H.Res. 1173

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.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Minnesota for the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

America was blessed by our creator with natural beauty and an abundance of natural resources--from grazing to farmlands, to minerals, fossil fuels, solar and wind--so we could feed our families and fuel our progress.

We owe the American people, and most importantly, our children and grandchildren a duty to protect those resources so they are available for future generations and Americans are not left with public lands that have been degraded, mines that have been depleted, and profits shipped off to foreign corporations.

We owe a duty to those who love the forests and rivers in Minnesota or the rangeland in the Southwest to protect it and allow its use for recreation, grazing, and extraction.

The Natural Resources bills that Republicans have made in order with this rule fail to protect America's blessed creation for future generations. The bills would eliminate environmental protections and increase mining corporations' ability to take public lands from the American people for free.

Let me repeat that because Americans may not know that right now mining corporations--those big, profitable mining corporations--do not pay a dime in royalties when they take Americans' gold, silver, copper, or other precious minerals.

That takes me to H.R. 2925, the Mining Regulatory Clarity Act. The 1872 mining law that we operate under now is old. It needs updating. It gives away our public resources for free. In the arid West, it allows mining companies to use as much precious water as they want and doesn't require those big corporations to fully clean up after themselves.

Last week, I visited the Pecos Watershed, a vital resource for northern New Mexico communities and a river that flows to Texas. In that watershed, a foreign company had mined, polluted, and abandoned the people and the river that I visited.

We need to protect this type of land with these kinds of water resources, but H.R. 2925 would actually make it harder to protect this and other watersheds. It favors the biggest mining corporations and, even worse, favors foreign corporations.

We all know there is a long history of bad actors exploiting, misusing, and abusing their mining claims. H.R. 2925 would give away our Federal lands to these bad actors. Under the Republicans' proposal, corporations with the money could put four sticks in the ground, pay a fee, and then claim that land for mining without even proving the existence of minerals. The Republican proposal would also loosen restrictions so these corporations, even those based in countries like China or Russia, could more easily exploit American natural resources for free.

Why would Republicans work on a bipartisan basis to ban China from mining American data with TikTok but then be okay with China mining American natural resources for free?

In the Rules Committee, I introduced an amendment to prohibit our adversaries, like China, from taking our public lands and minerals. Sadly, every Republican on the Rules Committee voted against making in order these amendments to prevent foreign adversaries from accessing these valuable American resources.

I also introduced an amendment that would require mining corporations to make sure our waterways are not contaminated. Republicans blocked that, too.

Our current 150-year-old mining laws are not equipped for today's environmental challenges, but Republicans' response is to make it easier, not harder, for these greedy mining corporations to take what they want and leave their messes behind.

As if that weren't enough, this rule also makes in order what we should call the no public use on public lands act. This bill would overturn a new Bureau of Land Management rule that finally recognizes conservation and public land management as a value on par with other uses.

The BLM rule does not change their existing land management processes. BLM will continue to allow grazing, drilling, and other extraction on managed lands. What it does do is allow BLM to also include the important goal of conservation of the public lands as they consider new applications for Americans' public lands.

I might remind my Republican colleagues that they are turning their back on a great legacy, a great Republican legacy, from the Clean Water Act, the EPA, and the words of that great Republican President, Teddy Roosevelt, who said: ``Conservation is a great moral issue, for it involves the patriotic duty of ensuring the safety and continuance of the Nation.''

This patriotic goal of conservation and preservation is vital so our grandchildren can one day see the beauty that the West holds, and farmers and ranchers agree. They and other stewards of our land actively engaged with the Biden administration in the development of this rule. Congress should listen to the science and the stewards of this land on this issue instead of trying to dictate what is best for the West from D.C.

We should also continue President Biden's policy of ensuring our energy independence and security, all while growing American industry. I must also point out that the Biden BLM rule explicitly prevents foreign entities from holding conservation or mitigation leases, something that I might remember and remind our Republicans they were unwilling to do with regards to mining.

The rule also allows a bill that ignores science and would prevent regulation of lead-based tackle and ammunition. Didn't we learn our lesson with leaded gasoline and its harmful effects on people and the environment? Apparently not. Lead is poison.

We all have heard of and sometimes seen the death of bald eagles and other magnificent birds who have consumed even the smallest amount of lead buckshot or fragmented lead ammo. Lead finds its way onto hunters' and anglers' tables, too. One study found that there were lead fragments in 34 percent of ground venison burgers. Do you want your children to consume lead?

Every year, I make tamales for Christmas, and as my family has done for generations, we use wild game--deer, elk, and antelope--that has been hunted in New Mexico. We are grateful for lead-free ammunition because we don't want to poison ourselves or our environment.

This rule also makes in order a bill to undo the Biden administration's work to protect one of the world's most fragile and significant ecosystems, the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

In recent years we have seen record amounts of oil and gas production in the United States. We are the top producer of oil in the world right now. We can do that while also preserving the beautiful lands that make ``America the Beautiful'' the right song to sing.

Finally, Madam Speaker, I want to address the issue of anti-Semitism not just on college campuses but also across the country since October 7. Let me be clear: Anti-Semitism and hate in any form is simply unacceptable anywhere in our country. This rise in hatred across the United States should be a wake-up call for our democracy.

