Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 3017) to amend the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 to reauthorize and improve the brownfields program, and for other purposes, and providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 3905) to require congressional approval of any mineral withdrawal or monument designation involving the National Forest System lands in the State of Minnesota, to provide for the renewal of certain mineral leases in such lands, and for other purposes.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I thank the gentlewoman from Wyoming for yielding me the customary 30 minutes.

(Mr. McGOVERN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, today's rule provides for the consideration of two bills.

The first piece of legislation, H.R. 3017, is a bipartisan compromise to extend the EPA's brownfields program. The successful brownfields program assists communities across this country in cleaning up contaminated sites to reduce pollution and health risks and spur economic development.

Although funding for this program has enjoyed broad support over the years, its authorization lapsed in 2006; 11 years ago. It is certainly long past time for this important program to be reauthorized. I appreciate the work of Republicans and Democrats on both the Energy and Commerce and Transportation and Infrastructure Committees in coming together to produce this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, this is how the process is supposed to work. There was a hearing, and there was a markup. I should

say, for the Record, the majority could have issued an open rule, instead of a closed rule. But I am not even going to criticize that today, Mr. Speaker, because experts on this issue came together to negotiate it in a bipartisan manner, and the result is a good piece of legislation that I look forward to voting for later this week.

I commend Mr. McKinley, Mr. Tonko, Mr. Pallone, and all those who worked together, and I just want to say for the Record, as one who routinely gets up here and criticizes the majority for issuing closed rules and structured rules all the time, I do so not just as a knee- jerk reaction to what they produce in the Rules Committee. I do it because usually they do closed rules and structured rules to basically stifle a deliberative process. They do it to shut off debate and to shut out other people's opinions. Quite frankly, the majority's record on rules is abysmal.

In this case, what we are doing is bringing forward something that represents a bipartisan process. I wish this wasn't an anomaly. I wish that the majority would understand that, in the House of Representatives, the views of Democrats are just as important as the views of Republicans. If you want to get things done, you need to come together in the spirit of compromise and work together for the good of the American people, not just for the good of one political party, not just so you can issue a press release, not just so you can play gotcha games, but actually produce things that are meaningful.

If the Republican leadership would drop their all-or-nothing approach to governing more often, support genuine bipartisan negotiations and compromise, and open up the process on all pieces of legislation, both minor and substantial, we might be able to get something done around here. Maybe we could have more than 12 bills of any sort of real significance signed into law.

This rule also brings to the floor legislation, I am sad to say, that would do irreparable harm to our federally protected land by allowing a foreign company the ability to use a half-century-old lease to mine right next door to the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness.

H.R. 3905 would allow a Chilean mining company, which is facing tens of millions of dollars in fines from the Chilean Government for their failure to protect nearby water resources, the ability to mine just upstream of pristine U.S.-protected land.

This is all based on a 50-year-old lease--a lease that didn't go through any environmental review because NEPA didn't exist yet. There are Members of this Chamber who weren't even born when this lease was signed.

My colleagues in the majority will claim that this bill will help create jobs, but what about the 22,000 jobs that the local protected land already supports?

What will happen to those jobs when the water is so polluted that no one can visit the recreational area around the mine?

The truth is, this isn't about jobs. It is about helping a few rich owners of mining companies line their pockets at the expense of the environment. In fact, the recipient of this Republican handout is a subsidiary of a Chilean company, Antofagasta, which is controlled by Chilean billionaire Andronico Luksic Craig. And get this: he just happens to be the landlord of Ivanka Trump and Jared Kushner, President Trump's daughter and son-in-law and senior advisers to the Trump White House.

You cannot make this stuff up. This is part of a pattern of sketchy deals and questionable business contacts involving the President and his family and their closest advisers.

Earlier this month, we learned that President Trump and his family made millions through a hotel in Panama financed by Colombian drug cartels and the Russian Mafia. We still don't even know how these new deals will boost President Trump's income or how his family profits off of the Presidency, because we are 312 days into his Presidency, and we still haven't seen his tax returns.

Imagine if this were Hillary Clinton. Imagine if this were Barack Obama. Imagine the screams on the other side of the aisle demanding transparency and an open process. But when it comes to covering up all these sketchy deals on behalf of this President of the United States, there is silence.

President Trump promised to drain the swamp, but, instead, he has created a cesspool. There are so many conflicts of interest, this administration is on a collision course with corruption.

Mr. Speaker, we have only 6 legislative days left before the government runs out of money, but the Speaker of the House thinks another corporate handout, this time to Jared Kushner and Ivanka Trump's landlord, is the most pressing issue that needs to be resolved in Congress this week.

If the Speaker wants some suggestions as things we ought to focus on this week, I know Democrats in this Chamber have a few. I can give you an example.

Democrats think we should be debating a funding bill to avert the coming shutdown on December 8, when the temporary spending bill expires.

Democrats want to debate and pass the Dream Act, ending the turmoil this President has caused by upending the lives of 800,000 young immigrant DREAMers and their families.

Democrats want to extend the Children's Health Insurance Program, known as CHIP, and community health centers, whose authorization expired 2 months ago.

Democrats think we ought to debate flood insurance reauthorization, which expires on December 8.

Democrats want to pass additional hurricane relief to help those who are still recovering from devastating hurricanes in Texas, Florida, and Puerto Rico.

Democrats want to address funding for the Veterans Choice Program, which is set to run out of money before the end of the year.

But instead, here we are, considering yet another ridiculous, extreme antienvironment bill.

Mr. Speaker, my friends on the other side of the aisle love talking about returning this country to the way it used to be. I have seen the Make America Great Again stickers on many of their cars.

I can think of no pastime more important or more significant to our national heritage and identity than our wilderness and protected areas. My friends and colleagues who have spent time in the Boundary Waters tell me how stunning it is. They say it is one of the most beautiful places in our country. And we are going to risk polluting this national treasure with copper-sulfide acid drainage running into the streams that feed the Boundary Waters?

Worse yet, this bill makes these mining leases impossible to ever overturn, even should the Bureau of Land Management conclude its environmental assessment and rule against further mining in this protected national forest.

This is a slippery slope. If we continue to allow corporations to pillage our federally protected wilderness areas, we are opening the door to irreversible damage. What is next? Clear-cutting in Yellowstone Forest? Oil drilling off the coast of Acadia National Park?

Mr. Speaker, I beg my Republican friends to drop this assault on our public lands and urge the leadership of this House to bring up the urgent bills and priorities that we need to deal with before adjourning in less than 3 weeks' time.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose this rule and to oppose efforts that will further degrade our natural resources.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to just respond to my colleague from Wyoming, you know, when she raised the issue of why our Democratic leaders didn't show up to the meeting at the White House. Maybe she didn't catch the President's tweet in which the President made it very clear he didn't see a deal.

I am glad our leaders didn't show up because they are not props, and we in the minority are not props either to be rolled out, to give the appearance of bipartisanship or give the appearance that somehow you are working with us when, in fact, you are not.

The President showed his hand. He had no interest in a deal, no interest in working with us. And I would say that is one of the problems in this House of Representatives, that the reason why we are not more productive in getting things done and producing real legislation to help the American people is because there is no bipartisanship, very little. I made one exception to the issue on this brownfields legislation, but on the big bills, nothing.

The gentlewoman brought up the Affordable Care Act. You know, what was her solution to the Affordable Care Act? What was the Republican majority's solution to making the Affordable Care Act better? I mean, bringing a bill to the floor under the most closed process that you can possibly imagine, a bill that would throw 23 million Americans off of health insurance, what are my friends thinking?

When people talk about healthcare reform and improving the Affordable Care Act, they talk about lowering prices; they talk about more accessibility; they talk about more people getting coverage. What the Republicans brought to the floor was a bill that would throw 23 million Americans off of health insurance. That is their solution. That would take away essential benefits protection for people who desperately need health insurance to deal with this opiate crisis and a whole bunch of other things.

So we don't want any lectures about what is extreme and what is ridiculous in this House of Representatives. The way the majority conducts business in this House is extreme and ridiculous. The legislation, whether it is their attempt to repeal the Affordable Care Act or even this tax bill that is a giveaway to corporate special interests and is going to raise taxes on people earning $100,000, that is extreme, that is wrong.

