    [House Hearing, 118 Congress]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                           H. CON. RES. 34; AND H.R. 3195,
                             SUPERIOR NATIONAL FOREST
                                  RESTORATION ACT

    =======================================================================

                              LEGISLATIVE HEARING

                                   BEFORE THE

                           SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND
                               MINERAL RESOURCES

                                     OF THE

                         COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
                         U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                        ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION

                                   __________

                             Thursday, May 11, 2023

                                   __________

                               Serial No. 118-24

                                   __________

           Printed for the use of the Committee on Natural Resources

    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

            Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.govinfo.gov
                                       or
              Committee address: http://naturalresources.house.gov

                                    __________

                        U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
    52-298 PDF                  WASHINGTON : 2023

    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                         COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES

                         BRUCE WESTERMAN, AR, Chairman
                        DOUG LAMBORN, CO, Vice Chairman
                      RAUL M. GRIJALVA, AZ, Ranking Member

    Doug Lamborn, CO
    Robert J. Wittman, VA
    Tom McClintock, CA
    Paul Gosar, AZ
    Garret Graves, LA
    Aumua Amata C. Radewagen, AS
    Doug LaMalfa, CA
    Daniel Webster, FL
    Jenniffer Gonzalez-Colon, PR
    Russ Fulcher, ID
    Pete Stauber, MN
    John R. Curtis, UT
    Tom Tiffany, WI
    Jerry Carl, AL
    Matt Rosendale, MT
    Lauren Boebert, CO
    Cliff Bentz, OR
    Jen Kiggans, VA
    Jim Moylan, GU
    Wesley P. Hunt, TX
    Mike Collins, GA
    Anna Paulina Luna, FL
    John Duarte, CA
    Harriet M. Hageman, WY

                                         Grace F. Napolitano, CA
                                         Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan,
                                             CNMI
                                         Jared Huffman, CA
                                         Ruben Gallego, AZ
                                         Joe Neguse, CO
                                         Mike Levin, CA
                                         Katie Porter, CA
                                         Teresa Leger Fernandez, NM
                                         Melanie A. Stansbury, NM
                                         Mary Sattler Peltola, AK
                                         Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, NY
                                         Kevin Mullin, CA
                                         Val T. Hoyle, OR
                                         Sydney Kamlager-Dove, CA
                                         Seth Magaziner, RI
                                         Nydia M. Velazquez, NY
                                         Ed Case, HI
                                         Debbie Dingell, MI
                                         Susie Lee, NV

                        Vivian Moeglein, Staff Director
                          Tom Connally, Chief Counsel
                     Lora Snyder, Democratic Staff Director
                       http://naturalresources.house.gov
                                     ------

                  SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES

                           PETE STAUBER, MN, Chairman
                         WESLEY P. HUNT, TX, Vice Chair
                  ALEXANDRIA OCASIO-CORTEZ, NY, Ranking Member

    Doug Lamborn, CO                     Jared Huffman, CA
    Robert J. Wittman, VA                Kevin Mullin, CA
    Paul Gosar, AZ                       Sydney Kamlager-Dove, CA
    Garret Graves, LA                    Seth Magaziner, RI
    Daniel Webster, FL                   Nydia M. Velazquez, NY
    Russ Fulcher, ID                     Debbie Dingell, MI
    John R. Curtis, UT                   Raul M. Grijalva, AZ
    Tom Tiffany, WI                      Grace F. Napolitano, CA
    Matt Rosendale, MT                   Susie Lee, NV
    Lauren Boebert, CO                   Vacancy
    Wesley P. Hunt, TX                   Vacancy
    Mike Collins, GA
    John Duarte, CA
    Bruce Westerman, AR, ex officio

                                  ----------

                                   CONTENTS

                                  ----------
                                                                       Page

    Hearing held on Thursday, May 11, 2023...........................     1

    Statement of Members:

        Stauber, Hon. Pete, a Representative in Congress from the
          State of Minnesota.........................................     1
        Ocasio-Cortez, Hon. Alexandria, a Representative in Congress
          from the State of New York.................................     3

    Statement of Witnesses:

