Minnesota'S Economic Rights In The Superior National Forest Act
Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, today's debate on H.R. 3905, Minnesota's Economic Rights in the Superior National Forest Act, also known as the MINER Act, is not just important to the great State…
Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, today's debate on H.R. 3905, Minnesota's Economic Rights in the Superior National Forest Act, also known as the MINER Act, is not just important to the great State of Minnesota. This legislation is critically important to the United States.
The MINER Act will reverse the misguided, last-minute actions of the Obama administration to stop any exploration of one of the most valuable precious metal deposits in the world.
The MINER Act will ensure that the people of Minnesota have the opportunity for jobs and economic prosperity that would come if the deposit can ever be mined in an environmentally safe and responsible manner.
The MINER Act will renew the Federal Government's commitment and promise to the citizens of Minnesota. When the Superior National Forest was created in 1909 and, later, when the Boundary Waters Canoe Area was established in 1978, there was an express agreement between the Federal Government and the State of Minnesota that mining and logging could continue in the Superior National Forest. In fact, according to the most recent Superior National Forest land use management plan, mining and logging are considered a desired condition in the forest.
This is about more than just the 10,000-plus jobs which are now at risk because of the lameduck actions of the Obama administration. This is about billions of dollars in revenue for Minnesota's economy and billions more in potential education funding for Minnesota's schools that are now on the line. This is about strategically important metals and minerals which are used by Americans every day. This is about undoing a last-ditch effort to further a political agenda at the expense of the livelihoods that Minnesotans have relied on for generations.
The MINER Act, again, is about protecting Minnesota's right to explore and, if environmentally appropriate, mine valuable and important precious metals, precious metals that are not only necessary to our everyday technology, but which are critically important to our Nation's national defense.
There are some who would like to deny Minnesota the right to explore and potentially mine these precious metals. They argue that any mining activity could negatively impact our beloved Boundary Waters Canoe Area. This concern, however, ignores the fact that, if a mine is ever proposed, and to date there has been no mine proposed, if one is ever proposed in the Superior National Forest, it would have to satisfy all current local, State, and Federal environmental review and permitting requirements before it could ever be approved to proceed.
We can and we will protect the Boundary Waters. I have no doubt that we can find a way to preserve Minnesota's pristine landscape without permanently destroying any future job creation or economic development in Minnesota. By passing the MINER Act, we protect thousands of jobs and billions of dollars in revenue and education funding while leaving an extensive process intact to protect and preserve the environment and our State.
In conclusion, I encourage all my colleagues to support the MINER Act because we know someday someone might find a way to mine these important precious metals in a safe and environmentally responsible way, and if that happens, Minnesota deserves the opportunity and the jobs and economic prosperity that will ensue.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for the additional time, and I recognize my esteemed colleague, the Representative from Minnesota, for his love of the Boundary Waters that we both share.
Mr. Speaker, I want to address the Representative from California first on the claim that H.R. 3905 solely benefits a foreign mining company.
I think you should ask the people of our State. You should ask a gentleman by the name of Dan Forsman, who, as a Minnesotan, has a family heritage of benefiting by mining in our State. He was recently ridiculed by environmentalists in The New York Times because, while he loves the place where he lives, he also wants to make a living in the place where he lives. There are several other companies exploring the area.
Teck has nonferrous mineral holdings within the proposed withdrawal, the potential development of which would be greatly impacted by the withdrawal.
Encampment Minerals, Inc., also has a nonferrous mineral holding within the withdrawal area and is awaiting Federal agency action on a submitted preference right lease application.
Future expansion of the Northshore Mining taconite mine could extend into the withdrawal area and, thus, be impacted by the withdrawal.
PolyMet has invested hundreds of millions on projects that will be negatively impacted by the proposed mineral withdrawal, one of which we voted on here last night.
Further, the withdrawal proposal will seriously hinder the State's ability to seek mineral development of more than 90,000 acres of State school trust fund lands within the withdrawal area.
Twin Metals is a Minnesota company and has been part of the northeastern Minnesota community for 10 years. The company has invested more than $400 million in project development activities, investing in new facilities in the city of Ely, providing local employment opportunities and supporting hundreds of local jobs in the construction, consulting, and contracting sectors. By the way, they also support all the outfitters, the wonderful businesses of tourism. Twin Metals has also contributed more than $320,000 to local philanthropic needs and organizations.
Mr. Speaker, I would add that nothing in this bill alters any current environmental law or protection. The Antiquities Act, the Federal Land Policy and Management Act, NEPA, and all the other laws still apply to Minnesota.
At the end of the day, we are protecting the Boundary Waters, we are protecting the Superior National Forest, and we believe both the economy and tourism, the environment, can coexist in northern Minnesota.