So, Mr. Speaker, I would just say to my Republican friends, again, you know, if you want to get things done, if you want to work with us, you have got to treat us as more than just props. You have to enter into good faith negotiations. And I would say, if you did that, we actually might get some things done around here that might improve the quality of life for everybody in this country.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to again respond to my colleague from Wyoming when she again raised the issue as to why our leaders didn't show up to the White House. It is not because they have a fragile ego. It is because they didn't want to waste their time. It is because they didn't want to be a prop or just be there for a photo op. It is because they are actually focused on trying to do the people's business, and they are tired of the gamesmanship.

If the gentlewoman wants to talk about fragile egos, I would suggest that she observe the behavior of the man who is in the Oval Office. I mean, this is a guy who will get into a Twitter war with a basketball player's father.

I would say that, and I would just respectfully urge my Republican colleagues, now is the time for an intervention because we have serious business to deal with in this country: there are issues of war and peace; there are issues of domestic security; there are issues of economic security that we have to deal with; and instead, we are dealing with constant nonsense coming out of the White House. So it is time for the Republican majority to intervene and to say to the President, ``Enough is enough.''

Mr. Speaker, you know, for weeks, tax experts have been reporting that the Republican tax plans would raise taxes on millions of middle class families in order to cut taxes for the wealthy and corporations. Their proposed legislation may directly benefit President Trump and his family members to the tune of tens of millions of dollars, according to independent analyses. President Trump has denied this, stating that he would be a bigger loser if the House GOP tax bill is approved.

Well, without his tax returns, we simply have no way of knowing exactly how much President Trump stands to gain from the tax bill. The American people deserve to know whether or not our President is directly benefiting from legislation that would hurt millions of Americans.

Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to bring up Representative Eshoo's bill, H.R. 305, which would require Presidents and major party nominees for the Presidency to release their tax returns.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my amendment in the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, as I stated earlier, there are so many conflicts of interest in this administration, and especially with this President. This administration is on a collision course with corruption. It is time for Democrats and Republicans to stand up and to be united and to demand a little sunshine on what the reality is.

To discuss our proposal, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Eshoo).

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Wyoming talks about this great tax bill that the Republicans have proposed. I would call her attention to an article in Politico/Morning Consult today, which said that 8 percent of Americans believe that the Senate should take the Republican House- passed tax bill and enact it as-is--8 percent. I don't know how much lower you can get.

I thought my friend's healthcare bill had terrible ratings. I think it was like 17 percent of the American people supported it. I don't know how she can walk around and be proud of what she is trying to do here when the vast majority of the people don't want what you are selling. They believe that these policies will be harmful.

We are supposed to be the House of Representatives--the people's House--not the House of corporations, to give out special deals to mining companies, or to pass tax bills that benefit corporations at the expense of middle class families, or to pass healthcare reform that is a giveaway to insurance companies and rips away health coverage from millions and millions of people. I mean, come on.

Mr. Speaker, as I said, we believe in transparency on this side of the aisle, and we need to know what is behind some of these proposes in this tax bill, to find out who is benefiting and who is not. We know a lot of middle class families will not benefit. They are going to see their taxes increase. But we would like to know whether or not this President is going to benefit.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Clay).

I yield an additional 15 seconds to the gentleman from Missouri.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter from Minnesota Governor Mark Dayton in opposition to H.R. 3905.

State of Minnesota,

Office of Governor Mark Dayton,

Saint Paul, MN, November 27, 2017.

Hon. Paul Ryan,

Speaker of the House, House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Dear Speaker Ryan: I write in strong opposition to HR3905,

which I understand has passed out of Committee and is being

reviewed by House Majority Leadership for a floor vote. I

implore you not to schedule a vote on this bill without a

full vetting of the serious risks to the Boundary Waters

Canoe Area Wilderness from adjacent copper-nickel mining, the

status of the two-year federal study currently underway, and

the wishes of the majority of Minnesotans, who oppose copper-

nickel mining in the immediate vicinity of the Boundary

Waters.

HR3905 is a bill, ``To require congressional approval of

any mineral withdrawal or monument designation involving the

National Forest System lands in the State of Minnesota, to

provide for the renewal of certain mineral leases in such

lands, and for other purposes.'' HR3905 was introduced in

response to the desires of a foreign mining company to use

Congress to circumvent the deliberations of the U.S.

Departments of Interior and Agriculture and their agencies,

the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the U.S. Forest

Service (USFS), to determine whether copper-nickel mining can

be conducted safely in this ecologically sensitive part of

Minnesota.

The Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness (BCWAW) is

America's most popular national Wilderness Area, drawing

visitors from all over the world to Northeastern Minnesota to

fish, hunt, and experience its interconnected pristine lakes,

rivers and streams. Additionally, the BWCAW contributes

enormously to Minnesota's social and economic well-being.

In January, 2017, the BLM and the USFS began a

comprehensive two-year study to determine whether copper-

nickel mining, with its toxic by-product, sulfide ore, is

appropriate within the watershed and immediate vicinity of

the BWCA. Specifically, this environmental review will

determine whether the Superior National Forest lands next to

the BWCAW should be removed from the federal mining program

to protect the Wilderness from pollution and other

environmental degradation caused by the resulting sulfide

ore. The study considers a wide variety of factors, including

scientific evidence, public input, economic considerations,

ecological characteristics, and recreational value, among

others.

I respectfully ask that you allow the completion of this

important review process. Over 126,000 Americans have

submitted public comments as part of it. Many attended three

public meetings conducted earlier this year by the BLM and

USFS. Moving HR3905 forward at this time would disregard the

input of all Americans, who have participated in the process,

as well as the views of the 79 percent of Minnesotans, who

favor the two-year pause and environmental review of

potential impacts to the BWCAW.

The BWCAW is crucially important to our state, and I

believe strongly that future federal and state decisions

about its future should be made only after the most careful

and objective scientific review. I urge you to reject the

attempts by a foreign mining corporation to short-circuit the

review process underway, and to affirm the importance of a

careful, objective analysis under the existing federal legal

framework.

Continuing this review process is the best way to allow for

well-informed federal and state decisions, which will affect

many future generations of Americans. Industry should not

dictate the stewardship of taxpayer-owned public lands, nor

use Congress to short-circuit sound decision-making--

especially regarding pristine Wilderness Areas like the

Mr. Speaker, I also include in the Record a letter from the Sportsmen for the Boundary Waters in opposition to the bill; a letter from the National Parks Conservation Association; and a letter from the Girl Scouts of Minnesota and Wisconsin Lakes and Pines in opposition to this bill.

Sportsmen for the Boundary Waters,

Ely, MN, November 29, 2017.

Dear Representative: On behalf of our millions of members

and supporters, we urge

you to OPPOSE H.R. 3905, the so-called ``Minnesota's Economic

Rights in the Superior National Forest Act'' when it is

considered on the House floor.

Simply put, H.R. 3905 is a bill to allow sulfide-ore mining

at the edge of the Boundary Water Canoe Area Wilderness

(BWCAW), directly threatening one of America's most

accessible and most-visited wilderness areas. At 1.1 million

acres in size, the BWCAW is the largest wilderness east of

the Rockies and north of the Everglades. This interconnected

system of lakes, rivers, and streams provides unparalleled

opportunities for solitude, recreation, hunting and fishing.

The connections between Northern Minnesota's national

forests, Boundary Water Canoe Area Wilderness, Voyageurs

National Park, and Quetico Provincial Park makes this entire

trans boundary area extremely susceptible to the threat of

pollution from sulfide-ore mining, one of the most toxic

industries in America, according to the EPA.

H.R. 3905 would require congressional approval of any

mineral withdrawal or monument designation involving National

Forest System lands in the State of Minnesota and would

provide for the perpetual renewal of federal mineral leases

in Minnesota, including two that were denied by the Forest

Service and the Bureau of Land Management. The bill

undermines the Antiquities Act, National Environmental Policy

Act, Federal Land Policy and Management Act, Boundary Waters

Wilderness Act, and other laws regulating mineral leasing in

Minnesota's national forests.

Contrary to the bill's title, H.R. 3905 would do more harm

than good for the economy of Northern Minnesota. Economic

analysis by Key-Log Economics LLC shows that sulfide-ore

mining on Superior National Forest lands in the watershed of

the Boundary Waters could lead to the loss of nearly 5,000

jobs in tourism, 5,000 to 22,000 jobs in the rest of the

economy, a $1.6 billion loss in annual income, and a $500

million reduction in private property values.

Specifically, we urge opposition to this bill because it

would:

Renew two expired and undeveloped mineral leases on

Superior National Forest lands next to the Boundary Waters

and along lakes and rivers that flow directly into the

Wilderness, advancing a foreign mining company's interests at

the expense of beloved American public lands.