However, last fall, House Republicans proposed a 25 percent budget cut to the office that is actively investigating incidents of anti- Semitism on campuses. If you care about anti-Semitism, why do you take away the resources from the office that is prosecuting those kinds of claims?

Well, yesterday we got an answer why. My Republican Rules Committee colleague, Representative Massie, was very honest describing what this bill really is about when he said: ``Everybody has introduced almost at this point a bill to deal with something along these lines since October 7. None of them actually get to anything real. I think it is a political ping-pong game, of course. We''--meaning Republicans--``get to serve every time, and a lot of these''--meaning resolutions like this--``are just political traps. I call them sticky traps designed to split the Democratic Party and get them stuck in the sticky trap.''

I thank Mr. Massie for his refreshing honesty and candor, but if we wanted to actually do something real, we could. Rather than doing a sticky trap, we could take up my colleague Congresswoman Manning's bipartisan bill, H.R. 7921, the Countering Anti-Semitism Act, which would designate a senior official at the Department of Education to counter anti-Semitism on college campuses, among many other solutions that are also based on Biden's policy regarding attacking anti- Semitism. If we want to deal with anti-Semitism on college campuses, I suggest a bill with real solutions is a good place to start.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Madam Speaker, how dare the party of Donald Trump and Marjorie Taylor Greene come down here and lecture Democrats about anti-Semitism. Remember, the leader of the Republican Party, Donald Trump, dines with Holocaust deniers and said there were ``fine people on both sides'' at a rally where white supremacists chanted: ``Jews will not replace us.'' Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene appeared on stage at a white nationalist rally alongside a Holocaust denier. She tweeted anti- Semitic videos and talks about Jewish space lasers.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to include in the Record an article from Politico titled: ``Donald Trump dined with white nationalist, Holocaust denier Nick Fuentes.''

Madam Speaker, I also ask unanimous consent to include in the Record an article from The Atlantic titled: ``Trump Defends White-Nationalist Protesters: `Some Very Fine People on Both Sides.' ''

Madam Speaker, I would like to enter into the record, actually, my objection to this absurd attack on Democrats for pointing out that this bill has in the title ``anti-Semitism,'' but there are problems with it.

We need to address anti-Semitism and look at the root causes. Instead, what are we doing? We are debating codifying a definition that numerous Jewish organizations, including Jewish Action, the Jewish Council for Public Affairs, and the New Israel Fund, among others, oppose.

The reason these organizations oppose it is because we cannot equate criticism of Israeli policies with anti-Semitism. They are two very different things.

We need to remember that we are constitutionally bound to protect free speech, even, and more importantly, when it is speech with which we do not agree.

Yesterday, for example, in the Rules Committee hearing for this bill, Representative Fry called Prime Minister Netanyahu's work in Gaza remarkable. He praised it. I personally don't think it is remarkable that over 35,000 people, most of them children and women, are dead. I don't think it is remarkable that over 130 hostages are still not home.

Netanyahu is being protested in his own country for these and many other things. I don't think it is remarkable that 27 kids have already died of malnutrition and that famine is imminent for 1.1 million Gazans.

Saying none of this is anti-Semitic.

I am Catholic with Sephardi heritage, and I think that my love that comes from the teaching and my spirituality calls upon me to talk about these things. That is not anti-Semitic.

That is the worry that these Jewish organizations, ACLU, and others talk about today. If we really want to move forward on combating anti- Semitism, let's fund the office that investigates and takes action against those colleges that fail to protect their students. Let's move forward with Congresswoman Manning's bipartisan bill, H.R. 7921, the Countering Antisemitism Act.

We should investigate how these issues continue to seep into our schools and communities.

We could do real work to address these root causes. Instead, we're debating a definition that numerous Jewish organizations, including Jewish Action, The Jewish Council for Public affairs, and the New Israel Fund, oppose.

The reason these organizations oppose it is because we cannot equate criticism of Israeli policies with Antisemitism. That is free speech.

Yesterday, in the Rules Committee Hearing for this very bill, Representative Fry called Prime Minister Netanyahu's work during this war ``remarkable.''

I don't think it's remarkable that over 35,000 people are dead.

I don't think it's remarkable that over 130 hostages are still not back home today.

I don't think it's remarkable that 27 kids died of malnutrition or that Famine is imminent for 1.1 million Gazans

Saying all of this could be construed as antisemitic if we adopt the definition we're debating today.

That is not helping us move forward or address the scourge of antisemitism that's hurting our students and their families.

To move us forward in the fight against antisemitism, we could consider Congresswoman Manning's bipartisan bill H.R. 7921, the Countering Antisemitism Act.

This bill would designate a senior official at the Department of Education to counter antisemitism on college campuses, among other solutions.

We could increase funding at the Office for Civil Rights so the office has the resources to actually investigate and address antisemitism on college campuses.

If we want to deal with antisemitism on college campuses then I would suggest that these are good places to start.

Madam Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to bring up H.R. 17, a bill to help with pay disparities for women in the workforce and strengthen our economy.

Madam Speaker, rising costs are affecting American families and the American worker, but instead of helping families put more money in their pockets to save for retirement, to send their kids to college, or to simply put food on the table, House Republicans are focused on helping Big Oil and Big Mining corporations.

My colleagues constantly talk about the economic hardship Americans face, but instead of bringing legislation to actually address that, nearly every bill in this rule would create a corporate giveaway at the expense of our public lands.

