Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend and colleague from Wyoming (Ms. Cheney) for yielding to me. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this rule for H.R. 3905 as well as the underlying bill. Mr. Speaker, earlier this year I had the opportunity…
Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend and colleague from Wyoming (Ms. Cheney) for yielding to me.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this rule for H.R. 3905 as well as the underlying bill.
Mr. Speaker, earlier this year I had the opportunity to travel to Minnesota with Minnesota Congressmen Emmer and Nolan and others to visit the Superior National Forest in northeast Minnesota.
While northeast Minnesota is a long way from the Fourth District of Arkansas, the people, areas, and the economics are somewhat similar. This is a rural area where local economies and constituencies depend on the ability to sustainably and responsibly harvest and mine the natural resources found there.
Unfortunately, the previous administration placed the wants of special interest environmental groups before the needs of Minnesotans and others who depend on natural resources management. In my opinion, they trampled our Article I constitutional authority of the legislative branch when doing so.
On January 19, 2017, one day before President Trump was sworn in, the Obama administration published a 235,000-acre Federal mineral withdrawal application in the Federal Register to impose a 20-year moratorium on lands within the Superior National Forest in northeast Minnesota.
Mr. Speaker, this was in direct conflict with the will of Congress and the law going back to when the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness was established.
At the same time, the Obama administration wrongly rejected Twin Metals Minnesota's application to renew two hard rock mineral leases that were renewed in 1989 and 2004. The land in question is not in the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness and it doesn't even border Boundary Waters. In fact, the land in question is outside a buffer area around Boundary Waters created by Congress to protect the Boundary Waters.
This politically motivated decision has the ability to destroy the local economy, kill job creation, significantly harm education in Minnesota, and sets a bad precedent.
I want to talk just a moment about the impact this decision will have on Minnesota education. If this withdrawal is allowed to take place, Minnesota is projected to lose up to $3 billion in royalty revenues for the State's permanent school trust fund, supporting nearly 900,000 students.
Mr. Speaker, as someone who represents schools, communities, and counties that depend on programs like Secure Rural Schools and PILTs, I know the harm that will be brought on school districts, specifically rural school districts, should the withdrawal and application rejection go forward.
How much longer will we allow rural communities and education to suffer because a special interest group doesn't agree with forest management or mining, even though any projects will be carried out in compliance with all environmental regulations in a responsible manner?
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 3905 is a vital piece of legislation to not only Minnesota, but to other States and communities that depend on natural resource utilization.
It is also important for the legislative branch to remind the executive branch it is not their job to make law or to change laws made by Congress. For these reasons, I ask my colleagues to support this rule and the underlying legislation.