Void the December 2016 record of decision by the Forest

Service withholding its consent to two mineral lease renewal

requests in the Superior National Forest due to the

unacceptable risks to this watershed, which according to the

Forest Service holds 20 percent of the National Forest

System's fresh water supply.

Undermine the National Environmental Policy Act by limiting

review of these two mineral leases to a 30-day environmental

assessment. Contrary to the bill language, there is no

`pending EA.' However, this section would override the

ongoing two-year Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)

initiated by the Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management

to carefully consider the potential impacts of sulfide-ore

mining on the Boundary Waters watershed. The ongoing EIS is

strongly supported by Minnesota's Governor Dayton and by the

citizens of Minnesota. More than 79% of Minnesota voters

support the study, while more than 126,000 citizens submitted

comments during the scoping phase.

Amend the 1906 Antiquities Act by mandating Congressional

approval for any national monument designations in

Minnesota's national forests. The Antiquities Act is a

bipartisan conservation law, which has been used by

Presidents of both parties, to protect irreplaceable federal

lands from potential threats. Monument designation under the

Antiquities Act have provided protections for areas including

the Grand Canyon, Acadia, Zion, Muir Woods, and Olympic

National Parks. Quite simply, this attack on the Antiquities

Act is an attack against our national parks and monuments.

Amend the 1976 Federal Land Policy and Management Act

(FLPMA) by mandating Congressional approval for mineral

withdrawals in Minnesota's national forests. Additionally,

FLPMA intentionally left intact the presidential power to

protect public lands as monuments.

Bar the Forest Service from complying with its legal

obligations under the 1978 Boundary Waters Wilderness Act. In

this Act Congress requires the Forest Service to maintain the

high-water quality of the Boundary Waters and a Mining

Protection Area within the Superior National Forest. The

Forest Service concluded that sulfide-ore mining near the

Boundary Waters would be ``contrary to Congress'

determination that it is necessary to `protect the special

qualities of the [BWCAW] as a natural forest-lakeland

wilderness ecosystem of major esthetic, scientific,

recreational and educational value to the Nation.' ''

Make all mineral leases on Minnesota's national forests

essentially perpetual. The `perpetual' nature of these leases

is material change in long-standing mineral leasing law and

policy. The bill would also override the two laws (1946 and

1950) on mineral leasing in Minnesota's national forests that

require Forest Service consent to any mining.

Ignore the request of the International Joint Commission

that environmental review of impacts on trans boundary water

quality and cumulative effects be studied and the requests of

four tribal entities (the area is Ceded Territory).

Thank you for considering our concerns. In order to

adequately protect iconic places like the Boundary Waters,

Voyageurs National Park, and all of Minnesota's public lands,

and bedrock environmental laws like the Antiquities Act and

the National Environmental Policy Act, we urge you to OPPOSE

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, one of the reasons why many of us are opposed to H.R. 3905 is because we see it as a corporate giveaway that puts treasured public lands in the hands of a Chilean mining conglomerate.

So much of what comes out of this Congress is about rewarding those who are well-connected and well-off, rewarding corporations at the expense of average citizens.

I will go back to our previous question, which would force a vote. Everything would still move forward, but it would force a vote on a bill that was introduced by Ms. Eshoo that would require Presidents and Presidential nominees to release their tax returns.

It is not just the connections between the Trump family and this mining company that we have concerns about; it is the connections between this President and his administration and the tax bill that is being proposed that we know would raise taxes on millions and millions of middle class families and basically give a big tax cut to the wealthiest individuals and to corporate special interests and to corporations. We think that is all backwards, but I think the American people deserve to know who benefits and who doesn't.

Again, for the life of me, I don't understand why so many of my Republican friends have circled the wagons in opposition to transparency, in opposition to letting the American people know where this President's conflicts of interests are, and basically protect what I think may very well be multiple conflicts of interest and maybe conflicts of interest that lead directly into a collision course with corruption. This is a big deal.

All this legislation that we are talking about here today, there is a good piece of legislation, the brownfields legislation; a bad piece, that is this mining bill. This still goes forward, but vote with us to defeat the previous question so that we can bring up this other bill.

Now, my Republican colleague from Wyoming may say: Well, that is not what we are talking about here today. The Democrats are just trying to muddy up the discussion.

The reason why we have to resort to a procedural motion to bring up this bill to force the President and Presidential nominees to release their tax

returns is because the Rules Committee shuts everything down that this leadership doesn't want to see come to the floor. We can't bring this bill to the floor to require the President to release his tax returns under regular order and our normal process. They won't let us. We can't offer it as an amendment. They won't let us. This is the only way we can do it.

I would urge my Republican friends to stop defending the indefensible here.

This thing would apply not just to Donald Trump, it would apply to every President. We have never had to do this before because every other President has released their tax returns. This President, for some reason, doesn't think it is anybody's business.

Given the nature of the legislation coming out of this House of Representatives, I think the American people need to know and have a right to know.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, if I could just inquire of the gentlewoman how many more speakers she has.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record two letters in opposition to H.R. 3905 signed by virtually every major environmental organization in the country.

November 8, 2017.

Dear Representative: On behalf of our millions of members

and supporters, we urge you to OPPOSE H.R. 3905, the

``Minnesota's Economic Rights in the Superior National Forest

Act'' scheduled for mark-up in House Natural Resources on

Wednesday. Section 3 of this radical bill, which would

require Congressional approval of any monument extension or

designation involving National Forest lands in Minnesota,

represents yet another direct attack on one of our nation's

bedrock conservation laws, and flatly ignores the

overwhelming public support for protecting unique and

sensitive federal lands and ocean areas through national

monument designations.

We urge the committee to consider the following during

markup of H.R. 3905 this week:

Contrary to the Intent of the Law--The Antiquities Act was

designed to allow for swift and necessary action, including

when Congress is either unable or unwilling to act, to

protect irreplaceable resources from potential threats. Not

only has the law successfully protected some of our nation's

most remarkable historical, cultural and natural treasures

for a century, Congress intentionally left this presidential

power intact when passing the Federal Land Policy and

Management Act of 1976 (signed into law by President Ford).

A Vote Against our Parks--Supporting any bill that would

undermine the Antiquities Act is a vote against parks. Nearly

half of America's national parks began as national monuments

including the Grand Canyon, Acadia, Zion, Muir Woods, and

Olympic National Parks; and over two-thirds of our national

monuments are managed by the National Park Service. Quite

simply, a vote against the Antiquities Act is a vote against

our national parks and monuments.

Federal Lands Belong to All Americans--The Antiquities Act

is used only to protect federal lands already owned by the

American public. By carving out an exception for national

forest lands within Minnesota, Section 3 of H.R. 3905 flies

in the face of our nation's shared public heritage and

disregards how dearly the public values iconic public lands

and waters, like Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness and

Voyageurs National Park.

Bipartisan History--A signature achievement of President

Theodore Roosevelt, the Antiquities Act has been used by 16

presidents since its inception--8 Republicans and 8

Democrats.

Out of Step with the Public--This bill is wildly out of

step with the American public's support for our national

parks and monuments. Just this summer, a vast majority of the

2.8 million people who submitted comments on the issue raised

their voices in support of keeping our national monuments

protected just as they are. These voices made Secretary

Zinke's national monuments public comment period the largest

public comment period in the history of the Interior

Department. Across the West, public support for protecting

our national monuments has proven strong, and a significant

majority of Western voters oppose more mining and drilling on

public lands. According to Colorado College's Conservation in

the West Poll, 80% of western voters support ``future

presidents continuing to protect existing public lands as

national monuments.'' This poll reinforces other surveys that

document widespread public opposition to congressional

attacks on new parks. Americans want more protected public

lands, not less!

Opposed by Diverse List of Hundreds of Organizations--As

demonstrated by this letter as well as the attached letter

signed by nearly 200 organizations, a diverse array of local

and national organizations representing sportsmen, outdoor

recreation businesses, local chambers of commerce, cultural

heritage, historic preservation and conservation have

consistently opposed efforts to undermine the Antiquities Act

in any form.

Disregards Local Economies--Economic research shows that

national monuments support the growth of local economies,

bringing in tourism and recreation dollars and boosting the

quality of life. The Outdoor Industry Association reported

this year that public lands like our national monuments help

support 7.6 million jobs in America, and $887 billion in

outdoor recreation activity.

