Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I was unable to be present to cast my vote on Roll Call No. 196 and Roll Call No. 197 today. Had I been present, I would have voted YEA on Roll Call No. 196 and YEA on Roll Call No. 197.

Madam Speaker, we have heard repeatedly from across the aisle that mining pollution is a thing of the past, that today's modern mining industry operates under the highest environmental standards, and that after the mining operations stop, the industry cleans up after itself. If that sounds too good to be true, it is because it is.

Our current regulations require companies to post financial assurances to cover the cost of cleanup after their mining operations stop, but it is not enough. Dangerous pollution still happens far too often. Depending on the mine type and location, between 74 and 82 percent of modern-day mines are polluting beyond what their permits allow.

The kicker? Taxpayers pay domestic and foreign mining companies for their subsidies and often the entire cost of cleanup. Given the $54 billion backlog to clean up mines abandoned before our current reclamation regulations, which continue to pollute our lands, waters, and communities, the American taxpayer literally cannot afford new mining pollution.

That is why I filed an amendment to this bill to improve bonding requirements and make mining companies keep up with the new mining rush that this bill would enable.

This is a commonsense amendment. If we are going to allow a toxic mining free-for-all, we should at least make sure that taxpayers are not footing the bill. After all, this bill opens up our lands to our foreign adversaries, and I don't expect them to clean up after themselves out of the goodness of their hearts.

My amendment would make sure operators post financial assurances to fully cover reclamation of all mining activities. It would correct for inconsistencies in both BLM and Forest Service regulations and codify those corrections into law. It would have made sure these financial assurances were real money, like surety bonds, irrevocable letters of credit, certificates of deposit, or cash, not insurance policies that lapse if the mining company goes bankrupt.

It is time we hold industry accountable and make sure they cannot pass on the costs of cleaning up after themselves, the costs of their earning profits, to the American people.

Guess what? The Republican majority refused to even consider my amendment. They blocked it from getting a debate on the House floor and even from getting a simple up-or-down vote.

It is outrageous, and it paints a dark picture of the House Republican's priorities: polluters over people, and China over the American taxpayer.

Mr. Speaker, I was unable to be present to cast my vote on Roll Call No. 195 today. Had I been present, I would have voted YEA.

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 reserve the balance of my time.

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 reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I was unable to be present to cast my vote on Roll Call 142 today. Had I been present, I would have voted YEA.

Mr. Speaker, I was unable to be present to cast my votes on Roll Call No. 141 today. Had I been present, I would have voted Yea on Roll Call 141.

Mr. Speaker, my son Paul broke my heart with a question. He asked: Mom, will you come visit me when I grow up and live outside of California?

I asked: Why would you want to live out of State?

It wasn't that there is somewhere else he would rather be. He was just a teenager, a teenager already worrying that he wouldn't be able to afford to live where he grew up. He was right to be worried.

We all face a big cost-of-living problem. Housing has become too expensive and affordable housing altogether too scarce. The National Low Income Housing Coalition estimates that there is a nationwide shortage of more than 7 million affordable homes. That is not just a problem; it is a full-blown crisis.

Washington has bungled this for decades, and nothing is changing. Earlier this year, bipartisan House and Senate leaders promised the biggest investment in housing that Congress has made in 35 years. Until the deal fell apart. We are back to solving yesterday's problems tomorrow maybe.

Washington insiders may not have a plan, but I do. Let's start with the easiest step. Let's create a housing committee. We currently lump housing issues into the Financial Services Committee, a body focused on Wall Street, banking, and financial markets. However, housing is about so much more. It is about shelter. It is about well-being. It is about opportunity, not just about Wall Street profits.

Housing should have a dedicated committee, and then Republicans and Democrats on that housing committee must work together to do three related things. First, increase the supply of housing; second, make housing easier to build; and, third, make housing more affordable.

Believe it or not, the supply part is pretty easy. Republicans and Democrats alike actually want to increase our housing supply. You don't have to take my word for it. Look at the Affordable Housing Credit Improvement Act, which would enhance tax credits to build 2 million homes over the next decade. It is publicly supported by 111 Democrats and 111 Republicans, so let's pass that.

Why stop with tax credits? Let's unleash private capital for home construction by guaranteeing and securitizing the construction of one- to-four-unit starter homes, just like the government already does for big apartment buildings built by Wall Street real estate firms.

Those are the steps that we need to take to invest in our housing supply, but actually building those homes is still too challenging, and it shouldn't be. Stick and brick homes are expensive. Manufacturing costs have gone down in virtually every industry except home building. Why aren't we copying and learning from what worked in other industries?

