Expressing support for the recognition of March 10, 2023, as "Abortion Provider Appreciation Day".

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

Mr. Speaker, welcome back to the show, unlimited drilling and extinction of wildlife brought to you by the GOP, a subsidiary of Big Oil.

This week's target: The Boundary Waters in northeastern Minnesota, a pristine wilderness that is, in fact, the most visited designated wilderness area in our country. It is the most visited for a good reason. Its beautiful landscapes, crystal clear waters, and abundant wildlife make it a haven for outdoor recreation.

The Boundary Waters support a thriving outdoor recreation economy with hundreds of thousands of annual visitors and tens of thousands of jobs across northeastern Minnesota. In fact, the Boundary Waters is so popular that an overwhelming majority of Minnesota voters oppose building new mines near this federally protected wilderness.

This region and its resources, our resources, have been under threat for years and are being threatened again today.

In 1966, the Bureau of Land Management issued two mineral leases covering 5,000 acres of the Superior National Forest just outside of the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness. There was never mining on either lease, never mining, yet they were renewed in 1989 and again in 2004.

In 2012, Twin Metals Minnesota, a wholly owned subsidiary of a Chilean mining company, requested another extension of those two expired leases on Forest Service land in the Boundary Waters watershed to build a sulfide-ore copper mine.

In 2016, after an extensive environmental review process, which included public input and scientific analysis, the Forest Service concluded sulfide-ore copper mining, which is significantly different from the taconite mining that the region is used to, could result in ``extreme'' and ``serious and irreparable harm'' in the watershed of this wilderness area.

The watershed there flows north, meaning it would flow past the mine and into our protected wilderness. The Forest Service found that any spills, leaks, or pollution would be all but impossible to contain, putting the entire ecosystem and watershed at risk.

This should have been the answer: ``No'' to this sulfide-ore copper mine because that is what the scientists say, that is what the community wants, and that is what the law means, that a wilderness area is protected from severe harm. However, foreign companies wanting to mine and the politicians who answer to them were too enticed.

As soon as President Trump came into office, his administration ignored the science and community input and reinstated Twin Metals' leases.

The Department of the Interior solicitor under the current administration found that President Trump improperly renewed those leases. Thankfully, after another thorough review and rounds of community input and Tribal consultation, the Biden administration finalized 20-year protections for 225,000 acres around the wilderness area, making that area ineligible for mining, but this bill seeks to undo all of that.

This bill would mandate the withdrawal be overturned and the leases be reinstated with no judicial review allowed. This means that it will not matter if the water and air become poisoned and the surrounding Tribes and communities become severely ill. No one will be able to take those concerns to a judge and ask that they revisit the decision to mine the Boundary Waters.

Mr. Speaker, you will hear today that Americans have to choose between mining for minerals to secure our clean energy future over protecting the health of our families and vulnerable ecosystems. That is simply not the case.

We all understand the need for mining as part of our clean energy future, but America is already a top producer of copper and is already invested in a circular economy with our trusted trading partners for cobalt and nickel.

If we are going to build a sustainable, enduring, modern mining industry, then we have to do that while respecting sound science and community input, including Tribal consultation.

Mr. Speaker, I deeply respect the workers who mine and their families and the way that that tradition has contributed to the backbone of industrial America, but they live and work in locations where mining is appropriate and where there is minimal to no harm to the environment or human health. Unfortunately, this bill disregards all of that and seeks to destroy now and deal with the ramifications not later but not at all.

Mr. Speaker, I oppose this legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Minnesota (Ms. McCollum).

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

Mr. Speaker, we are hearing a lot about America and America's mineral supplies, but what we are not hearing about is the truth about Antofagasta, the Chilean mining company that is pursuing these leases. In Antofagasta's mines in South America, the minerals are shipped to China for refining and smelting and then sold on the global market.

I have seen no evidence because there is no evidence that Antofagasta won't do the exact same thing here: extracting our publicly owned minerals from pristine wilderness, paying no royalty for them, and then selling them abroad, leaving Americans with all the mess and no benefit.

So much for America first.

I also want to talk about the environmental effects of this mining. Sulfide-ore copper mining is what we are talking about--not iron mining, not taconite iron mining--sulfide-ore copper mining. That is what is being proposed outside of the Boundary Waters Wilderness Area, and that sulfide-ore copper mining poses a unique threat. It is different than taconite iron ore mining.

What happens in sulfide-ore copper mining is the ore that is extracted contains metals that are bound together with sulfur. When exposed to air and water, this sulfide-bearing ore discharges acid mine drainage into the ground and surface water. The waste rocks and the tailings from this mine would generate acid mine drainage for hundreds of years, at least.

Just so everyone knows, these facts aren't hyperbole. This is available information, studied and reported by scientists, with some who have published their findings on the dangers of sulfide-ore copper mining at universities, including the University of Minnesota.

Proponents of this mine say that their tailing facilities would be safe from leakage. We hear that every time about every environmental extraction proposal. However, the facts are clear here. The Forest Service found that 100 percent of sulfide-ore copper mines in the United States experienced pipeline spills or accidental releases.

It is a near certainty that that is what will happen, that we will have a pipeline spill, we will have an accidental release. We will have irreparable, severe environmental damage if this sulfide-ore copper mine is allowed to occur on this Forest Service land. It would infect and pollute the Boundary Waters, and we would be unable to reclaim our beautiful, pristine wilderness.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I just heard that Republicans now support a clean energy transition. I hope we can clip that because that is wonderful, wonderful news.

Let me be the first to welcome the majority to the clean energy transition club, where we are going to support investments for States, municipalities, and Tribal governments to purchase clean energy technology, like solar panels, electric vehicle charging infrastructure, wind turbines, all of which, until today apparently, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle opposed.