We see where their real priorities are--with the biggest corporations, foreign corporations, even Chinese corporations--but House Democrats are focused on the American people.

That is why we must bring up H.R. 17, the Paycheck Fairness Act, to address the wage gap for women of this country and make sure families aren't cheated out of dollars and paychecks that they deserve.

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

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro), the ranking member of the Appropriations Committee, to discuss our proposal.

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

I just want to make the record clear. Democrats and President Biden have repeatedly and constantly, and not just since October 7, condemned anti-Semitism and taken actual actions to actually address it, and that is the problem with what we are hearing.

As their own Rules Committee member has said it, these are about sticky bills. They are not about getting solutions.

We must remember that most of the bills in the rule today are actually talking about our natural resources and how Republicans want to turn the clock back on the progress that Americans have been demanding for decades to protect our natural beauty but also to protect our natural resources for Americans.

I want to talk a little bit about mining reform, a 1872 mining law that says it all. That law is way too old and needs fixing. Well, how do we make sure we go about fixing it?

The Republicans' proposal is to just give more of it away. It makes it easier for foreign corporations and for big, greedy corporations to take that land, to take those natural resources.

What do Democrats propose? We propose responsible mining reform that allows for critical minerals to be extracted without destroying our environment.

My good friend and ranking member, the former chair of the House Natural Resources Committee, introduced the Clean Energy Minerals Reform Act, of which I am a cosponsor.

That kind of bill would require annual rental payments for claimed public lands, treating mine operators the same way we treat oil and gas or any other ones. Let's make them pay for our resources. They belong to us.

Imagine if the $300 billion in profits that is going to those foreign corporations went to Americans instead.

We would set a royalty rate of not less than 5 percent and not greater than 8 percent, based on gross income.

We would make sure that there would be a reclamation fund, so when the mining companies go in there and make their mess that there would be a way for us to clean it up.

I can tell you, New Mexico is littered. In Colorado, all the intermountain areas are left with these abandoned mines that leach acid into our rivers and streams and make it so that we cannot hike and camp on those lands.

I have picked up those rocks that when they are exposed to air and water create sulfuric acid, and they leave piles of them.

Those are the things that we must be doing. We must give the Secretary of the Interior the right to protect our public lands, to protect the waters of Minnesota, right, and to protect the waters of this great country.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

The natural resources bills that we are dealing with here today, as I pointed out, are a great gift to big mining corporations and overturn decades of work by local organizations and by the public in these areas who want to see their lands protected.

What is interesting is Republicans are putting forward these bills, even though the American public and their own constituents are not interested in seeing what they are doing.

While Republicans are helping out the big mining corporation fans, their constituents want the opposite.

I ask unanimous consent to include in the Record the article titled: ``Analysis: Public Comments Overwhelmingly Support BLM Public Lands Rule.''

Madam Speaker, that analysis found that the Biden administration's Public Lands Rule received 92 percent of support in public comments.

Madam Speaker, 92 percent of the 150,000 Americans who commented on this rule agreed that the BLM is moving in the right direction by protecting our public lands.

Many of them were farmers, ranchers, and stewards of the land. In fact, one farmer said to me: I recognize how important it is to allow our land to recover so that we can use it in the future for grazing.

I ask unanimous consent to include in the Record the following article titled: ``The 2023 Conservation in the West Poll from Colorado College.''

Madam Speaker, the article can be found here: https://www.coloradocollege.edu/other/stateoftherockies/ conservationinthewest/2023.html

This survey found that 82 percent of voters across 8 Western States support the conservation of our public lands and waters. Let's listen to the people on the ground.

While Republicans want to mine the beautiful forests of Minnesota, constituents actually want to protect the area from sulfite or copper mining.

I ask unanimous consent to include in the Record the article titled: ``The Campaign to Save the Boundary Waters 2022 Post-Election Poll.''

Madam Speaker, the article can be found here: Https://www.savetheboundary waters.org/sites/default/files/resource- file/Campaign%20To%20 Save%20The%20Boundary%20

Waters%20__%202022%20Post-Election%20Poll%20Results.pdf

Madam Speaker, the poll found over 70 percent of Minnesotans support proposed legislation to permanently protect the boundary waters from risks associated with sulfite or copper mining.

The boundary waters are one of the most visited national recreational areas in the United States. I look forward to going and looking at those lakes and those rivers and those forests and how they are intertwined and how those canoes glide along their surfaces.

Minnesotans know what that beauty looks like, and they want to make sure that the mining that is proposed by the Trump administration--and I might remind people that the Trump administration overturned actions by Obama, so they could give two leases to a Chilean billionaire--a Chilean billionaire, who it so happens, was a landlord of the President's daughter.

These kinds of dealings with foreign corporations, we must say ``no'' to. Why would Minnesotans want to take their precious natural resources and have them leased so a Chilean billionaire can make even more money?

We are urging our Republican colleagues to listen to their constituents, to listen to the people who are speaking on these issues, to vote against these rules, and to vote against these bills.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Madam Speaker, the bills my Republican colleagues have proposed today threaten to overturn regulations put in place to make sure that we are responsible in our use of natural resources.

The Biden administration has worked to reverse many of the Trump-era policies that just help the rich get richer.

For too long, what we have seen in America is the rich keep getting richer, and it appears that Republicans, certain Republicans, but most definitely former President Trump favored the richest corporations.

