially affected by specific provisions in this bill. 4 helped.
Section 4(e)(2) coordinates with the Secretary of Defense to incorporate insights from DARPA's Open Price Exploration for National Security program, directly linking the bill to defense supply chain needs.
Critical materials are essential for semiconductor manufacturing; Section 4(a) establishes a pilot program to support domestic processing, enhancing supply chain security for chipmakers.
Section 4(b)(2) aims to support a sufficient domestic critical materials processing industry, which benefits chemical manufacturers that use critical materials as feedstock.
Section 4(b)(3) aims to reduce supply chain vulnerabilities and enhance energy security, which benefits midstream energy infrastructure involved in critical materials transport and storage.
For each industry this bill affects, here's what the sponsor (Sen. Hickenlooper, John W. [D-CO])received from donors associated with that industry during the 2022–present cycles. Donations are not proof of intent — they are a record of who funds the people writing the law.
This bill shows semantic similarity to the following sections of the Project 2025 policy document.
— 377 — Department of Energy and Related Commissions majority of critical materials are mined or processed (or both) in Russia and China.36 The processing of critical materials from fossil fuel waste products (primarily coal) has shown some potential and, in view of our vast domestic reserves of coal and abundant waste from coal mining and combustion, should be pursued. New Policies l Eliminate FECM. The next Administration should work with Congress to eliminate all of DOE’s applied energy programs, including those in FECM (with the possible exception of those that are related to basic science for new energy technology). Taxpayer dollars should not be used to subsidize preferred businesses and energy resources, thereby distorting the market and undermining energy reliability. l Rename FECM (if it cannot be eliminated) under its original designation as the Office of Fossil Energy and with its original mission: increasing energy security and supply through fossil fuels. l Focus on energy security and supply. Absent elimination of FECM, Congress should direct FECM appropriations toward increasing energy security and supply. Congress has already directed these goals (including the reduction of costs).37 l Ensure that LNG export approvals are reviewed and processed in a timely manner. In particular: 1. Ensure that LNG export applications are reviewed and approved expeditiously. 2. Maintain the categorical exclusion from the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)38 for LNG exports that was established by the Trump Administration39 or (if it is revoked by the Biden Administration) reinstate it. 3. Work with Congress to expand automatic approvals to include allies such as NATO as well as nations that have free trade agreements with the U.S. l Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR). The Biden Administration moved responsibility for the SPR to CESER. Regardless of where the responsibility lies, the new DESAS should ensure that the SPR is maintained for national strategic purposes and not misused for political gain. — 378 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise Budget The FY 2023 budget request for FECM was approximately $893.2 million.40 FECM’s requested appropriation can be compared to the more than $4.0 billion requested for the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy.41 The disparity in funding demonstrates how DOE’s research activities and substantial portions of its organizational structure are now focused entirely on the reduction of CO2 emissions rather than energy access or energy security. OFFICE OF ENERGY EFFICIENCY AND RENEWABLE ENERGY (EERE) Mission/Overview The Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy traces its roots to the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975,42 but most of its programs today are rooted in the Energy Policy Act of 2005.43 Under the Biden Administration, EERE’s mission is “to accelerate the research, development, demonstration, and deployment of technologies and solutions to equitably transition America to net- zero greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions economy-wide by no later than 2050” and “ensure [that] the clean energy economy benefits all Americans.”44 The office is made up of three “pillars”: energy efficiency, renewable energy, and sustainable transportation. Needed Reforms l End the focus on climate change and green subsidies. Under the Biden Administration, EERE is a conduit for taxpayer dollars to fund progressive policies, including decarbonization of the economy and renewable resources. EERE has focused on reducing carbon dioxide emissions to the exclusion of other statutorily defined requirements such as energy security and cost. For example, EERE’s five programmatic priorities during the Biden Administration are all focused on decarbonization of the electricity sector, the industrial sector, transportation, buildings, and the agricultural sector.45 l Eliminate energy efficiency standards for appliances. Pursuant to the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 as amended, the agency is required to set and periodically tighten energy and/or water efficiency standards for nearly all kinds of commercial and household appliances, including air conditioners, furnaces, water heaters, stoves, clothes washers and dryers, refrigerators, dishwashers, light bulbs, and showerheads. Current law and regulations reduce consumer choice, drive up costs for consumer appliances, and emphasize energy efficiency to the exclusion of other important factors such as cycle time and reparability.
— 377 — Department of Energy and Related Commissions majority of critical materials are mined or processed (or both) in Russia and China.36 The processing of critical materials from fossil fuel waste products (primarily coal) has shown some potential and, in view of our vast domestic reserves of coal and abundant waste from coal mining and combustion, should be pursued. New Policies l Eliminate FECM. The next Administration should work with Congress to eliminate all of DOE’s applied energy programs, including those in FECM (with the possible exception of those that are related to basic science for new energy technology). Taxpayer dollars should not be used to subsidize preferred businesses and energy resources, thereby distorting the market and undermining energy reliability. l Rename FECM (if it cannot be eliminated) under its original designation as the Office of Fossil Energy and with its original mission: increasing energy security and supply through fossil fuels. l Focus on energy security and supply. Absent elimination of FECM, Congress should direct FECM appropriations toward increasing energy security and supply. Congress has already directed these goals (including the reduction of costs).37 l Ensure that LNG export approvals are reviewed and processed in a timely manner. In particular: 1. Ensure that LNG export applications are reviewed and approved expeditiously. 2. Maintain the categorical exclusion from the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)38 for LNG exports that was established by the Trump Administration39 or (if it is revoked by the Biden Administration) reinstate it. 3. Work with Congress to expand automatic approvals to include allies such as NATO as well as nations that have free trade agreements with the U.S. l Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR). The Biden Administration moved responsibility for the SPR to CESER. Regardless of where the responsibility lies, the new DESAS should ensure that the SPR is maintained for national strategic purposes and not misused for political gain.
Policy matches are calculated using semantic similarity between bill summaries and Project 2025 policy text. A score of 60% or higher indicates meaningful thematic overlap. This does not imply direct causation or intent, but highlights areas where legislation aligns with Project 2025 policy objectives.