Imagine a home built, at least in part, from 3D-printed materials. Congress can invest in this type of technology and reduce building costs by over 30 percent just by thinking creatively. All levels of government should be partners in creative thinking. Congress should reward counties and cities that take steps to make their building and zoning requirements more flexible, and the Federal Government should release some of its unused land so we can build homes on it.

With these simple steps, we can build way more affordable homes and get those financed and built. Then we just need to figure out how to make them affordable to own. One problem is that hedge funds have been scooping up all of the affordable homes, especially starter homes.

We need to pass the End Hedge Fund Control of American Homes Act and tax Wall Street investors who purchase hundreds of homes solely for profits. Houses should be for homeowners and mom-and-pop landlords, not Wall Street companies looking to drive up their profits.

With the money we make from that bill, we can invest in downpayment assistance for first-time home buyers. Often the biggest thing stopping people from owning a home is not having the cash to pay up front for the downpayment, even if they can afford the regular payments on that mortgage. Downpayment assistance will solve that.

This is what a plan looks like. Congress just doesn't have one.

The United States did not wind up with a shortage of nearly 7 million affordable homes overnight. Our housing crisis is the gradual consequence of leaders in Washington being asleep at the wheel for over 30 years.

Well, Congress needs to wake up. Lowering people's housing costs isn't pie in the sky. We have done it before. We did it through the GI Bill for servicemembers, and we can do it again for all Americans. That is what we need from Washington, and I will keep pushing to get it done.

Mr. Speaker, our country needs energy to flourish, and Democrats know that this means authorizing energy projects. If we are going to authorize energy projects, then we need to require any energy developer, including Big Oil, to fully cover the cost of cleanup and reclamation of their extraction.

H.R. 6009 negates that principle, which I feel strongly about as a single mom, of cleaning up your messes, and instead gives Big Oil carte blanche to drill with little or no regulation. With this bill, Republicans are endeavoring to undo all of my work and the work of my colleagues to hold Big Oil accountable and to protect taxpayers.

Last Congress, my bill to protect public lands and recover taxpayer dollars by raising the Federal royalty rate for oil and gas extraction was passed into law.

Since 1920, Big Oil had paid the same 12.5 percent royalty rate for the extraction of minerals on public lands, which was considerably lower than rates charged by States. This allowed Big Oil to exploit our public resources and pay the American taxpayers pennies. My bill ended this corporate giveaway to Big Oil and made sure the American people would get fair benefits for our public lands.

I also had a bill that would increase, for the first time in 60 years, the amount of money Big Oil would put down to promise to clean up its oil wells. Last year, that reform was included in the Bureau of Land Management's onshore oil and gas proposed rule.

Previously, the bond amount that Big Oil paid covered just a fraction of their cleanup costs, leaving taxpayers to foot the bill. Oil and gas companies have abandoned thousands of wells nationwide without undertaking reclamation efforts to make those polluted areas environmentally safe, actions that could now cost all of us, as taxpayers, up to $333 million. My bill, for the first time in decades, put Big Oil on notice: You pollute, you pay.

My proposal had popular support, including across the West, which is home to much extraction. Ninety-one percent of western voters want oil and gas companies, not taxpayers, to pay for cleaning up and reclaiming public lands after drilling.

However, Republicans don't care about protecting the American people from environmental and economic harm. They would rather prop up Big Oil's profits and exploit the American taxpayer, upending real progress to finally hold Big Oil accountable.

H.R. 6009 would prevent the Biden administration from implementing the Bureau of Land Management's oil and gas rule. It would bar current and future administrations from increasing bonding requirements or implementing other fiscal reforms to protect taxpayers. It also prevents any administration from future updates to the Federal royalty rate.

It is hypocritical that Republicans, who drape themselves in the mantle of lowering taxes during campaign time, stand here today advocating for a bill that would force taxpayers to pay for sweetheart deals to Big Oil that boost their profits even further.

My Republican colleagues have the opportunity to prove me wrong. At the appropriate time, I will offer a motion to recommit this bill back to the Committee on Natural Resources. If the House rules permitted, I would have offered the motion with an important amendment to this bill, and that amendment would prevent H.R. 6009 from going into effect until the Comptroller General of the United States certified that this bill would, in fact, result in reduced energy costs for American consumers and would not result in increased, record profits for the oil and gas industry.

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

Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues across the aisle if they have the bravery to show that they are not beholden to Big Oil's bidding and will stand up for consumers and taxpayers to lower costs? This vote will show where your allegiance is.