In turn, I ask my colleagues to think about what our role is here in Congress. I remind my colleagues of these powerful words from the Conference of Bishops.

``We show our respect for the creator by our stewardship of creation. Care for the Earth is not just an Earth Day slogan, it is a requirement of our faith. We are called to protect people and the planet, living our faith in relationship with all of God's creation.''

It is possible to protect the planet and still be a leader in energy. In the last 3 years, the Biden administration has invested over $18 billion toward Federal, State, local, and Tribal land conservation efforts in all 50 States. Contrary to what my colleagues claim, the U.S. has had record oil and gas production under the Biden administration. We produced an average of 12.9 million barrels of crude oil, millions more than are coming out of Russia and Saudi Arabia.

Regulations are important. They prevent catastrophic environmental disasters, like the 137 oil spills that occurred during the second year of the Trump administration.

Remember, there will be no more elk to hunt, no more breathtaking lakes reflecting the sunlight to hike to, and no more oil and minerals to drill for if we do not listen to the experts about protecting our lands and waters. Wildlife protections and mining regulations are in place to make sure future generations of Americans can enjoy the same beautiful landscapes and profit off of America's resources.

Finally, I need to remind everybody, we all condemned October 7. We all have condemned Hamas. It is a terrorist organization. However, we have taken up these resolutions over and over again.

Once again, our Republican colleague has spoken the truth when he has said that these are sticky resolutions simply intended to divide the Democrats. Let's not work on division. Let's come together in love and a belief in each of our individual strengths to push back against the hatred that we see and to do it in a manner that is not partisan, that uplifts our morality, that uplifts our empathy for all, and that addresses all the forms of hatred that we see.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Beyer), one of the most passionate and knowledgeable champions for wolf preservation in the Congress.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his eloquence and thoughtfulness, which stands in such contrast to the Kristi Noem school of animal welfare that we see reflected in the legislation before us.

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

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

Throughout this Congress, my Republican colleagues have tried at every turn to weaken our bedrock environmental laws. The Endangered Species Act has, of course, been one of their favorites to attack.

Once again, Republican leadership has taken an opportunity to vilify an endangered species today, here on this floor, to sacrifice it to their precious industry groups. Guns, oil, and polluters has come to be what this GOP stands for, at least in this Congress.

Last summer, they rushed to the House floor with bills to increase the extinction risk of the lesser prairie-chicken and northern long- eared bat. Today, it is the iconic gray wolf.

Do my Republican friends truly have nothing better to do with their time, with the time of this body? We should be working on issues that make a difference to everyday life in America, but this Congress has been mostly about Republicans fighting with each other in a circular firing squad. The only time they seem to take a break from that is when they want to do something to enrich the wealthiest Americans, harm the environment, or, now, to kill wolves.

This bill is falsely named. It is called the Trust the Science Act. It would legislatively delist the gray wolf in the Endangered Species Act in the lower 48. That is not something that is done based on science. It is something this bill would do by political fiat.

The gray wolf is one of America's most iconic species. While it is making a comeback, the science and the facts on the ground tell us that it still needs help.

This bill would make it so that not a single gray wolf in the United States, in the entire country, would be protected by the Endangered Species Act.

Yes, it is true that the Yellowstone National Park wolf reintroduction is one of the great success stories of the ESA.

We saw that as apex predators, wolves help to rebalance and revitalize vibrant ecosystems and flourishing wildlife populations in one of the crown jewels of our National Park System.

The ESA has kept the wolf from going extinct. We have gone from several hundred wild wolves in America, and these were inhabiting the northern parts of Michigan and Minnesota, to approximately 7,500 wolves today with populations in at least 11 States.

That is the ESA in action. It is a great success story, but that doesn't mean that we can just unfurl a banner and declare, ``mission accomplished.'' We certainly cannot do that when the folks who took wolves to the brink of extinction are ready to rev up the wolf-killing machine once again and put us right back on that path to extinction.

Wolf numbers have grown in the Western United States, but the ESA rightly requires more than just population counts for delisting. Otherwise, we can quickly devolve right back to where we started.

There are still a lot of factors that go into species recovery; habitat destruction, disease, the regulatory and recovery efforts by States that would have to take over management of the species if it is delisted, and a lot more.

The ESA requires that the Fish and Wildlife Service use the best available science to assess all of this, not just population numbers, before they make any delisting decisions. Importantly, the Fish and Wildlife Service must consult with Tribes.

Right now, the service is following these processes and developing a recovery plan, but if this bill was signed into law, all of that would be skipped. They would have to ignore any scientific evidence of remaining threats to the wolf. This is the danger of legislatively delisting a species.

While I believe my colleagues are capable of going on to Google and pulling up some population numbers on gray wolves, it is pretty brazen to suggest that they, as Members of Congress, are more qualified than the scientists and experts with years of training to determine if a species is actually recovered.

The ultimate goal of the ESA is to recover species and then set them up for success post-recovery. We need durable, not temporary outcomes.

Passing this bill would simply call wolves recovered, but that does not make it so. The bill ignores science, and it sends a species back down the path to extinction by reinstating a Trump-era delisting rule that the courts have overturned because it violated the Endangered Species Act, as well as the Administrative Procedure Act.

This bill ignores the careful analysis of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service over the past year. It ignores the fact that although wolf populations are doing well in some places, they haven't met recovery goals in others.