As the newest members of the clean energy transition club, let me give my colleagues on the other side of the aisle a brief lesson on where the U.S. stands with mineral production and trade, which is needed for the construction of clean energy technology, as my colleagues have correctly pointed out.

First, the United States is among the top five producers of copper in the world and, according to the U.S. Geological Survey, has a low disruption potential.

Second, while we do not, in the United States, have a significant amount of nickel or cobalt, we do have close trading relationships with our allies who do. Those allies are Canada--which is a leading supplier of nickel--Norway, Japan, and Finland.

However, let's talk about what the Twin Metals mine would produce. If this project by this Chilean-owned mining company was allowed to go forward, mine, and pollute our wilderness, ship the ore and the jobs to China, and sell it anywhere in the world, what would it complete? Even if they were to sell all of it to us--and there is no guarantee they would choose to sell any of it here in the United States--it would produce about 1.5 percent of cobalt, about 2.3 percent of copper, about 3.6 percent of nickel, according to 2019 annual consumption, the most recent figures I could find.

I emphasize there is no guarantee that the minerals produced at this proposed Twin Metals mine would wind up back here in the United States, but we are absolutely guaranteed to end up with pollution, contamination, and the destruction of beloved wilderness lands. That is what is at stake here.

I also emphasize that the bill, H.R. 3195, would undo the withdrawal of 225,000 acres in the Superior National Forest. Removing these lands from the protection from mining would violate the will of indigenous communities.

In this case, the Boundary Waters and Superior National Forest are traditionally known as the Anishinaabe land. The Ojibwe, or Chippewa people, have occupied this area since 1000 C.E.

The region's interconnected waterways have been used as critical trade routes for thousands of years. By the 1830s, the United States Government began forcibly removing indigenous people from their lands in the upper Midwest. In exchange for millions of acres of land, the government promised to pay the Ojibwe people $35,000 each year for 20 years, and the Tribes were also granted the right to hunt, fish, and gather on those ceded lands.

In 1848, copper was discovered along the north shore of Lake Superior. Mining companies pressured the government to open the land to mining, which required another land cession, including what would become the Boundary Waters Wilderness Area.

The Tribes had to sue. In 1985 and 1989, they won confirmation of the Tribe's right to hunt, fish, and gather on those ceded lands, something that had been previously denied.

To further protect these treaty rights, the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe supported the administration's withdrawal, and they support my colleague Representative McCollum's bill to permanently protect this region from mining.

Because of their support for permanent protections, the Tribe has faced boycotts from mining-aligned interest groups, who have boycotted their casinos, event venues, and restaurants. That is a ridiculous and cruel response to a Tribe that is simply trying to protect its ancestral lands and waters from toxic pollution.

To add insult to injury, this bill restricts judicial review of the reinstatement of leases, a blatant attack on treaty rights. The U.S. Government deciding on permits without allowing the Tribes to address their concerns in court is an egregious overreach of legislation in general, but also of particular concern to Tribal governments, who would be directly affected but unable to address their concerns in the only legal means that they currently have.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter from the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe in support of permanent protection of their Boundary Waters.

The Minnesota Chippewa Tribe,

January 31, 2020.

Hon. Raul Grijalva,

Longworth House Office Building,

Washington, DC.

Hon. Betty McCollum,

Rayburn House Office Building,

Washington, DC.

Hon. Alan Lowenthal,

Cannon House Office Building,

Washington, DC.

Dear Representatives Grijalva, McCollum, and Lowenthal: The

Minnesota Chippewa Tribe is a federally recognized Indian

tribe that is comprised of the following six Bands' Bois

Forte; Fond du Lac; Grand Portage; Leech Lake; Mille Lacs;

and White Earth. The Minnesota Chippewa Tribe has

approximately 41,000 members. The duly elected governing body

of the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe is the Tribal Executive

Committee which is comprised of the Chairpersons and

Secretary/Treasurers from the six constituent Bands.

The United States has government-to-government

relationships with both the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe and each

of the six Bands of the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe. Three MCT

Bands, Fond Du Lac. Grand Portage and Bois Forte, retain

hunting, fishing, and other usufructuarv rights that extend

throughout the entire northeast portion of the state of

Minnesota under the 1854 Treaty of LaPointe (the ``Ceded

Territory''). In the Ceded Territory, all the Bands have a

legal interest in protecting natural resources and all

federal agencies share in the federal government's trust

responsibility to the Bands to maintain those treaty

resources.

The Minnesota Chippewa Tribe is concerned with the prospect

of a series of sulfide-ore mines being developed in the

headwaters of the Boundary Waters Canoe Area (``BWCA'')

watershed. The BWCA watershed is located on the Minnesota/

Ontario border and is entirely within the 1854 Ceded

Territory. The BWCA watershed is comprised of a vast area of

pristine interconnected waterways that have been used by the

Chippewa for centuries. Low buffering capacity of water and

soil and the interconnection of lakes and streams, make the

BWCA watershed particularly vulnerable to the impacts of

mining.

We are very supportive of HR5598, the Boundary Waters

Wilderness Protection and Pollution Prevention Act. This bill

would permanently withdraw federal minerals from potential

leasing for sulfide-ore copper mining in the Rainy River

Headwaters, which directly drain into the BWCAW. As former US

Forest Service Chief Tom Tidwell stated, sulfide-ore copper

mining has the potential to permanently destroy the pure

waters and intact forests in the area of the proposed Twin

Metals mine. The fish in adjacent waters--Birch Lake, the

South Kawishiwi River, and downstream water bodies--are

subject to consumption advisories designated by the Minnesota

Department of Health because of mercury in their flesh.