Monuments Protect our Shared History and Culture--In

response to broad community input, sites honoring America's

military and outdoor heritage, as well as those expanding the

diversity of our national park system to better recognize the

contributions and histories of Native Americans, Hispanics

and African-Americans have been designated under the

Antiquities Act. These monuments include Fort Ord, Fort

Monroe, Charles Young Buffalo Soldiers, Harriet Tubman

Underground Railroad, Chimney Rock, Organ Mountains-Desert

Peaks, Cesar E. Chavez and many more.

Recent attacks on national monuments, from President

Trump's executive order, to Interior Secretary Zinke's hasty

and arbitrary review of these magnificent places, to

legislative proposals like H.R. 3905 are a smokescreen for

other uses of these special places.

Thank you for considering our concerns. In order to

adequately protect iconic places like the Boundary Waters,

Voyageurs National Park, and all of Minnesota's shared public

resources, we urge you to vote no on H.R. 3905.

Sincerely,

American Bird Conservancy, American Rivers, Boundary Waters

Trust, Center for Biological Diversity, Conservation Lands

Foundation, Defenders of Wildlife, Earthjustice, Earthworks,

Endangered Species Coalition, Environment America,

Environmental Law & Policy Center, Environmental Protection

Information Center, Friends of the Earth, Hip Hop Caucus,

League of Conservation Voters, National Parks Conservation

Association, Natural Resources Defense Council, Northeastern

Minnesotans for Wilderness, Sierra Club, Southern Utah

Wilderness Alliance, Tuleyome, The Wilderness Society,

Wilderness Watch.

Mr. Speaker, we oppose the overall rule, but I will say to the gentlewoman that we would have no problem even with the closed rule on the brownfields bill, which is one of the bills that I think has bipartisan support and reflects a legitimate process.

What we have a problem with is H.R. 3905, which we think is a corporate giveaway that puts treasured public lands in the hands of a Chilean mining conglomerate, and we think that is wrong.

I agree with the gentlewoman that we ought to be doing important business here, but I would argue that, rather than rewarding some Chilean mining conglomerate, the more important business would be making sure we keep the government open, because we have a government shutdown fast approaching on December 8.

I would say to the gentlewoman that we have got to pass the Dream Act and help 800,000 people whose lives have been thrown into turmoil because of this President.

We ought to extend the Children's Health Insurance Program. We ought to debate flood insurance. We ought to pass additional hurricane relief. We ought to address funding for the Vets Choice Program. That is more important, that is more vital to the national interest than basically rewarding some Chilean mining conglomerate.

Finally, I would say to my colleagues here that we will ask you to vote to defeat the previous question. We will ask you to defeat the previous question so we can bring up and have a vote on a bill that will require this President and all Presidents and all party nominees to release their taxes.

I think the American people have a right to know where the conflicts of interest are with this White House. I think they have a right to know who benefits from this tax bill that we know is a giveaway to corporations that will raise taxes on millions of middle class families. They have a right to know who benefits from this.

I am astounded that the bar keeps on getting lower and lower and lower for my Republican friends. I mean, we have daily offensive tweets. We have irrational statements that come out of this White House on a daily basis, and there is silence.

When it comes to transparency, when it comes to making sure that there are no conflicts of interest, my Republican colleagues will not even allow us to have a vote on basically requiring this President and all Presidents to release their tax returns. That is not passing judgment on this President. It would be a requirement of all Presidents and nominees.

Basically, it is saying, let the sunshine in. Let us make sure that there are no conflicts of interest. That ought to matter, because everything that comes out of this House seems to be directed at helping those who are well-off and well-connected.

Every corporation is cheering when this House comes up with legislation, whether it is on tax reform or whether it is on helping mining companies, because it always seems to benefit those who are the most well-off.

Well, it is about time we put people first. It is about time the American people know what is going on in this government. Let the sunshine in. There is nothing wrong with that. We are doing it this way because it is the only avenue available for us to bring this to a vote, because the Rules Committee and the leadership in this House shuts off debate on issues that they find uncomfortable.

This is supposed to be the people's House, not the Russia House. We ought to be a place where we have deliberative engagements, where we discuss important issues, where we do things that benefit the American people.

I would say to my colleagues again, vote ``no'' on the previous question so we can have this debate. If you want to help the President cover up his tax returns, fine. You can vote ``no,'' but we ought to have a vote.

I don't know why this is so controversial. It, to me, is a no- brainer. Vote ``no'' on the previous question and vote ``no'' on the rule.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 631, I call up the bill (H.R. 3905) to require congressional approval of any mineral withdrawal or monument designation involving the National Forest System lands in the State of Minnesota, to provide for the renewal of certain mineral leases in such lands, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on H.R. 3905.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Lamborn).

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Emmer), the originator of this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. LaMalfa).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Westerman).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Emmer), the originator of this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I want to remind everybody I am wearing a copper tie, and that is because I come from Arizona. We are known as the 5 Cs: for the cotton, for the climate, for the cattle, for the citrus, and for copper. It is a critical mineral.

We have seen these displays here in the well this morning, diverting the public's attention about what truly is actually here.

This is actually a cite to explain to people exactly the clear definition. Let's look at this.

What you see in red and yellow, just like a light that you see red, stop; yellow, caution; green, go, the red is the Boundary Waters. The red is the Boundary Waters: no mining, no mining whatsoever. The yellow is a buffer.

By the way, the only place in the United States in which a monument is surrounded by a buffer: no, don't proceed.

They confused you with that map. This is where we are talking about, down in here, in the green area. It is not the Boundary Waters. The pictures you saw that were in the well so eloquently shown to us were of the Boundary Waters, not where the mining is going to take place.

Let's dispel the rumors. Let's get back down to facts.

Red, no mining; yellow, no mining; green, okay. But that is following rules. That is following all rules.

Once again, just to remind folks back home that are watching, the red is the Boundary Waters. There is no mining in the Boundary Waters. The pictures you saw in the well are of the Boundary Waters. No mining occurs in the Boundary Waters.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, the charge is Minnesotans strongly oppose mining near the

Boundary Waters, so let's go back, remind everybody back at home about the red. We are not talking about the red or the yellow in the previous document. Let's go through what we see.

Minnesota's Democratic Governor was for mining in the area before he was against it. Several polls over the years consistently show strong support for copper-nickel mining in general and for allowing companies to explore and propose projects.

In November of 2016, a poll of 400 registered voters in the Eighth Congressional District found, among other results, by greater than a 3 to 1 margin, survey respondents support environmentally responsible mining in the region.

By greater than 2-to-1 margins, respondents support the building of a new copper-nickel mine and believe copper-nickel mining can be done in an environmentally responsible way. They demand that. More than 60 percent support an underground copper-nickel project, the Twin Metals mine.

In October 2013, a poll of more than 600 registered Minnesota voters statewide found, among other results, a majority of voters, 56 percent, favor expanding Minnesota's mining industry.

A plurality of voters, 48 percent, support expanding the nickel- copper mining industry in the State.

All mayors, State legislators, the county commissioners that represent the Iron Range region, and the area proposed for the withdrawal are pro-mining advocates. Fifty-three bipartisan State legislators, including leadership of both parties, have endorsed the bill and support the passage.

Why is that?

These aren't just your average jobs. They don't pay service wages of $20,000. These are $100,000 plus and, additionally, have benefits. Those are jobs that Americans sink their teeth into. That is what built America.

Stay tuned. I am going to show you some other photos of how they really look at mining.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

This bill alters no current environmental laws or protections. Mining companies will still have to comply with the Clean Water Act, Clean Air Act, NEPA, and all State and Federal laws.

In fact, the local communities--everybody wants clean water. These people actually live in the area. These local communities actually want mining in Minnesota. It results in cleaner water. This is actually a viewpoint of an actual mine site. This is a long time ago. This is a pit. What ends up happening is, they are very proud, because Minnesota is proud of their water.

This picture is before, and this is after. Can you imagine local municipalities and towns lining up for this water? This is the cleanest water in Minnesota. This is how they will actually reclaim the water. This isn't me. These are the people from the area who gave us these photos. And if you want to see an in-depth video, go to YouTube and look up the video that the people back in this region put together. This actually shows you, this is clean water. This is where you have pristine fisheries. They line up for this water.

There are no environmental hazards. Minnesota's mining industry has been proud of what they have actually built. Once again, before and after, it is an inconceivable difference.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Will the gentleman yield?

That is a taconite pit.

Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman is talking about this whole aspect, the gentleman is right, but it is about all mining. This isn't just about copper mining. This is about taconite and all other mining.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question of the gentleman from California. Can the gentleman give me an example of a mine that he actually supports?

I yield to the gentleman from California.

Reclaiming my time, once again, the gentleman can't identify a single mine that is permissible to the opposition.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

We have heard some other charges that H.R. 3905 changes five Federal laws for Minnesota's national forests. This bill alters no current environmental laws or protections. The Federal Land Policy and Management Act, NEPA, and all other environmental laws still apply to Minnesota.

Let's go through this history. In 1950, Congress took action to make land available for mineral exploration and development within the Superior National Forest. Congress did. Then again, in 1978, Congress passed the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness Act, a compromise that prohibited mining within the 1.1 million acre Boundary Waters; once again, the red area and the yellow. No mining.

But again, it specifically authorized mining in the Superior National Forest, the green. Once again, red, no; yellow, no; green, go. But that is fulfilling all current legislative and environmental laws.

The General Mining Act of 1872 that we heard about earlier governs most mining on Federal lands. However, in this case, it does not. It is the Weeks Act that controls projects in this area because they are located on acquired National Forest mineral leases on these lands. There are no indefinite agreements. They typically retain a nondiscretionary right--nondiscretionary right, once again--to renew every 20 years. The two leases for the mineral deposit in question began in 1966, were renewed in 1989, and again in 2004, without controversy.

The MINER Act halts last-minute political mineral withdrawals by requiring congressional approval. Once again, the magical words are ``congressional approval.'' The return to federalism--amazing--renews those two mining leases that were denied for political reasons under the same terms they were renewed twice previously and ensures any future mining projects will have to satisfy all existing environmental permitting requirements, including NEPA.

These people demand that they do it in a righteous way. There is no digging right now. These are proposed. The Minnesotans whom I came up to visit, they happily shared their history and their area with me. They want it done right because they have to live with the consequences; not somebody who comes from Twin Cities once in a blue moon.

Once again, let's go back. This is the Boundary Waters. This is what you have heard misrepresented all the way around. There is no mining going on in the Boundary Waters. There is no mining going on in the buffer area. Once again, no other buffer exists around a national monument except this. This is hallowed ground. Green, go.

Now, it is also very unfortunate that we hear rumors going around from Members of Congress that the Department of the Interior actually is against this. That rumor is far from the truth. We just received an email from the Secretary of the Interior that they are not opposed to this bill.

I include in the Record a list of over 150 groups, individuals, and community leaders who now want to be on record as supporting the lawful aspects of returning this back to the folks in Minnesota for mining.

Endorsements of H.R. 3905

53 bipartisan state legislators (including leadership of

both parties); AFL-CIO International Association of Bridge,

Structural, Ornamental, and Reinforcing Iron Workers Local

Union 512; Agribusiness & Water Council of Arizona; ALLETE;

American Exploration & Mining Association; Americans for

Limited Government; Apache County (Arizona); Apache Sun Golf

Club; APEX; Arizona Association of Conservation Districts;

Arizona Cattle Feeders Association; Arizona Golf Association;

Arizona Pork Council; Arizona Liberty; Arizona State Rep. Bob

Thorpe; Associated General Contractors of Minnesota; AZ BASS

Nation; AZ Deer Association; The Bass Federation; Better in

our Back Yard; Cactus and Pine Golf Superintendents

Association supports H.R. 3905; City of Ely.

Colorado Mining Association; Competitive Enterprise

Institute; Concerned Citizens for America (Arizona);

Conservatives for Property Rights; Dena Cordova Jack,

Executive Vice President, Mountain States Lumber and Building

Material Dealers Association; Global Minerals Engineering

LLC; Golden Vertex Corporation; Grand Rapids Area Chamber of

Commerce; Hibbing Area Chamber of Commerce; International

Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local Union 31;

International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 49; The

Jamar Company; Jefferson County Commissioner Donald Rosier,

P.E.; Jobs for Minnesotans; Laborers District Council of MN &

ND; Laborers International Union of North America; Laurentian

Chamber of Commerce; Minnesota Building and Construction

Trades Council; Minnesota Chamber of Commerce;

MiningMinnesota; Minnesota Pipe Trades Association.

Minnesota Power; Minnesota State Rep. Josh Heintzeman;

Montana Mining Association; National Mining Association;

National Stone, Sand & Gravel Association; New Mexico Cattle

Growers' Association; New Mexico Federal Lands Council; New

Mexico Wool Growers, Inc.; North America's Building Trade

Unions; Plumbers and Pipefitters Local 589; Range Association

of Municipalities and Schools; Scott W. Yates, President,

Denver Lumber Co.; Shake Rattle & Troll Outdoors; Sulphur

Springs Valley Electric Cooperative; Twin Metals Minnesota;

United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America;

Water Resource Institute; Women's Mining Coalition; Yavapai

County Cattle Growers; Yavapai County Supervisor Board

Chairman Thomas Thurman; Yuma County (AZ) Chamber of

Commerce.

Other Groups Supportive of Issues Addressed by the Bill

62 bipartisan state legislators (including leadership of

both parties); Chair of the MN Permanent School Fund

Commission; Dakota County Regional Chamber of Commerce; Dale

Lueck, Chair of the Minnesota Legislative Permanent School

Fund Commission; Duluth Chamber of Commerce; Fairmont Chamber

of Commerce; Fergus Falls Chamber of Commerce; Greater North

Dakota Chamber of Commerce; Iron Mining Association of

Minnesota; Laborers District Council of MN & ND; Lake County

Board of Commissioners; Metro North Chamber of Commerce;

Minnesota Association of School Administrators--Region 7;

Minnesota Chamber of Commerce; North Central States Regional

Council of Carpenters; Owatonna Chamber of Commerce;

Rochester Chamber of Commerce; St. Louis County Board of

Commissioners; Twin West Chamber of Commerce; Up North Jobs;

Western Mesabi Mine Planning Board; Willmar Chamber of

Commerce.

Mr. Speaker, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. Speaker, what transpired here was a travesty. As I outlined, historically, Congress dictated twice in a usual fashion this green area for go. They designed the Boundary Waters and a buffer area for protection.

Once again, no Boundary Waters--you are being misled--no Boundary Waters are having mining. This is as clear as it gets. What ended up happening was in an illegal action by the President last year, or earlier this year, he wiped this away.

This doesn't wipe away any environmental laws. What it does is, it returns it to the way it was. The way that it should be; the way that Congress dictated. Federalism, a return to the people in that State.

Mr. Speaker, I ask everybody to vote for this bill and support this bill. I also ask everybody to go to a video that has been produced by the people in this iron-ore range to see exactly how the people of that area of Minnesota actually feel about it. It is magnificent.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Speaker, in July, the Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources heard all about how royalties, if ill-constructed, serve only to disincentivize investment in self-sufficiency and increase our reliance on imported critical minerals.

This amendment is a hallmark example of such a poorly designed royalty. This amendment doesn't specify what the royalty will be applied to, when in the mining process it will be assessed, and it doesn't even have a cap, for that matter. This amendment is just a thinly veiled means to prevent this important mining project from getting off the ground. The author actually stated that in his comments.

Mr. Speaker, I oppose this amendment. I ask all Members to vote against it, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, once again, we may want to go back to misinformation. This does not pertain to the Mining Act of 1872. In fact, this is under the Weeks Act, which controls projects in this area because they are located on acquired natural forest land. Mineral leases on these lands, though not indefinite agreements, typically retain nondiscretionary right for renewal every 20 years.

The two leases for mineral deposits in question began in 1966, were renewed in 1989, and again in 2004 without controversy.

I would also like to take the opportunity to go through a number of groups that actually are against this amendment and endorse the bill.

Fifty-three bipartisan State legislators from the State of Minnesota are for this bill: ``As elected leaders of the Minnesota Legislature, we are writing in strong support of H.R. 3905. This legislation supports jobs, economic development and industry in northeast Minnesota, and will reverse an onerous, overreaching, and politically motivated decision by the Obama administration. H.R. 3905 has bipartisan support, and it is our sincere hope that it will become law for the well-being of our State and its citizens.''