It does nothing to require Federal consultation with Tribes, and on top of that, there is nothing in the bill to push States to improve their conservation measures for wolves.

When wolves were delisted in 2011 and 2021, some States raced to approve the killing of significant portions of their wolf populations, even using harvest quotas.

States in the Northern Rockies actually incentivized hunting. They paid hunters to kill wolves. This does not demonstrate a commitment to conserving the species once it is delisted.

All of these State policies would simply further villainize wolves and reward the type of killing that caused the population to crash in the first place. So no, a simple head count is not a scientifically sound basis for declaring open season on the gray wolf.

My Republican colleagues know that what they are trying to do will never stand up to scrutiny in the courts.

It would never stand up to consideration of the best available scientific and commercial data, and that is why this bill prohibits judicial review. That really gives the game away. If you really trust the science then you shouldn't be afraid of a little scrutiny.

Based on the talking points that we have heard throughout this legislative process, this is all just so people can shoot more wolves.

Why would Congress invest millions of taxpayer dollars in recovering this iconic species just to turn around and let States start killing them all over again?

We will hear a lot in debate today about how these apex predators, which are vital to our ecosystems, are scary, cold killers. That is ancient ignorance, not science.

If we are lucky, we may even hear some of the wild conspiracy theories that we have heard in previous debates about larger, faster, more aggressive Canadian gray wolves. We have heard practically everything except the claim that these Canadian wolves have laser eyes.

Congress shouldn't be overriding conservation decisions made by scientists. Fortunately, when we saw this type of extreme and baseless language a few years ago, a dozen Republicans trusted the science and voted against it.

I urge my colleagues and fellow conservationists to actually trust the science and to vote ``no'' on this trust the ignorance act.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, when you call a bill the Trust the Science Act, you probably shouldn't rely so heavily on narratives that seem like a mix of Little Red Riding Hood and YouTube conspiracies about the chupacabra.

You should actually listen to wildlife managers and scientists, and you should also be thoughtful about lessons that we have learned in the past when Federal delisting led to State management that adopted many of those stubborn anti-predator myths.

We know what happens in many of these States when Federal delisting occurs. In 2021, Idaho passed legislation allowing for 90 percent of their gray wolf population to be culled by nearly any means, including killing pups.

In Wisconsin, one hunting season alone wiped out over 30 percent of that State's gray wolf population. In Montana, they allowed increased bag limits and hunting of wolves just outside of national parks, a quota of 40 percent of the State's wolves.

These States in the Northern Rockies pay hunters up to $2,500 per gray wolf, and they have authorized expanding killing methods including traps, snares, night-vision equipment, bait, and motorized vehicles and dogs to track and kill wolves.

States have legalized the hunting of wolves under the guise of predator control, and with this designation, malice toward wolves is actually precluded from animal cruelty laws.

This has led to some disgusting acts of torture and abuse. Just last month, we saw that a man in Wyoming hunted down a wolf, struck the animal with a snow machine, muzzled the maimed wolf with duct tape, and brought it in to show his buddies in a bar while it was suffering.

This is the kind of tender mercy that apparently my colleagues across the aisle suggest for thoughtful management of the gray wolf.

The punishment of this individual, by the way, a $250 fine; not for the gruesome abuse of an animal but for wrongful possession of live wildlife. If he had simply killed it, there probably would have been no punishment at all.

Wolves in Wyoming can be hunted year-round without a license. The identity of the hunter who kills the wolf is protected by State law.

Hunting down the wolf and purposefully hitting it with a vehicle, that is also considered just hunting in Wyoming.

House Republicans love to point to State management as the solution to our biodiversity crisis. I think we all can agree that we should celebrate when species are successfully recovered and management is returned to States.

However, this bill would turn over management to States that have proven an unwillingness, a stubborn unwillingness to conserve the species further, and that would put wolves at risk in the lower 48 States.

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

Mr. Speaker, the gentlewoman from Colorado brought up Tribes in her opening remarks, and I am glad, because we should be talking about and thinking about Tribes on this subject.

Tribes are not interested in scaring people into killing wolves. For many Tribes, wolves are sacred. They are an integral part of the land- based identity that shapes their communities, beliefs, and customs. Like bears, wolves are considered closely related to humans by many North American Tribes, and the origin stories of some Northwest Coastal Tribes tell of their first ancestors being transformed from wolves into men.

In Shoshone mythology, the wolf plays the role of the noble creator god, while in Anishinaabe mythology, a wolf character is the brother and true best friend of the culture hero. Among the Pueblo Tribes, wolves are considered one of the six directional guardians associated with the east and the color white and associated with protection, ascribing to them both healing and hunting powers.

Wolves are also one of the most common clan animals in Native American cultures. Tribes with wolf clans include the Creek, Cherokee, Chickasaw, Chippewa, Algonquian Tribes like the Shawnee and Osage, the Pueblo Tribes of New Mexico, and Northwest Coastal Tribes.

It is essential that the United States Government uphold its trust responsibilities to engage in meaningful, good-faith consultation with all affected Indian Tribes.

Unfortunately, but not surprisingly, Tribes were not consulted as the treaty and trust responsibilities required when the Trump administration delisted the gray wolf. That is unacceptable. Ignoring Tribal voices erodes Tribal sovereignty.

After the wolf was delisted, Tribes sued the State of Wisconsin for violating Tribal treaty rights by authorizing the hunting of hundreds of wolves in 2021. No wonder this bill attempts to bar judicial review.