Sulfide-ore copper mining will increase the amount of mercury

in fish, a toxin of great concern to our members who depend

on wild caught fish for their sustenance. Wild rice and

terrestrial species will also be at risk, as pollution and

habitat destruction will have wide reaching impacts.

We are currently blessed with a healthy environment, a

healthy economy, and a public resource that offers sustenance

and solace. All of this is at risk if any mining proposal in

the watershed moves forward. It is unacceptable to trade this

precious landscape and our way of life to enrich foreign

mining companies that will leave a legacy of degradation that

will last forever. We encourage you, in the strongest terms,

to move this legislation forward. We need this protection

before it is too late, and the future of this area is now in

your hands.

Sincerely,

Catherine J. Chavers,

President.

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

I will be talking about what is good for our economy. There have been studies showing that what is best for the economy, including this area, is to continue to protect these public lands.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record an abstract on a study by James Stock and Jacob Bradt, Harvard economists, outlining the regional economic impacts of two scenarios, the first being the now-finalized withdrawal, and the second being if this mine is allowed to proceed.

Mr. Speaker, the link to the full study can be found here: https:// scholar.harvard.edu/files/stock/files/snf_withdrawal_stock-bradt_ updated_june_2019.pdf

Analysis of Proposed 20-Year Mineral Leasing Withdrawal in Superior

National Forest

(By James H. Stock, Department of Economics and Harvard Kennedy School,

Harvard University)

(By Jacob T. Bradt, Harvard Kennedy School, Harvard University, June

24, 2019)

Abstract

The Rainy River Watershed on the Superior National Forest

is home to the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness (BWCAW).

It also contains deposits of copper, nickel, and trace

metals, and copper-nickel mining has been proposed adjacent

to and upstream of the BWCAW. This sets up a potential

tradeoff between economic benefits from mining and concerns

about negative economic consequences of that mining on the

local recreational and amenity-based economy. Existing

studies of mining in the Superior National Forest focus on

static effects on a single industry (e.g. mining) at some

unspecified point over a medium-run horizon. We draw on these

studies and the economics literature to provide a unified

analysis of the effect of the proposed mining development on

income and employment over time. Our results suggest that the

proposed development would lead to a boom-bust cycle that is

typical of resource extraction economies, exacerbated by the

likely negative effect on the recreation industry.

Keywords: Economic impact analysis, resource extraction,

recreation economy, mining economy

Declaration of interest: None.

Mr. Speaker, if mining were permitted, these economists find that there would be an initial but temporary net growth in employment.

But over time, any economic benefits of mining would be outweighed by the negative impacts of mining on the existing recreational industry and on folks moving to this area.

Under any scenario where sulfide-ore copper mining is allowed, it leads to a boom-and-bust cycle where the local economy is left worse off than before.

Look, these leases sat for decades and decades with no mining used. Now, when it is economically convenient, they want to mine. That illustrates that this is a boom-bust economy and what will be destroyed, though, is of enduring, lasting, economic value.

By protecting this region and the land this will help preserve and grow the 22,000 jobs and $1.4 billion in annual visitor spending, including its small businesses, which are essential for a strong and robust diversified economy.

The other choice, the alternative, is to allow a Chilean mining company to pollute our land, take our minerals without paying a royalty, ship them overseas to China, smelt them, and sell them on the global market, including to our competitors.

What is best for our American economy is to protect the strong recreational economy we have now in this area and continue to protect these public lands.

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

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a 2022 poll citing a 2-1 margin of Minnesotans opposing sulfide-ore copper mining on the edge of the Boundary Waters.

[From Impact Research, May 10, 2022]

Minnesotans Support Permanent Protections for the Boundary Waters From

the Risks of Sulfide-Ore Copper Mining

(By: Zac McCrary, Luke Martin)

Minnesotans are deeply connected to the Boundary Waters

Canoe Area Wilderness and it remains a uniquely popular and

loved resource in an age of polarization. Since 2015, polling

has consistently shown that due to this deep connection,

voters in Minnesota are strongly opposed to sulfide-ore

copper mining on the edge of the Boundary Waters and in its

watershed. Voters support taconite mining and sulfide-ore

copper mining in areas of the state that don't pose a risk to

the pristine Boundary Waters. Voters readily reject mining

industry arguments that the watershed of the Boundary Waters

is specifically needed to fulfill the nation's critical

mineral needs. As a result, Minnesotans support several

legislative and administrative actions that would increase

protections for the Boundary Waters, including permanent

protection.

The Boundary Waters is uniquely popular and well-regarded

in Minnesota. Favorability for the Boundary Waters Canoe Area

Wilderness is near unanimous across the state with 86 percent

statewide who are favorable, including 70 percent who are

very favorable. More than 2-in-3 Minnesotans (67 percent) say

they have personally been to the Boundary Waters including 9

percent who visit every year.

By a 2-1 margin, Minnesotans oppose sulfide-ore copper

mining on the edge of the Boundary Waters (60 percent oppose

vs. 31 percent support). A strong majority of voters have

been consistently opposed to sulfide-ore copper mining in the

watershed of the Boundary Waters since pollsters began asking

this question in 2015. Even among the 31 percent who would

currently support sulfide-ore copper mining on the edge of

the Boundary Waters, their support is soft--just 12 percent

strongly support it, and nearly 2-in-3 supporters (63

percent) say their support is contingent on an environmental

analysis that finds that sulfide-ore copper mining in the

Boundary Water's watershed could be done without risk to the

Boundary Waters.