A second one from the Range Association of Municipalities and Schools:

The results of the withdrawal and a potential 20-year

moratorium would have a devastating impact on the financial

support for our statewide public school system and future

generations of Iron Rangers who would be employed in any

future mining developments. It has been estimated that within

20 years of mining for precious metals, our Permanent School

Trust Fund would reap nearly $3 billion in royalties if

allowed to go forward. The Miner Act does not infringe or

restrict these very strenuous and stringent environmental

review processes, and we emphasize there will be no mining in

the Boundary Waters or the buffer zone specifically

surrounding the Boundary Waters.

Let's go to the next one from the American Exploration & Mining Association: ``H.R. 3905 will eliminate delays, return to good stewardship of fair process and restore the opportunity to explore strategic metals critical to our economy and national security in one of the richest mineral deposits in the Nation. . . . The emerging mining industry is an investment in the future well-being of our State and Nation; without this legislation, that future is at risk.''

Here is another one from the Competitive Enterprise Institute: ``The bipartisan H.R. 3905 is a welcome reassertion of congressional authority over public lands. Article 4 of the Constitution vests Congress--not the President--with plenary power over public

lands. Members on both sides of the aisle should take umbrage at President Obama's lameduck machinations to withdraw from the multiple- use framework more than 230,000 acres of public lands in Minnesota-- with the mere stroke of a pen. By treating public lands regulation as a means to build a Presidential legacy through midnight regulation, the previous administration flouted the spirit of participatory and inclusive lands-use statutes as designed by Congress. Lawmakers should correct the course by passing the excellent H.R. 3905.''

Finally, the Associated General Contractors of Minnesota:

H.R. 3905 changes no environmental review processes,

relaxes no environmental standards, and specifically restates

Congress' prohibition on any mining activity in the Boundary

Waters and surrounding protective buffer areas. H.R. 3905

would reaffirm longstanding congressional intent that

actually espouses that this area be designated for mining and

timber sales.

Mr. Speaker, I ask everybody to vote against this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 631 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of House Resolution 631, which provides a closed rule for consideration of H.R. 3017, Brownfields Enhancement, Economic Redevelopment, and Reauthorization Act of 2017; and a structured rule for H.R. 3905, Minnesota's Economic Rights in the Superior National Forest Act.

Mr. Speaker, brownfield refers normally to abandoned or closed commercial or industrial properties that may be contaminated because of their prior use. These sites often represent a tremendous amount of untapped economic potential. However, developing that potential is complicated by the presence of hazardous substances or contaminants.

The Environmental Protection Agency has estimated that there are more than 50,000 brownfields in the United States. The brownfields program has enjoyed broad bipartisan support and has been critical in converting these vacant sites into tax-generating properties and, eventually, well-paying jobs for American citizens.

As of May 1, 2017, the program has assessed 26,722 sites, and they have leveraged over 124,760 jobs. On average, Mr. Speaker, over $16 is leveraged for every EPA brownfields dollar spent, and 8.5 jobs are leveraged per $100,000 of EPA brownfields funds.

States all over the country have benefited from this grant program. In my home State of Wyoming, we put brownfield grants to use in cities like Casper, Cheyenne, Sheridan, Evanston, Kemmerer, Laramie, and Dubois.

Brownfield sites have been revitalized using these funds in places like the Minute Maid Park in Houston, Texas; development in the neighborhoods around Danville, Illinois; and the Grijalva Park at Santiago Creek in Orange, California.

The brownfields program has been expired, Mr. Speaker, since 2006, and it is high time we reauthorize this critically important grant program.

The brownfields program has enabled local communities to clean up and repurpose vacated sites, utilizing them for meaningful economic development, while responsibly cleaning up hazardous sites. This is an important step in maintaining and improving what has been a demonstrably effective program.

Mr. Speaker, the rule we consider today also provides for consideration of a very important bill, H.R. 3905, Minnesota's Economic Rights in the Superior National Forest Act, which was introduced by my colleague, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Emmer).

H.R. 3905 requires congressional approval of any mineral withdrawal or monument designation involving the National Forest System lands in the State of Minnesota and provides for the renewal of certain mineral leases in those lands.

This is necessary, Mr. Speaker, because in the final hours of the Obama administration, the administration withdrew hundreds of thousands of acres in Minnesota from mineral development and improperly terminated two Federal mineral leases.

The effect of this decision halted potential mining projects in Minnesota, robbing the region of 650 direct and 1,300 indirect jobs, as well as the tax revenue the mining operation would bring.

Mining jobs, Mr. Speaker, are good, high-paying jobs. The average mining wage in Minnesota is roughly $25,000 a year higher than the average wage in the State.

Coming from a State where we mine more coal than any State in the Nation, I understand and appreciate the economic development mining projects can bring to a region. We also understand the burden that can be imposed by working with the Federal Government on these projects in Wyoming.

Roughly half my State, Mr. Speaker, is comprised of Federal lands. Receiving the appropriate authorizations to drill or mine on these lands can be a lengthy and cumbersome process that delays projects for many years.

Ultimately, Mr. Speaker, we must improve our Federal regulatory process so we can better harness the vast natural resources we have in our country, while still protecting and conserving our environment.

Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I encourage support for the rule for these important bills, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I think it is important to be clear about exactly what H.R. 3905 does.

H.R. 3905 does not eliminate environmental requirements. In fact, it will only allow mining as long as those strict environmental requirements are met. What it does do is allow Minnesota itself to advance its State and local economies.

I applaud my colleague from Massachusetts' commitment and dedication to working together to try and come up with solutions about things like, for example, funding the government. I will just point out that if Democrats were, in fact, so dedicated to working with Republicans to fund the government and to begin to come to a solution, to come to an agreement, perhaps

their leadership would have shown up yesterday at the White House to have meetings and discussions about funding the government. It is awfully hard to claim that you are very dedicated and committed to that concept if you don't have leaders who show up to the key meetings.

I would also point out, Mr. Speaker, my colleague has called our bills and our process here ridiculous and extreme.

I can't help but note that what is truly ridiculous and extreme, Mr. Speaker, are the massive increases in ObamaCare premiums that my constituents all across Wyoming are now facing.

My constituents are now facing a situation, because of ObamaCare, because of this health plan that was supposed to provide coverage for everybody, low-cost coverage for everybody, that was supposed to guarantee access, guarantee if you liked your doctor, you could keep him or her, guarantee that you would be able to afford healthcare, my constituents are now facing premiums that will bankrupt them.

They are now receiving bills that demonstrate that their premiums next year, for example, for a retired married couple of two, the lowest amount that they can pay under the ObamaCare Bronze Plan is $2,700 a month. Now, that is absolutely unsustainable, and that is what is ridiculous and extreme.

What we are doing today is making sure that we pass legislation that reauthorizes the important brownfields program that restores rights to the State of Minnesota.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. McKinley), the sponsor of H.R. 3017.

Mr. Speaker, I would just note, in response to my friend and colleague from Massachusetts, that if the gentleman's leaders are so fragile that they are scared off by a tweet, then probably they need some new leaders. And I don't suspect that his argument really is they couldn't go to the meeting because they were scared because of a tweet.

We do need to work together to get things done. We are hard at work doing that.

In that regard, Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Shimkus), the chairman of the Environment Subcommittee, who oversaw this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman from Illinois.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have a very tough job. They have to argue for policies that have failed and argue for policies that we have actually had to live through the failure of those policies over the last 8 years.

My colleague on the Rules Committee, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), asked us to imagine if Hillary Clinton were President, and imagine if Barack Obama were President. Mr. Speaker, we don't have to imagine. We lived through Barack Obama's Presidency. We know that we would be, today, living through completely stagnant growth, a strangled military unable to meet its commitments around the world, out-of- control Federal agencies, a Federal Government that believed it had an obligation to run every aspect of people's lives across this country, and, at the same time, the Federal Government telling people that they were forced to purchase insurance they didn't want and they didn't need.

We know that has failed. We know that the whole system that the Democrats believed would work, in terms of bringing healthcare costs down, fundamentally failed. You cannot force people into the insurance pools. The concept was, if you forced the young, healthy people in, you would drop costs down for everybody. That is not what happened.

I have sympathy for them because it is a tough job that they are undertaking, but it is very important that we argue based on the facts on this floor, Mr. Speaker. In fact, the tax bill that I hope will come back from the Senate--the tax bill that we passed out of the House, and one that we will take to conference--reduces taxes for the middle class, reduces taxes for families all across this country, doubles the standard deduction, and takes steps towards making real what we know to be true, which is taxpayer dollars don't belong to the government, Mr. Speaker, taxpayer dollars belong to the American people.