Tribes should be allowed to lead in identifying conservation measures for the wolf populations that are culturally sensitive. If this legislation is enacted, Tribes will have been left out of the process yet again and will face further violations of their treaty rights by State actions.

During the hearing on this bill, the Fish and Wildlife Service reaffirmed its commitment to consulting with Tribes during the species status review. I was glad to hear this commitment. I believe the United States Government's relationship with Tribes, and the conservation of wolves, will both be better for it.

This bill, which reinstates the Trump rule, which Tribes opposed and were not consulted on, would further erode our government's trust responsibilities to Tribes while putting the gray wolf at risk. We should reject this political attempt to sidestep science and Federal trust responsibilities and instead let the Fish and Wildlife Service do its job, go through the species status review in meaningful consultation with Tribes, and follow the best available science.

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

Mr. Speaker, my friends across the aisle have a pretty selective interest in numbers. They seem to want to take a single aggregate number for the wolf population in the United States and legislatively delist that population in a way that contravenes science, contravenes the way the Endangered Species Act is supposed to work, but they ignore a lot of other numbers.

Let's talk about some numbers. First of all, when we try to scare people about wolves, we should probably acknowledge that you are far more likely to die falling out of bed than from a gray wolf attack. My colleague, Mr. Beyer, explained that not once in the last 100 years has someone died from a wolf attack in the United States.

Wolves rarely attack people, and in the majority of documented cases, which are very few, humans ended up provoking the wolf or feeding it to cause that encounter. Further, wolves are a minimal threat to livestock, despite the hue and cry that we hear about this. Wolves are responsible for the loss of fewer than two-hundredths of a single percent of livestock every year.

Dogs and coyotes are responsible for far greater numbers of livestock losses, and even those losses fall well behind losses due to illness or weather. While there is inherent risk in raising livestock in wolf habitat, the losses are small. Importantly, ranchers are compensated for any financial loss due to wolf predation.

We need to base listing, delisting, and all other wildlife management decisions on science, not conspiracy theories, not unfounded fears, not myths, not political whims.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, the legislation before us today would take a significant step backward in protecting gray wolves from extinction by legislatively delisting the species across its entire range without any scientific analysis.

As I said before, every one of us in this room probably has an opinion on whether wolves should be delisted, but in many ways, that shouldn't matter. Congress has no business listing and delisting species. We aren't the scientific experts tasked with assessing population numbers, recovery goals, and continued threats to those species.

Unfortunately, if Congress delists the species, States that have so far demonstrated a stubborn unwillingness to conserve the species will be left responsible for leading recovery and management efforts.

The gray wolf was nearly eliminated from the landscape because these types of anti-predator laws decimated the population, leading to the listing of the species under the Endangered Species Act in the 1970s.

For this reason, at the appropriate time, I will offer a motion to recommit this bill back to committee.

If the House rules permitted, I would have offered the motion with an important amendment to this bill to provide a necessary backstop if Congress legislatively delists the gray wolf. At the very least, the infrastructure needs to be in place to stop excessive killings or any other threats to wolves if they start decimating the population and sending it back toward extinction.

My language would create that backstop. It is simple. If the population declines too much, then emergency list the species, providing 240 days of protection, while the Service conducts a status review.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my amendment in the Record immediately prior to the vote on the motion to recommit.

Mr. Speaker, I hope my colleagues will join me in voting for the motion to recommit.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to reject H.R. 764. As we have heard today, this is a bill based on fear, ignorance, and conspiracy theories that condone the inhumane killing of wolves.

Our Republican colleagues have made it clear that they intend to convince the Nation that wolves are just cold killers. Maybe that is good politics in some places to vilify wolves, to stoke the inhumane killing of wolves--running them over with snowmobiles and trucks, trapping, torturing, and finally shooting them, maybe after you put duct tape around their mouth and brought them in as a trophy to show your buddies at a bar.

All of that might work in some places, but most Americans understand the value of wolves. They understand that these creatures are foundational to ecosystem functions. They keep prey in check. Most Americans admire the intricate social structures of the wolf pack. They want to live in balance with nature, including predators.

This bill ignores the science, turns a blind eye to Tribal treaty rights, and removes judicial oversight of the delisting process to reinstate a faulty Trump-era rule. The gray wolf was listed as endangered because the predator control methods of the past had nearly eliminated the wolf from the landscape. Reinstating the Trump- era delisting rule will bring those anti-predator laws and policies right back into action and put us right back on the path to extinction.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this sham legislation, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1173, I call up the bill (H.R. 615) to prohibit the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture from prohibiting the use of lead ammunition or tackle on certain Federal land or water under the jurisdiction of the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture, 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 include extraneous material on H.R. 615.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 615, sponsored by my colleague, Congressman Wittman of Virginia.

This commonsense bill protects hunters' and anglers' ability to continue using cost-effective lead ammunition and fishing equipment in our National Wildlife Refuge System. At the same time, this legislation gives the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service the flexibility to make targeted decisions on lead use in refuges based on sound, site-specific science and in coordination with State fish and wildlife agencies.

In the United States, sportsmen's and -women's participation is crucial to the success of wildlife conservation. The North American model of wildlife conservation operates on seven interdependent principles. Embedded in these principles are sound science, active management, and access to hunting and fishing. This model is a success story that is best characterized by the millions of dollars paid by hunters and anglers for wildlife conservation each year through excise taxes on the equipment that they use.