Minnesotans overwhelmingly support a broad array of

legislative and administrative actions to protect the

Boundary Waters from sulfide-ore copper mining, including

legislation to permanently protect the Boundary Waters:

Minnesotans support legislation to permanently protect the

Boundary Waters from the risks associated with sulfide-ore

copper mining by a 35-point margin (63 percent support vs 28

percent oppose). Permanent protections are also a winning

issue with undecided voters (58 percent support),

Independents who support them by a 7-point margin, and in the

new 8th Congressional District (56 percent support). After

hearing arguments from both sides of the issue, support for

permanent protections increases to 67 percent among all

likely Minnesota voters.

By a 19-point margin (45 percent support vs 26 percent

oppose), Minnesotans agree that the state should update its

nonferrous mining rules have not been updated in 30 years,

and currently allow for levels of pollution that would

contaminate the Boundary Waters. Updating the state's rules

would allow for the application of modern science to protect

the Boundary Waters.

Minnesota voters reject the false choice between mining in

the watershed of the Boundary Waters for critical minerals

needed for national security or clean energy purposes and

protecting the Boundary Waters. In testing responses to

statements about mining for critical minerals in the

watershed of the Boundary Waters for national security or a

green economy, voters agree by double-digit margins that we

don't have to choose between critical minerals and protecting

the Boundary Waters. By working with our allies such as

Canada, Norway, and Australia and increasing recycling in our

own country, we can have both critical minerals the nation

needs and preserve the legacy of the Boundary Waters.

Minnesotans are not anti-mining in general. A majority of

voters support taconite mining (61 percent) and sulfide-ore

copper mining in areas where it would not pose any danger to

the Boundary Waters or its watershed (53 percent). However,

there is overwhelming opposition to sulfide-ore copper mining

in the watershed of the Boundary Waters due to pollution and

contamination risks. Opposition to mining in the Boundary

Waters cuts through demographic, geographic, and ideological

lines, making their protection a clear political winner for

elected leaders in Minnesota.

Mr. Speaker, I also include in the Record a letter from the Wilderness Society in opposition to this legislation.

The Wilderness Society,

May 11, 2023.

Dear Chairman Pete Stauber, Ranking Member Ocasio-Cortez,

and Members of the House Natural Resources Energy and

Minerals Subcommittee:

On behalf of our more than one million members and

supporters, The Wilderness Society (TWS) writes to urge you

to oppose House Congressional Resolution 34 and the so-called

Superior National Forest Restoration Act. We respectfully

request that this letter be submitted to the hearing record.

TWS supports Public Land Order 7917, which in early 2023

withdrew 225,504 acres of public lands and minerals located

in the headwaters of the Boundary Waters in the Superior

National Forest from the federal mineral leasing program for

twenty years. House Congressional Resolution 34 and the

Superior National Forest Restoration Act would reverse the

goals of that Public Land Order.

The two pieces of legislation being heard by the

Subcommittee today represent a wholesale attack on both the

Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness's unique character and

ecological values, as well as an attack on executive agency

authority to protect our federal public lands and waters,

particularly under the Federal Land Policy and Management

Act.

Protecting the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness from

Copper Mining. The Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness in

the Superior National Forest of northeastern Minnesota is

made up of 1.1 million acres of interconnected lakes and

rivers and is located adjacent to and downstream of Voyageurs

National Park and Canada's Quetico Provincial Park. The

Boundary Waters not only provides habitat for wildlife, but

it is also a refuge for people from every state in the U.S.

who visit the Boundary Waters to fish, canoe, hike, recreate,

and enjoy its forests, tranquil lakes, trails, and more than

1,200 miles of canoe routes.

The Boundary Waters is core to the region's booming outdoor

recreation industry, which generates $913 million in revenue

and supports more than 17,000 local jobs annually. A 2019

economic study by Harvard Professor James H. Stock, Ph.D.,

former chair of Harvard's economics department, found that

protecting this watershed from copper mining would result in

1,500 to 4,600 additional jobs and $100 million to $900

million in additional income over a 20-year period in an

already thriving outdoor recreation-based economy.

In October 2021, the Biden administration announced they

were re-initiating the process for a 20-year mineral

withdrawal, reversing a misguided move by the former Trump

administration to prevent a withdrawal and advance the

destructive Twin Metals Mine. In early 2023, the Biden

administration issued an environmental analysis and decision

that found the impacts of sulfide-ore copper mining at the

headwaters of the Boundary Waters could harm the area's

abundant freshwater, deemed ``immaculate'' by the Minnesota

Pollution Control Agency. Secretary Debra Haaland then issued

Public Land Order 7917 withdrawing the area from new mining

leases and permits, protecting America's most visited

Wilderness area as well as Voyageurs National Park from toxic

sulfide-ore copper mining in its headwaters/

Mr. Speaker, lastly I include testimony in opposition to the legislation from Becky Rom, national chair of The Campaign to Save the Boundary Waters, a coalition of businesses, conservation groups, and outdoor recreation organizations.

Mr. Speaker, the link to Becky Rom's testimony can be found here: Https://docs.house.gov/meetings/II/II06/20230511/115888/ HHRG-118-II06- Wstate-RomR-20230511.pdf.

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

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to the time remaining.

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

I will start by noting that the Harvard study was, in fact, peer- reviewed. As a former professor, I am very familiar with the peer- review process. It is a reliable study, and what it shows is what is best for the economy of this region and that is to protect these public lands and waters.

Let me ask, what is the value of clean water? Water is also a valuable resource. It is also a resource in scarce supply around the country.

If this bill moves forward, it will allow for the irreversible pollution of this pristine and incredibly valuable landscape. Remember, the Forest Service concluded after scientific study that there is a virtual certainty of severe and irreparable economic harm. All 100 percent of the sulfide-ore copper mines in this country have had leakages and environmental contamination. That is what will happen here.