If we allow people to keep more of their own money, they will invest that money, they will grow our economy, and they will create jobs. That is how we are going to get this economy growing and continue the expansion and economic growth that we have seen just since this President came into office.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Lewis).

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Emmer), the sponsor of H.R. 3905.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Gosar).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I would just, once again, point out that we have important work that we are trying to get done here, we have important work we have got to do on behalf of the American people.

Mr. Speaker, elections have consequences, and we have an obligation to do what our constituents sent us here to do, and that includes a whole range of things that we have been very effective at doing, historically effective in this body since January in terms of deregulation, in terms of passing the repeal of ObamaCare, in terms of moving forward on tax cuts in terms of actually passing the legislation to cut taxes, and importantly also, Mr. Speaker, moving forward to provide the resources that our military needs.

We all watched just over the course of the last 24 hours as the North Koreans launched yet again another ICBM. We live in a dangerous world. It is increasingly dangerous, historically dangerous.

Those are the issues that we are focused on as Republicans and as Members of this House. Those are the issues that we need to focus our attention on.

Again, I think we have grown to expect, no matter what the rule is, no matter what the underlying bill is, we are going to hear the same thing from our colleagues on the other side of the aisle, not addressing the substance of these issues, not addressing the substance of the things the American people sent us here to do. I am very proud to stand here today doing exactly that.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Westerman).

Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I want to thank my colleagues, Mr. McKinley and Mr. Emmer, for their work on these important bills. I want to thank my colleague, Mr. McGovern. I am glad to hear him say that they want to put people first.

Mr. Speaker, that is exactly what we are doing; whether we are talking about our tax bill, which is going to put money back in people's pockets; whether we are talking about repealing and replacing ObamaCare, which we have passed through this House; whether we are talking about defense spending that is going to protect the people of this Nation.

All across Wyoming, Mr. Speaker, I know my constituents are very grateful that we are now suddenly putting people first after years of putting the government first. We are not doing that anymore, Mr. Speaker.

It is true, this is the people's House. And in this House, Mr. Speaker, we ought to always live by and remember the rules of Alexander Hamilton: ``Here, sir, the people govern.''

In this House, Mr. Speaker, we are charged with carrying out the obligations of the people who elected us. The bills and the rule that we are debating today do just that. Both of these bills are absolutely critical for spurring economic development across our country.

Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I urge adoption of both the rule and of these underlying bills.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 631, I call up the bill (H.R. 3017) to amend the Comprehensive Environmental Response,

Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 to reauthorize and improve the brownfields program, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous material on H.R. 3017.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 3017, the Brownfields Enhancement, Economic Redevelopment, and Reauthorization Act of 2017. This legislation has broad bipartisan support, and I would like to thank Chairman Walden and Ranking Members Pallone and Tonko.

I would also like to specifically thank a few of my colleagues who have exhibited leadership and commitment on this issue, Congressman David McKinley, my fellow Energy and Commerce Committee member, who introduced this important bill, and my colleagues on the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, Congressman John Katko and Congresswoman Elizabeth Esty who guided a similar bill through their committee.

We have been working closely with our colleagues on the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee over these past few months, and the bill that we will vote on today reflects compromise on both sides.

The bill takes a very important step in reauthorizing the Environmental Protection Agency's brownfields program for the first time since the law was enacted, and so I would like to also thank Chairman Shuster for his leadership and support as we move forward.

The bill we are voting on today makes several important changes to the brownfields law that will result in more contaminated sites being cleaned up and returned to productive use, such as the creation of multipurpose grants, which will allow communities to use grant funds for both assessment and remediation, as well as allow communities to clean up more than one site in a designated area.

The bill also provides liability relief to States and municipalities who voluntarily acquire brownfields property through their authority as a sovereign, which will allow local units of government to address contamination on property they acquire through tax delinquency, bankruptcy, and/or abandonment.

The bill expands grant eligibility for nonprofit organizations and for publicly owned brownfields sites that acquired the property prior to January 11, 2002, which will put more parties into the mix of persons eligible for grant funding, which will result in more sites being assessed and cleaned up.

The legislation increases the limit for remediation grants from $200,000 to $500,000. As we learned from witnesses at our hearings, this will result in more brownfields sites being cleaned up because many of the sites that remain to be addressed are more complicated and, therefore, more expensive.

The bill provides for a limited amount of grant funds to be used for administrative costs, which will allow small and rural communities to be able to receive and utilize grant funds, and it carves out grant money to assist Indian Tribes in small, rural, and disadvantaged communities as they work to assess and clean up contaminated properties.

The EPA brownfields program is critical to States and local communities as they address contaminated industrial and commercial properties and return them to productive use. Cleaning up these sites is great for the economy because brownfields grants can be directly leveraged into jobs, additional redevelopment funds, and increased residential and commercial property values.

In fact, the brownfields program, on average, leverages over $16 in private investment for every Federal dollar spent and leverages 8\1/2\ jobs for every $100,000 of brownfields funds expended on assessment and cleanup.

The brownfields program is a proven results-driven program that has changed the way contaminated property is perceived, addressed, and managed. A visible, national example of the brownfields program at work was the Houston Astros and the Los Angeles Dodgers facing off in game three of the World Series at Minute Maid Park in Houston, Texas. Minute Maid Park sits on a former brownfields site that the city of Houston redeveloped and obviously returned to a very productive reuse, especially for the Astros.

The EPA brownfields program is uniquely positioned to protect the environment and spur the economy. You can tell, from the broad bipartisan support that H.R. 3017 enjoys, the support for the EPA brownfields program is unqualified. The program has strong support from local and State governments, private developers, and all sectors of the economy.

Because brownfields funding is so important to States and local communities across the country, I want to encourage my colleagues on the appropriations committee to fully fund this important and successful program.

Mr. Speaker, I urge all my colleagues to support the bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

House of Representatives, Committee on Transportation and

Infrastructure,

Washington, DC, November 9, 2017.

Hon. Greg Walden,

Chairman, Committee on Energy and Commerce,

Washington, DC.

I write concerning H.R. 3017, the Brownfields Enhancement,

Economic Redevelopment, and Reauthorization Act of 2017. This

legislation includes matters that fall within the Rule X

jurisdiction of the Committee on Transportation and

Infrastructure.

I recognize and appreciate your desire to bring this

legislation before the House of Representatives in an

expeditious manner, and accordingly, the Committee on

Transportation and Infrastructure will forego action on the

bill. However, this is conditional on our mutual

understanding that foregoing consideration of the bill does

not prejudice the Committee with respect to the appointment

of conferees or to any future jurisdictional claim over the

subject matters contained in the bill or similar legislation

that fall within the Committee's Rule X jurisdiction.

Further, this is conditional on our understanding that

mutually agreed upon changes to the legislation will be

incorporated into the bill prior to floor consideration.

Lastly, should a conference on the bill be necessary, I

request your support for the appointment of conferees from

the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure during any

House-Senate conference convened on this or related

legislation.

I would ask that a copy of this letter and your response

acknowledging our jurisdictional interest as well as the

mutually agreed upon changes to be incorporated into the bill

be included in the Congressional Record during consideration

of the measure on the House floor, to memorialize our

understanding.

I look forward to working with the Committee on Energy and

Commerce as the bill moves through the legislative process.

Sincerely,

Bill Shuster,

Chairman.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Walden), the chairman of the full committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. McKinley), the author of this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Walberg).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Lance), a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Katko), a cosponsor of the legislation and also a major leader on the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Gibbs), who is a member of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Faso), a member of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee.

(Mr. FASO asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, the bill we are voting on today makes several important changes to the brownfields law that will result in more contaminated sites being cleaned up.

The changes we are making also bring more parties into the process by clarifying their eligibility to receive funding under the brownfields program, including making nonprofit entities eligible to receive all forms of brownfields funding.

Unfortunately, the Environmental Protection Agency provided us technical assistance a week ago, telling us that the definition we used for how to delineate which nonprofit organizations should be included was too limited, and would exclude a number of important organizations that the EPA currently provides funding to through the brownfields program, including the Association of State and Territorial Solid Waste Management Officials, commonly known as ASTSWMO, and other entities organized under section 501(c)(6) of the Internal Revenue Code that are involved in the cleanup of brownfields sites around the country.

We need to address this issue as this process moves forward. We need to figure out how to ensure that these organizations do not lose the funding that they rely on to make significant contributions to the brownfields program.

Does the gentleman agree?