In fiscal year 2024, the Service apportioned nearly $1 billion in receipts from excise taxes on firearms manufacturers. Of that, about $800 million was targeted to wildlife restoration. Similarly, $381 million was generated from excise taxes on fishing equipment for fish conservation.

Last year, after significant pushback from stakeholders and Members of Congress, the Fish and Wildlife Service denied a petition from far- left environmental groups to ban the use of lead ammunition and tackle throughout the system. However, the Fish and Wildlife Service is still pressing ahead with refuge-specific lead bans.

In its 2023-2024 hunting and sports fishing regulations for the system, the Service is banning the use of lead ammunition and tackle in eight refuges. It tries to lessen the blow by expanding access to hunting and fishing in three other refuges, but this expansion also includes a lead ban.

Why does any of this matter? It is about access and how the Service's actions are limiting access.

In 2021, the National Shooting Sports Foundation concluded that lead- free hunting ammunition is, on average, almost 25 percent more expensive than lead. Not only are alternative materials such as copper more expensive, but this administration also continues to push policies that prohibit mining such resources here in America.

Their lead bans will result in decreased hunting and fishing participation for all but the wealthy and a reduction in wildlife conservation and restoration funding.

Instead of regulating hunters and anglers off of our Federal lands, the Service should be working with State managers, conservation organizations, and sportsmen and -women. Where lead is shown to cause harm to wildlife populations, it should be addressed accordingly, but a systemwide ban or refuge-by-refuge bans where no scientific link can be made is the wrong approach and ultimately undermines wildlife conservation.

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

House of Representatives,

Committee on Agriculture,

Washington, DC, September 15, 2023.

Hon. Bruce Westerman,

Chairman, Committee on Natural Resources, Longworth House

Office Building, Washington, DC.

Dear Mr. Chairman: This letter confirms our mutual

understanding regarding H.R. 615, the ``Protecting Access for

Hunters and Anglers Act of 2023''. Thank you for

collaborating with the Committee on Agriculture on the

matters within our jurisdiction.

The Committee on Agriculture will forego any further

consideration of this bill. However, by foregoing

consideration at this time, we do not waive any jurisdiction

over any subject matter contained in this or similar

legislation. The Committee on Agriculture also reserves the

right to seek appointment of an appropriate number of

conferees should it become necessary and ask that you support

such a request.

We would appreciate a response to this letter confirming

this understanding with respect to H.R. 615 and request a

copy of our letters on this matter be published in the

Congressional Record during Floor consideration.

Sincerely,

Glenn ``GT'' Thompson,

Chairman.

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

Mr. Speaker, let's be clear. The rule this administration put out has absolutely nothing to do with protecting wildlife, wildlife conservation, or protecting human health. As the gentleman alluded to, I believe this bill probably is more aimed at restricting the sale of ammunition and any kind of attack Democrats can take on our Second Amendment rights.

This bill will hurt conservation. It is senseless. It is based on no facts. The Fish and Wildlife Service can't produce a document to show why they should ban lead ammunition or lead fishing tackle. It is simply another move by an administration that wants to write the law instead of letting Congress write the laws and them enforce the laws.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wittman), the sponsor of the legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wittman).

Mr. Speaker, I serve as the co-chair of the Congressional Sportsmen's Caucus, and I would like to point out that not only does the Congressional Sportsmen's Foundation endorse this legislation, but so do organizations such as the Mule Deer Foundation, the American Sportfishing Association, Ducks Unlimited, and Delta Waterfowl. The who's who of sportsmen and -women organizations support this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record this list of endorsements.

October 27, 2022.

Cosponsor Request: Protecting Access for Hunters and Anglers Act

Dear Congressional Sportsmen's Caucus Member: The

undersigned organizations, representing millions of hunters,

anglers, wildlife professionals, and outdoor enthusiasts are

writing to express our support for the Protecting Access for

Hunters and Anglers Act (S. 4940/H.R. 9088). Introduced by

Senator Steve Daines with a companion bill from

Representatives Rob Wittman and Bruce Westerman, this

legislation would prohibit the Secretaries of Agriculture and

the Interior from prohibiting the use of lead ammunition or

tackle on certain Federal lands and waters absent field data

delineating a science-based nexus to a wildlife species

population decline. Overly broad and arbitrary ammunition and

tackle bans have severe and unnecessary detrimental impacts

on the economy while also serving as a hinderance to fish and

wildlife conservation programs and projects. To that end, we

are united in respectfully requesting that you join as a

cosponsor of this important legislation.

At the outset, it is important to note that with few

exceptions, fish and wildlife are successfully managed at the

population level. Additionally, with the exception of Federal

Trust Species and certain other species, fish and wildlife

management decisions are primarily driven by state fish and

wildlife agencies. With those considerations in mind, in the

very rare occurrences that science-based field-data clearly

delineates a causational nexus between traditional ammunition

or tackle and changes in fish or wildlife population health,

state fish and wildlife agencies already have the ability to

regulate the use of those to both achieve conservation

objectives and minimize impacts to anglers and hunters.