This will mean the decimation of local economies that depend on visitation. This is the most visited wilderness area in our country. It belongs to the people of the United States. It does not belong and should not belong to a Chilean mining company which, under our outdated mining laws, will pay no royalty at all to the American people.

If the U.S. wants to reduce our demand for copper, which is increasing, then we should invest in recycling, in reuse, in manufacturing improvements. That would create jobs domestically and not risk special places like the Boundary Waters.

If this mine proceeds, and if this water is contaminated and destroyed, there is no known remediation strategy. It cannot be undone. The U.S. Forest Service has conducted an environmental review. They have consulted with communities, they have consulted with Tribal members, and they have relied on cutting-edge science, and they have concluded that these mines should not go forward.

The science is done here. It just doesn't line up with the answer of my colleagues' donors.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, the Boundary Waters is not a bathtub. The water flows from one place into the other, and in this case the watershed flows north, meaning it would flow past the mine and into the protected wilderness.

My colleague on the other side of the aisle says there would be no mining in the Boundary Waters, but there would be waste. There would be pollution in those waters because of the watershed.

This is exactly why we should rely on the scientific process and the conclusion of the Forest Service that this mining would cause severe and irreparable harm. I have heard no rebuttal from the other side of the aisle to the fact that 100 percent of every sulfide-ore copper mine in our country has had leakages and environmental harm.

Mr. Speaker, we have been having hearings, markups, and floor votes on this issue for years. Administrations have canceled and reinstated these leases, and then canceled them again.

The Biden administration, unlike the previous administration, took the time and effort to do the process right. They came to the considered decision, based on science, to cancel the wrongly reinstated leases and to protect the Boundary Waters region for the next 20 years.

That decision is not just based on sound science. It also is based on community input, robust Tribal consultation, and at the end of the day on the best interests of the American people because that is who these public lands belong to. That is who should benefit from these public lands.

However, a foreign company and politicians who bend to their interests don't like it. As I have made clear in this Congress, their priority is not putting science first or protecting communities. Their priority is putting corporate polluters' profits above all else by any means necessary.

My Republican colleagues say that the toxic mining industry needs certainty. Well, this is certainty. The Boundary Waters watershed is off limits.

I welcome the opportunity to work across the aisle to reform the mining law; for example, to require royalty payments. That way we can build a sustainable future for the industry. Part of that conversation--support of mining--needs to be recognition that some places are too special and too risky, and some types of mining are too risky to do.

At the end of the day, what would you choose: your child's health, our lands, wilderness, endangered species, tourism jobs, our local economy, or would you choose a foreign company who wants to mine in a location that would hurt the environment, our economy, and our health? I know what I would choose.

Mr. Speaker, I urge opposition to this bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1173, I call up the bill (H.R. 3195) to rescind Public Land Order 7917, to reinstate mineral leases and permits in the Superior National Forest, to ensure timely review of Mine Plans of Operations, 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 insert extraneous material on H.R. 3195.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 3195, the Superior National Forest Restoration Act of 2024.

The district I am proud to represent, Minnesota's Eighth Congressional District, is blessed with an abundance of mineral wealth that would allow America to lead in the 21st century.

We are home to the Duluth Complex, one of the largest undeveloped mineral deposits in the world, which includes an estimated 8 billion tons of copper, nickel, cobalt, and other platinum group metals. In fact, this deposit is the world's second largest copper deposit, with 34 percent of the United States' total reserves and the world's third largest nickel deposit with 95 percent of United States' total reserves.

These minerals are experiencing large upswings in demand due to their use in battery storage, electric vehicles, and other rapidly expanding sectors. Domestic production of these minerals is critical to our national security and our supply chain security.

The deposits in northern Minnesota could provide enough copper for over 70 million electric vehicles and nickel for 3.5 million battery packs.

The Duluth Complex and its abundant resources lies under the Superior National Forest and throughout the iron range. The Superior National Forest is a working industrial forest where timber harvesting and mining are desirable activities.

Regrettably, in January of 2022, the Biden administration caved to radical antijobs, antimining activists by canceling two-decade-old mineral leases held by Twin Metals Minnesota in the Superior National Forest.

At the same time, the Biden administration began the withdrawal process on nearly a quarter million acres of land in the region. The finalized withdrawal of 225,504 acres went into effect in January of 2023 and prohibits the extraction of any mineral, including copper, nickel, cobalt, platinum, and iron ore for the next 20 years.

Northern Minnesota, home to the historic iron range, has been mining iron ore, a critical component in steelmaking, for over 140 years. This is the iron ore that provided the military might to the United States and our Allies to fight and win World War II. The iron ore mined in the region accounts for over 80 percent of America's domestically produced steel. Now, the Biden

administration even wants to restrict iron ore mining in northern Minnesota. They have gone too far, Mr. Chair.

These two actions taken by the Biden administration are in immediate opposition to its stated campaign goals to increase domestic mining to meet rising global mineral demand. They are disregarding years of environmental review, a pending mine plan of operation, and an abundance of support from union workers, local residents, schools, builders, and miners.

In doing this, President Biden has made his real position on mining known. He would rather rely on foreign adversaries like Communist China instead of union workers who stand ready to deliver Minnesota's mineral wealth under the strongest environmental and labor standards in the world.

This is morally irresponsible, as China is the world's top polluter and relies on child slave labor in their mines in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. That is a fact. They use child slave labor.

Imagine the national security crisis we would face should China suddenly decide to withhold these resources.

If the Biden administration's actions are allowed to stand, their direct opposition to the domestic mining industry will not only make our Nation less safe, but it will also cripple a sector that provides incredible economic benefit to northern Minnesota.