I thank the gentleman for his courtesies.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Poliquin).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I am just going to sum up, too, with thanking my ranking member of the full committee, Mr. Pallone; obviously, my ranking member on the subcommittee, Mr. Tonko; the associated staffs on both that had been mentioned numerous times. They did a lot of work in this process. It was good to get to know the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee a little bit better, and we look forward to working with them more.

I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield the time to the gentleman. They tell me what to do sometimes, also, even on that side of the

aisle; so, happy to yield. I just want to thank them.

Mr. Speaker, everybody has examples of brownfields in their district throughout the State. They are all pretty good stories about returning them to productive use.

I have one produced by the EPA from Danville, Illinois. There are eight sites. We can go through them.

The point is, here is a successful program that we have authorized. Our appropriators helped appropriate money that really leverages a little bit of Federal dollars with private or local community dollars to bring these locations back to productive use. It is a good effort.

Mr. Speaker, we have got other things on the horizon to work together on. I enjoyed the opportunity to do that.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleagues, I ask them to vote yes on the bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, this legislation is quite simply a giveaway of mining rights on roughly 5,000 acres of public lands right next to the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness in northern Minnesota to a Chilean mining conglomerate so that it can develop a copper mine that will, in all likelihood, leach toxic acid waste into the Boundary Waters for decades, if not centuries, to come. In order to do this, this bill overrides multiple laws that are in place to allow priceless natural places to be protected and it vetoes the scientific conclusions of the U.S. Forest Service.

Last year, the Forest Service recommended that two undeveloped 50- year-old mining leases in Minnesota's Superior National Forest be allowed to expire, stating that the development of a copper mine on these leases could lead to potentially extreme contamination of the Boundary Waters wilderness from acid mine drainage and leached materials.

The Boundary Waters isn't just a pristine and unique wilderness, it is also an economic engine for northern Minnesota. Over 1,000 pristine lakes, 1,200 miles of streams, and 2,000 campsites attract more than 150,000 visitors each year to canoe, kayak, fish, bird watch, ski, and simply explore and enjoy the natural beauty and peacefulness that is unlike anywhere else in the United States. These visitors bring in tens of millions of dollars annually, supporting thousands of local jobs.

The ecological and economic value of the Boundary Waters led the Forest Service to conclude: `` . . . development of a regionally untested copper-nickel sulfide-ore mine within the same watershed as the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness might cause serious and irreplaceable harm to this unique, iconic, and irreplaceable wilderness area.''

As a result, the leases were not renewed, and the Forest Service began a study to look at whether to protect the area adjacent to the Boundary Waters from mining for the next 20 years. This 2-year study is open. It is a public process designed to gather scientific information and local views on the potential impacts of copper mining, which is immediately adjacent to the Boundary Waters, and it is supported by an overwhelming majority--79 percent--of the voters in Minnesota.

Even this administration here in Washington has said that it intends to allow the study to run its course before making any decisions, but this legislation would make that study meaningless. It would reinstate the leases and make it almost impossible for them to expire. It would block the Forest Service from acting on its study no matter what it found and how the people in the region feel, and it would make it impossible for the President of the United States to protect this area using the Antiquities Act, all so a Chilean mining company can move forward with a dangerous mine next to one of our most pristine and special natural places.

Mr. Chairman, our public lands belong to all Americans, not simply to wealthy mining companies with the connections and the cash to try to overturn decisions they don't like through legislation. The company that we are talking about is challenging this decision to not renew their leases in court. That is the appropriate venue for that debate, not here in the Halls of Congress. We shouldn't rewrite the law to make sure that they get their way.

Even if the company wins the case, we should not be tying the Federal Government's hands to make sure that this mine gets developed, no matter what, instead of listening to the science. That is the wrong thing to do for any project like this, let alone one that sits right next to a unique and delicate wilderness like the Boundary Waters.

This bill is a blatant attempt to reward an individual foreign company at the expense of the American people and the American landscape, and I urge my colleagues to reject this legislation.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 8 minutes to the gentlewoman from Minnesota (Ms. McCollum).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Paulsen).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Ellison).

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman from Minnesota.

Mr. Speaker, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, we have heard a lot about jobs. Jobs, this is going to be great job creator, this mine. I just want to highlight, though, some of the very inaccurate numbers that have been tossed around today.

The sponsor of the bill earlier today said that 10,000 jobs would be created. The majority's legislative analysis says that the bill will create 17,000 jobs, but that is not correct. That is not correct. Even the company behind the project doesn't claim that many jobs.

In their May 2017 fact sheet, and this is the fact sheet for Twin Metals of Minnesota, they report that once operational, they will directly employ 650 people and ``will create an estimated 1,300 spinoff jobs in other industries.'' That is 1,950 jobs. That is good, but that is a long way and a far cry from 10,000 or 17,000 jobs.

Let's also look at the down side. An economic study of the tourism industry in the region has shown that putting in a copper mine could result in the loss of nearly 5,000 direct jobs and up to 22,000 indirect jobs.

That is a terrible tradeoff, and that means that this mine is potentially a net job destroyer, not a creator.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to protect jobs and to oppose H.R. 3905.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to make sure that my friends on the other side are aware of a simple fact, and that fact is very important in this debate: water flows downhill.

They make a big deal about the fact that no mining would take place in the Boundary Waters, but how happy would you be if someone dumped millions of gallons of toxic waste just uphill from your home and said not to worry because they didn't dump anything in your house?

These leases that we are talking about are right on the border of the Boundary Waters wilderness area. Take a look at this map. These red parts are the leases we are talking about. There is no gap. There is no buffer. Any acid mine waste from these leases will flow right into the Boundary Waters. There is no protection in this bill for the Boundary Waters. There is only terrible risk.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to highlight the overwhelming local opposition to a copper-sulfide mine right next to the Boundary Waters.

A poll done earlier this year found that 59 percent of Minnesotans oppose copper-sulfide mining near the Boundary Waters. Seventy-nine percent support the existing 2-year study that the Forest Service is doing on this type of mining. Included in that 79 percent, 67 percent of Republicans support the existing 2-year study that the Forest Service is doing. We are not talking about a bunch of antimining activists. This is not them.

The same poll found that, overall, Minnesotans support copper-sulfide mining in the State 43 percent to 33 percent. The people in the State of Minnesota know that there are right places to have these kinds of mines and there are wrong places to have these kinds of mines. The Boundary Waters are the wrong place. The people of Minnesota know it, the Forest Service knows it, and I hope that the Congress realizes it and knows it, too.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Minnesota (Ms. McCollum).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I would like the chairman to answer a question. That pit that the gentleman just showed us, is that a taconite pit or is that a sulfide pit in Minnesota?

I yield to the gentleman from Arizona.

We are not talking about taconite. We are talking about sulfide.

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I would like to talk about that because of what type of mine this is. As has been pointed out, northern Minnesota has had a long history of mining, but the mine that we are talking about here is not like any other mine in the State. This is a copper-sulfide mine. These types of mines are notorious for generating acid mine drainage.

As the Forest Service puts it: These mines are known worldwide for producing acid mine drainage that requires continuous management and perpetual water treatment.

Even in the absence of a major spill, having this acidic waste chronically leaking into the environment will create a problem that will last for generations and may never be fixed.

A study of 14 similar copper mines found that all but one had significant water quality impacts due to failures of the water collection and treatment systems from keeping the contamination from seeping out.

As was pointed out by the opposition, the majority, most of these mines are in dry areas of the American Southwest where there is far less water that needs to be treated than in a very wet environment like northern Minnesota.

The Forest Service also describes the specific threat that the Boundary Waters are under. They point out that there is ``a direct flow of water from these leases to the Boundary Waters, and that there is a high likelihood of acid mine drainage from these ores, and that the drainage from the mine is likely to be highly acidic.''

Mr. Speaker, once the problem starts, it is nearly impossible to make it stop. This is a perfect storm for destroying the Boundary Waters, and it is not worth the risk.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, I am here to say that there are many mines in the State of Minnesota that I do support, that are ecologically--that are protected, but this is a different mine. We are only talking about one type of mine.

Mr. Speaker, I think that we have made a very strong case that economically this does not make sense. It could potentially destroy the tourist industry. What makes Minnesota unique is the wilderness areas, the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness. There is a tremendous risk because there has never been this type of mining in Minnesota before.

As was pointed out by the Forest Service, there is a very high risk of

acidic discharge, and that the mine will drain into the Boundary Waters. This is the wrong project at this time, and I urge a ``no'' vote.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.