That said, we do not believe wildlife management decisions

should be driven or decided by political motivations,

litigation, at the ballot box or by anyone other than the

applicable fish and wildlife department of the State in which

the specific Federal land or water is located. Furthermore,

we maintain that any restrictions on the use of lead

ammunition and tackle on federal lands and waters by a

federal agency must have the support of the respective state

fish and wildlife agency, which is required by the Protecting

Access for Hunters and Anglers Act. Simply put, this

legislation reaffirms state fish and wildlife management

authority.

In many cases, alternatives to lead ammunition and tackle

that deliver similar performance at a comparable cost simply

do not exist. Therefore, overly broad and arbitrary bans on

traditional ammunition and tackle serve as a disincentive to

the recruitment, retention and reactivation of hunters and

anglers and, as a result, have significant negative economic

consequences for sportsmen and women and local and regional

economies. In addition, these bans result in decreases to the

excise taxes that hunters and anglers voluntarily imposed on

ammunition and fishing tackle as part of the Pittman-

Robertson and Dingell-Johnson Acts, both of which provide the

lion's share of funding for state fish and wildlife

conservation, research, public access to natural resources

and other important programs that promote hunting and fishing

and sustainable populations of fish and wildlife species.

Recently, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service

(USFWS) published a final rule that, while expanding access

to hunting and fishing opportunities at certain wildlife

refuges, also seeks to phase out the use of traditional lead

ammunition and fishing tackle. We are disappointed to see the

lack of a science-based justification for the arbitrary

limitation on the use of lead ammunition and tackle. This

rule does not recognize state fish and wildlife as the

primary managers of our nation's fish and wildlife.

Concurrently, litigation initiated by animal rights interests

is pending against a similar, previous rule to expand hunting

and fishing access on national wildlife refuges alleging that

the additional use of lead ammunition and tackle will harm

wildlife species at those refuges. However, those allegations

are not substantiated by science.

The litigation not only lacks scientific justification, but

it is entirely without legal merit. In light of the timing of

this litigation, we are concerned the USFWS has engaged in

settlement negotiations with the litigants. Despite strong

opposition from many of the undersigned, we believe the USFWS

continues conversations with the plaintiff. Furthermore, we

are concerned that an overly broad, onerous and unnecessary

ban on the use of traditional ammunition and tackle in the

National Wildlife Refuge System could be forthcoming.

For these reasons, we strongly support the Protecting

Access for Hunters and Anglers Act (S. 4940/H.R. 9088) and

encourage you to serve as a cosponsor of this vital

legislation.

Thank you for your leadership and continued service on

behalf of America's outdoor heritage.

Sincerely,

American Catnshing Association, American Sportfishing

Association, Bass Anglers Sportsman Society (B.A.S.S),

BoatU.S., Boone and Crockett Club, California Waterfowl

Association, Coastal Conservation Association, Congressional

Sportsmen's Foundation, Council to Advance Hunting and the

Shooting Sports, Delta Waterfowl, Ducks Unlimited,

International Game Fish Association, Major League Fishing,

Marine Retailers Association of the Americas, Mule Deer

Foundation, National Professional Anglers Association,

National Rifle Association, National Shooting Sports

Foundation, Northwest Sportfishing Industry Association, Pope

& Young Club, Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, Safari Club

International, The Bass Federation, Inc., The Walleye

Federation, LLC, Whitetails Unlimited, Wildlife Mississippi.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Rutherford).

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

I appreciate the gentleman pointing out some important facts about how this rule came to be from this administration that is anything but transparent. It is an administration that rejects any kind of oversight. I couldn't even start to tell you how much information they are behind on sending to the committee that we have requested just so we can do oversight, but I can imagine how this meeting probably went down.

The radical environmental groups go over to the administration to have a meeting and the administration says, well, there are no facts, no science, nothing that supports what you are wanting to do. However, wink, wink, if you were to sue us and we went to court, then we could settle that and maybe we will give you a half dozen to a dozen refuges that we will ban lead on and that will make their friends happy. I think that is exactly what happened, and that is why we are here today with a bill in Congress to say you can't do that.

Enough is enough. Manage these lands for the public, not for your special interest radical environmental groups. I think Congress has to take the lead on this.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, hunters and anglers are the backbone of American wildlife conservation efforts and are invested in the long-term health of wildlife.

It is important that Congress comes to their defense against ideologically driven and unscientific decisions that limit access to our public lands.

Now, Mr. Speaker, if the big bad government was really basing their actions on science, why did they randomly pick seven wildlife refuges? Why didn't they propose this across the Nation?

Again, this is a classic sue and settle. They got sued by their friends in the radical environmental groups, and they decided to settle and give them a little consolation prize of a few wildlife refuges, thinking we might just turn our backs and say it was just a few refuges. They are just giving a little gift to their friends in the radical environmental movement. Let's go on and work on something else, but you have to stop these actions where they start.

To be clear, this bill doesn't prevent the Federal Government from banning the use of lead ammunition and tackle, but it does say that any ban must be supported by site-specific science showing that the use of lead is harming wildlife in that refuge.

It also requires that States be properly consulted when the Federal Government proposes to ban the use of lead. If some of my colleagues have an issue with that, they must ask themselves if they consider States to be partners in conserving wildlife or stakeholders who they can ignore.

I believe that a true partnership between States and Federal Government and wildlife conservation is the best path forward, and this bill is a step in that direction.

Mr. Speaker, I thank Congressman Wittman for his leadership on this legislation. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting 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.