The national importance of the Duluth Complex is only matched by its significance to our local community. Twin Metals signed a project labor agreement with the local Iron Range Building and Construction Trades association, guaranteeing local union jobs during the mine's construction. The economic benefits would be felt throughout our State as mineral development provides funding to every single school district in Minnesota through the permanent school trust fund.

The Superior National Forest Restoration Act would revitalize an essential pillar of northern Minnesota's economy, provide for the production of critical minerals, secure our supply chain, strengthen our national security, and bolster the entire domestic mining industry.

Mr. Speaker, I urge all my colleagues to join me in support of H.R. 3195, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I will just share with you that Congressman James Oberstar, a Democrat for 36 years for Minnesota's Eighth Congressional District, supports mining and timber harvesting. In fact, in 1978, when the wilderness legislation was enacted, he didn't originally support it, but he said if you are going to do it, then do not take away our opportunity to mine outside the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness and outside the buffer zone. He was right then because he knew that we would be here today.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Gimenez), my good friend.

Mr. Speaker, just to underscore this, when the Under Secretaries of Defense and Energy were asked what it would do to the United States if China stops selling us their critical minerals today, they said that it would be devastating and dangerous.

We cannot allow China to continue to dominate the critical minerals space when we have this opportunity right here.

By the way, Mr. Speaker, I live, work, and play in northern Minnesota. As I said, this is the district that I am privileged to represent. I know clean water. Do you know why, Mr. Speaker? It is because the cleanest water is in the heart of mining country in the great State of Minnesota.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Minnesota (Mrs. Fischbach), my good friend.

Mr. Speaker, just so my colleagues understand, in the United States, we have the strongest environmental labor standards. Any mine that mines in Minnesota or other States must follow those standards.

Additionally, I will say, for Twin Metals in particular, the mine's unique underground construction, as well as the mine's planned use of ``dry stack tailings'' means there is no potential for acid rock drainage, and dry stack tailings was recommended for this mine plan of operation.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Tiffany).

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

Mr. Speaker, I remind my friends on the other side of the aisle that the United States imports 46 percent of the copper we consume every year from foreign nations ourselves. The first step to reshoring and securing our mineral supply chain must be to allow and support domestic mining. H.R. 3195 does just that.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Wyoming (Ms. Hageman), my good friend.

Mr. Speaker, the gentlewoman from California is right. The United States does produce a lot of copper, but it uses even more. In 2016, the United States was only 29 percent import reliant on copper. Eight years later that number has risen to 46 percent.

This trend cannot continue. We must support our new domestic mines to meet our own demand.

Mr. Speaker, I will also say that my colleague just referenced a Harvard study that was not peer-reviewed.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Collins).

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from California just mentioned temporary jobs.

When we first started mining iron ore 145 years ago, the American Rockefeller family thought they were going to be just temporary jobs as well.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Bergman).

Mr. Speaker, first off, they have never completed an environmental review. I will be very clear: There will never be mining in the Boundary Waters or the buffer zone around it. That was decided in 1978. This bill will not circumvent or shortchange environmental review in any way. We are not requiring any permits or mine plants be approved. We are simply requiring that they go through the review process the way any other project would move forward.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Emmer), the majority whip.

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

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

Mr. Chair, I want to reiterate the fact to the American people, there will be no mining in the Boundary Waters, and there will be no mining in the buffer zone around the Boundary Waters. That was settled in 1978.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Westerman), the Chair of the full Natural Resources Committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time and am prepared to close. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I yield myself the balance of my time to close.

The Biden administration's mining policy is: anywhere but America, any worker but the American worker.

The Republicans refuse to allow child slave labor to happen. We refuse to allow this great country to purchase minerals mined by child slave labor in Congo. We will not turn a blind eye to the atrocities and the slave labor happening in Congo where this administration wants to purchase its minerals.

Mr. Speaker, I again urge my colleagues to support H.R. 3195. The bottom line is you can't be a proponent of national security, a proponent of reducing global emissions, and a proponent of fair labor, and yet be against domestic mining at the same time.

Congress voted to spend billions of dollars on building out transmission and increasing renewable energy development, all of which require enormous amounts of copper, nickel, cobalt, and other minerals that can be sourced right here in the United States of America in my home State of Minnesota.

Issuing directives to pursue renewable energy development while at the same time denying access to the minerals needed to domestically manufacture the products simply does not make sense.

The International Energy Agency estimates that achieving net zero by 2050 would require six times more mines than are currently operating today. While the U.S. is blessed with abundant mineral resources within our borders, domestic, primary mine production of critical minerals-- those defined by USGS as essential for our economic and national security--decreased by almost 25 percent from 2022 to 2023, forcing the U.S. to look elsewhere to source these materials.

We cannot totally rely on our allies to access these vital resources. China currently dominates global production for over half the materials on the critical minerals list. Biden's mining policy of anywhere but America, any worker but American must be stopped.

We can mine these minerals domestically under the best labor and environmental standards in the world. We know this all too well in northern Minnesota, where mining is our past, our present, and our future. If we get the politics out of the way, our mining future will be bright. Minnesotans know how to do it.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record letters of support for this bill from the National Mining Association, Jobs for Minnesotans, Mining Minnesota, Up North Jobs, Range Association of Municipalities and Schools. I also include the project labor agreement between Twin Metals Minnesota and Iron Range Building and Construction Trades Council.

Washington, DC, April 29, 2024.

Hon. Mike Johnson,

Speaker, House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Hon. Hakeem Jeffries,

Democratic Leader, House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Dear Speaker Johnson and Minority Leader Jeffries: On

behalf of the National Mining Association (NMA), I am writing

to express our strong support for the Superior National

Forest Restoration Act (H.R. 3195). Ensuring access to our

federal lands for responsible mineral exploration and

development is critical to securing the essential materials

necessary for nearly every sector of our economy.