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

Mr. Speaker, in a time when books and libraries are under attack, I rise to celebrate National Library Week which begins April 7.

Libraries bring people together and foster growth and collaboration in our communities. From story time and summer lunches for kids to continuing education and book clubs for adults of all ages, our libraries are truly a place for all.

In Orange County alone, our library system served over 3 million people just last year, including my family. Yet, these community institutions are increasingly targets of extremist, hateful attempts. Libraries should be places where all Americans are free to read, learn, and come together without interference from politicians.

During National Library Week, I urge my colleagues to recognize the value libraries bring to all our communities and recommit to supporting these important institutions.

Mr. Speaker, I was unable to be present to cast my votes today. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye'' on rollcall Nos. 73, 74, 75, and 76; ``yea'' on rollcall No. 77; and ``nay'' on rollcall No. 78.

Mr. Chair, I was unable to be present to cast my votes. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay'' on rollcall 66, ``yea'' on rollcall 67, ``nay'' on rollcall 68, ``nay'' on rollcall 69, ``nay'' on rollcall 70, ``nay'' on rollcall 71, and ``yea'' on rollcall 72.

personal explanation

Mr. Speaker, I was unable to be present to cast my votes. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay'' on rollcall No. 62, ``nay'' on rollcall No. 63, ``yea'' on rollcall No. 64, and ``yea'' on rollcall No. 65.

Mr. Speaker, I was unable to be present to cast my votes on rollcall 60 and rollcall 61 today. Had I been present, I would have voted yea on rollcall 60 and yea on rollcall 61.

personal explanation

Madam Speaker, Valentine's Day is a time for us to cherish the loved ones in our lives. I rise to celebrate love in all its forms and to stand in solidarity with the LGBTQI+ communities in California and across the Nation.

While we have made progress to protect the rights and safety of queer Americans, there is still more to be done.

Last year, a record number of bills restricting LGBTQI+ rights were introduced in legislatures across the country, an extremist Supreme Court effectively legalized discrimination against the queer community, and House Republicans targeted LGBTQI+ in dozens of hearings.

These attacks are unacceptable. As a member of the Congressional Equality Caucus, I will always seek to champion and protect LGBTQI+ Californians.

May this week serve as a reminder to my colleagues that we must relentlessly celebrate and defend love.

Commending United to End Homelessness Milestone

I rise today to commend Orange County's United to End Homelessness initiative for reaching a remarkable milestone. Its WelcomeHomeOC program has housed more than 1,000 people experiencing homelessness, including 103 former foster youth and 242 veterans.

This nationally recognized program pairs property owners with those given a voucher to reduce their housing costs. This public-private partnership helps people avoid homelessness and housing insecurity. Its focus on veterans and former foster youth who may lack adequate support systems helps the most vulnerable in our community.

Let's be clear: This program is a patch on a massive problem. California's housing crisis is the result of decades of inaction in Washington.

I have pushed for expanding the housing choice voucher program. The Federal Government must step up to help local and State governments in preventing homelessness.

I am proud to recognize the United to End Homelessness initiative and look forward to its continued success.

Recognizing 44th OC Black History Parade

Madam Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the Orange County Heritage Council on a wonderfully successful Black History Parade and Unity Festival.

Madam Speaker, 44 years ago, the late Helen Shipp, founder of the Orange County Heritage Council, envisioned an event that would bring the community together in celebration of Black excellence.

Now run by Helen's son, Dwayne, the Orange County Black History Parade and Unity Festival continues to thrive--just as Helen imagined. The event features interactive Black history lessons, college and scholarship information, health screenings, and business connection opportunities.

I applaud how the Unity Festival promotes inclusivity, understanding, and equality. It honors the diverse and resilient history of Black Americans and their historic and ongoing contributions to California.

Madam Speaker, I congratulate the Orange County Heritage Council on their successful event.

Commending CalOptima's Street Medicine Program

Madam Speaker, I rise today to commend CalOptima Health for their new street medicine program, which offers critical mobile health services to unhoused individuals in Orange County.

Logistical barriers make it difficult for people experiencing homelessness to receive the healthcare that they desperately need. CalOptima, which provides health services to low-income Californians, is reducing these barriers by bringing healthcare directly to homeless people, meeting them where they are.

The mobile health program includes a fully equipped medical van and an experienced team to administer healthcare and connect individuals to services, including housing assistance.

CalOptima's Street Medicine program is just one example of how Californians step up to help our neighbors in crisis. Expanding this program would reduce emergency room visits and first responder interventions and keep our communities healthier.

I will continue fighting in Washington to lower housing costs, which is the only way to permanently end homelessness.