Northern Minnesota is a place of tremendous natural beauty

and is also blessed with worldclass mineral deposits

including copper, nickel and essential metals that are vital

for U.S. economic and national security priorities. In fact,

this area contains the largest undeveloped deposits of

nickel, copper and platinum metals in the world. Despite

these abundant resources, the U.S. continues to be

increasingly reliant on foreign sources of metals and

minerals, including from geopolitical adversaries that do not

share our values when it comes to environmental, labor and

safety standards.

The Biden administration's self-sabotage of domestic

mineral supply chains through mineral withdrawals,

restrictions and duplicative permitting processes is

completely out of step with the dramatic increase in minerals

production that is needed in the coming decades to keep up

with new technologies, infrastructure and manufacturing

needs, let alone the administration's energy transition

goals. Instead of ceding our nation's mineral supply chain

security to other countries, the U.S. should utilize its

world-class environmental standards to produce

needed minerals while protecting our environment.

H.R. 3195 supports responsible mineral exploration and

development in an area specifically designated and set aside

by Congress and the U.S. Forest Service for such activities.

The administration's anti-mining actions continue a dangerous

trend of politicizing domestic mineral supply chains first

initiated in the waning days of the Obama administration.

Continuing to pursue dangerous policies that lock up federal

lands with high mineral potential will both kill future

mineral development in this region and deny the hard-working

men and women of Northern Minnesota the opportunity of high-

paying jobs--all, while eliminating significant revenues for

Minnesota's rural communities that come from these projects

in the form of taxes and royalties. These revenues support

local schools and important regional development projects.

Currently, less than half of the mineral needs of U.S.

manufacturing are met by domestically mined minerals. H.R.

3195 will help change this alarming trajectory by ensuring

access to one of our nation's important mineral deposits.

The NMA urges passage of this important legislation and

continued trust of our nation's strong environmental

regulations and system of due process to strengthen a

reliable and stable domestic mineral supply chain for the

future.

Sincerely,

Rich Nolan.

Mr. Speaker, I urge adoption of this piece of legislation, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, you probably don't know this, but Minnesota stands and represents the land of sky blue waters, so I rise to oppose this unnecessary and harmful piece of legislation.

Before I talk about the legislation directly, I want to take a minute to loop back to the discussion that is taking place on the floor about national security.

Mr. Speaker, I am the ranking member and former chair of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, and I take a back seat to no one in making sure that our industrial base and this Nation have the minerals and capability to reshore and to make things happen here at home so that we have an efficient supply chain. This piece of legislation doesn't do that.

One of the things that I want to clear up is this misnomer about how mining this copper through Antofagasta, which is a foreign-owned Chilean company, means somehow this copper magically all stays right here in the United States. It doesn't, Mr. Speaker. In fact, when this ore is mined, Antofagasta has most of its contracts shipping their mined copper to China for smelting, and then it is sold on the open market.

This is not circular where these particular minerals are going to be mined in Minnesota, let alone smelted in Minnesota or here in the United States. They will be sold on the open market.

The other thing this bill does is it talks about restoring the Superior National Forest. I served with Congressman Oberstar. I knew him well. I would say to you, Mr. Speaker, that at the time Congressman Oberstar was talking about mining and forestry, we were talking about iron ore mining. I support iron ore mining in Minnesota.

In fact, when I have introduced pieces of legislation to protect the Boundary Waters, in my legislation, I made sure that we do nothing to harm iron ore mining because that is the backbone, that is something that is mined and the steel is produced here in the United States and does go, if we want to talk about defense, back to our industrial base here.

Mr. Oberstar is not here to discuss copper sulfide-ore mining or these particular leases and what we know now about Antofagasta's mining record.

This piece of legislation would revoke key protections for a watershed that contains some of the purest and freshest water in the Nation and, in fact, in the world. This is water that when you are in a canoe, Mr. Speaker, you can dip your hand into it and drink from it and not worry about anything happening to you. It is that pure.

In fact, the Superior National Forest contains 20 percent of all the freshwater in the entire region in the U.S. National Forest System.

Being from Minnesota and having served on the committee that has the bill before us today, the Natural Resources Committee, I often hear colleagues joke that they want our water. Why? Wars will be fought over water. Water is a precious resource.

What this bill does is reinstates two mineral leases for which the Forest Service denied their consent because these mines pose an unacceptable risk to this precious preserve of clean water that we enjoy as a wilderness for not only today but will be there for future generations.

This bill would also rescind a mineral withdrawal that the Biden administration finalized last year, which prohibited mining for 20 years in the watershed of the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness. It is not permanent. It is 20 years. Maybe technology does change, but right now, these mines fail. They will fail to protect the waters.

The Federal action that was supported by a robust environmental assessment had 19 accompanying resource reports. When the Trump administration undid what the Obama administration had done in protecting this water, I was chair of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Subcommittee.

Mr. Speaker, they said they were going to do and promised they would do a study. I asked for the study repeatedly. When I finally did get the study, which was never completed, Mr. Speaker, every single page was redacted. Every single page was blank.

I have enough of a security clearance, being on the Defense Subcommittee, that they could have shown me. I could have gone in the SCIF to read it. It was blank because it was a bogus study.

This bill ignores documented scientific consensus that is proven now. This bill to support a mineral withdrawal would overturn all the public input, the overwhelming public input, in protecting this unique watershed.

To make matters worse, it also strips away the judicial review, as Representative Porter mentioned, in favor of pro-mining policies, further silencing the voices of those who want this watershed protected by stripping away their rights to challenge these actions in court.

For these reasons alone, we should not support this bill.

I want to make sure that instead of undermining a 20-year mineral withdrawal, this amendment that I will offer later in the form of an MTR would protect the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness. It would ensure that public lands and waters, not only the BWCA, but the Voyageurs National Park, will never be polluted by toxic drainage from sulfide-ore mining.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to include in the Record the text of the amendment that I will be offering.

Mr. Speaker, I hope my colleagues will support and join me in my amendment that was not allowed in committee, but as an MTR, I will offer it to substitute the language of the Boundary Waters Wilderness Protection and Pollution Prevention Act.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the Representative for yielding me the time.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this legislation today because we have a very simple question that lies before us: Is the 21st century going to be an American century or a Chinese century?

We all know the history of the 20th century. As we left the 20th century, America stood ascendant, that shining city on the hill. Now, as we go into the 21st century, the question needs to be asked again: Whose century will this be, because the Chinese seek hegemony. One of the ways in which they do it is to control the minerals that are traded around the world.

We stand here today, and this is one of the small decision points that we are going to make. It is no different than, right across from northern Minnesota, there is a natural gas plant that is being held up by the Biden administration and a few small, select group of local people to prevent a natural gas-fired plant from being built. Making one of those small decisions, are we going to be dependent on other countries because, if we are dependent, then we will not be that shining city on a hill.

I think about the goals that this administration has stated. They have talked about American manufacturing, and I hear it from both sides. We must have American manufacturing. How are we going to have American manufacturing if we don't produce some of the minerals and the metals that come out of the ground? How are we going to have American manufacturing if we don't produce some of that in America?

I hear that this administration wants to make sure that there is union labor. There is a project labor agreement that is in place to be able to build this mine. This is going to create union jobs, one of the goals of this administration.

Certainly, my colleagues have talked about electrification. We want to electrify our vehicle fleet as well as getting rid of natural gas, natural gas-fired stoves. How are we going to get there if we don't have the minerals that produce those devices that are going to be able to provide that? Remember, in every Toyota Prius, there is 60 pounds of copper. How are we going to electrify the vehicle fleet without producing minerals right here in America?

I think back to January 20, 2021, and the very first action that this administration took saying that they are going to shut down Keystone XL, and making it very clear we are going to be energy dependent once again. What immediately happened to the price of oil? It went from $60 a barrel. Within a couple of months, it was up to $100 a barrel, enriching the despot Vladimir Putin, who has used it to wage war in eastern Europe.

That is what happens when we do not utilize our natural resources, whether it is our forest resources, our mineral resources, or our oil and natural gas resources. We end up being dependent on other countries.

I hear consistently from the other side that the minority is all for mining, but then I pose the question to my colleagues: Where? Where do minority Members support new mines? It is easy to say: Well, a mine has been there for a hundred years and to be able to support it and the union jobs that oftentimes come with it, but where do Democratic Members support new mining in America?

The opposing side's witness could not answer that question at our hearing, and I still haven't heard an answer from the minority yet. Where do my colleagues support mining in America if Democrats support mining?

Twin Metals has gone through an exhaustive process, and they have been proving that they can do this. Let them finish the process here of the rigorous environmental permitting that we have, not just at the Federal level, but at the State level because, living in Minnesota's neighboring State, Wisconsin, I know how rigorous the State of Minnesota's mining regulations are.

We have a choice before us today. Are we going to allow dirty mining around the world to be able to provide our natural resources in America, or are we going to respect the health of people, which we have the best health standards of anyone in the world? We have the best safety standards. Go to Congo and see the safety standards that are there with 8-year-olds mining in Congo.

We have the highest and best environmental standards. If we want workers to be safe, if we want them to be healthy, if we want to have the highest environmental standards, then we will support American mining.

Mr. Speaker, I will just close with this: In 1960, John

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend and colleague from northern Minnesota for yielding. We share a lot of commonalities, and one is our love of the outdoors and of our national treasures.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in favor today of H.R. 3195, the Superior National Forest Restoration Act. For those of us in the North Woods of Michigan, Minnesota, and Wisconsin, mining is a core part of our history, economies, and way of life. From the long heritage of copper country in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan to the millions of tons of iron ore that come from Minnesota each year, it is a treasure.

The abundant resources in our region are now more important than ever with sources of nickel, cobalt, titanium, and now even helium being discovered and poised to play a huge role in the growth of renewable energy technologies and mineral independence.

At the same time, those of us in the Great Lakes region are fiercely protective of our forests, waters, and wilderness, which is why I am a proud supporter of programs like the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative and the North American Wetlands Conservation Act.

It is the job of the Bureau of Land Management and the Forest Service to properly balance responsible resource extraction with the protection of our natural treasures.

Instead of balance, the Biden administration pushed a 20-year ban on mining on more than 200,000 acres of land entirely outside the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness. This decision ignored a very simple truth: Environmental conservation and utilization of our natural resources are not mutually exclusive.

Projects should be approved or disapproved based on their individual merits and risks after proper environmental reviews are completed, not just banned wholesale. This abrupt cancellation also goes directly against the Biden administration's efforts to secure domestic supply lines for critical minerals that go into solar panels, batteries, and other renewable energy infrastructure.

The United States cannot lead the world in clean energy while at the same time being reliant on the minerals produced by countries with absolutely no regard for environmental standards like China and Russia.

This reliance on foreign adversaries for our domestic mineral manufacturing and energy supply lines also poses significant risk to our national security. We are blessed to have abundant natural resources within our borders, and we have the responsibility to protect the environment while we secure America's mineral and energy independence into the future.

Mr. Speaker, I strongly urge all of my colleagues to support the bill.