        Bakk, Hon. Thomas, Member of Minnesota Senate (Retired),
          Cook, Minnesota............................................     4
            Prepared statement of....................................     6
        Thorleifson, Harvey, Professor, Department of Earth and
          Environmental Sciences, University of Minnesota,
          Minneapolis, Minnesota.....................................     8
            Prepared statement of....................................    10
        Rom, Becky, National Chair, Campaign to Save the Boundary
          Waters, Ely, Minnesota.....................................    11
            Prepared statement of....................................    13
            Questions submitted for the record.......................    32
        Chura, David, Board Chair, Jobs for Minnesotans, Duluth,
          Minnesota..................................................    56
            Prepared statement of....................................    57
            Questions submitted for the record.......................    60

    Additional Materials Submitted for the Record:

        Submissions for the Record by Representative Stauber

            Testimony of Dean Peterson at the May 2, 2023 Field
              Hearing................................................    64
            Minnesota House of Representatives, Letter from State
              Representative Skraba, dated May 10, 2023..............    96
            Iron Range Delegation, Letter from Representatives, dated
              May 9, 2023............................................    97
            International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 49,
              Letter, dated May 10, 2023.............................    98
            Range Association of Municipalities and Schools (RAMS),
              Letter, dated May 9, 2023..............................    99
            Advance Energy United, Letter............................   100
            MiningMinnesota, Letter, dated May 11, 2023..............   101
            Conservationists with Common Sense (CWCS), Letter........   101
            Global Minerals Engineering (GME), Letter, dated May 10,
              2023...................................................   102
            National Mining Association (NMA), Statement for the
              Record.................................................   105
            Duluth News Tribune, Opinion Column by Rens Verburg,
              dated January 14, 2022.................................   106
            Up North Jobs Petition...................................   107
            H. Con. Res. 34 support emails sent to Rep. Stauber's
              office.................................................   107

        Submissions for the Record by Representative Ocasio-Cortez

            Star Tribune, article titled, ``Minnesota Power looks to
              ratepayers to recover mine and mill losses,'' by Brooks
              Johnson, dated November 10, 2020.......................   113

        Submissions for the Record by Representative Grijalva

            Opening Statement........................................    79
            Department of the Interior--Statement for the Record on
              H. Con. Res. 34........................................   111

        Submissions for the Record by Representative Fulcher

            U.S. Net Import Reliance from USGS, shown during hearing.   114
            China Copper Supply Chain, shown during hearing..........   115

        Submissions for the Record by Representative Westerman

            The Role of Nonfuel Mineral Commodities in the USA, shown
              during hearing.........................................   115

        Submissions for the Record by Representative Duarte

            Map of Forest Watershed and Mineral Deposit, shown during
              hearing................................................   116
            Boundary Waters Aerial Photo, shown during hearing.......   116

        Submissions for the Record by Representative Gosar

            Canadian Map of Boundary Waters, shown during hearing....   117

     LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON H. CON. RES. 34, EXPRESSING DISAPPROVAL OF THE
     WITHDRAWAL BY THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR OF APPROXIMATELY 225,504
     ACRES OF NATIONAL FOREST SYSTEM LANDS IN COOK, LAKE, AND SAINT LOUIS
     COUNTIES, MINNESOTA FROM DISPOSITION UNDER THE UNITED STATES MINERAL
      AND GEOTHERMAL LEASING LAWS; AND 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, ``SUPERIOR NATIONAL FOREST RESTORATION ACT''

                                  ----------

                             Thursday, May 11, 2023

                         U.S. House of Representatives

                  Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources

                         Committee on Natural Resources

                                 Washington, DC

                                  ----------

        The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:04 a.m., in
    Room 1324, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Pete Stauber
    [Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
        Present: Representatives Stauber, Lamborn, Gosar, Graves,
    Fulcher, Tiffany, Rosendale, Collins, Duarte, Westerman;
    Ocasio-Cortez, Huffman, Kamlager-Dove, and Grijalva.

        Mr. Stauber. The Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral
    Resources will come to order.
        Without objection, the Chair is authorized to declare a
    recess of the Subcommittee at any time.
        Under Committee Rule 4(f), any oral opening statements at
    hearings are limited to the Chairman and the Ranking Minority
    Member.
        I now recognize myself for an opening statement.

        STATEMENT OF THE HON. PETE STAUBER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
                  CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MINNESOTA

        Mr. Stauber. Welcome, all of you here and those watching
    online, to the Energy and Mineral Resources Subcommittee.
    Today, we will consider two bills that will help put America
    back in control of our critical mineral supply by mining here.
        Minerals play a vital role in America's economy. Control of
    our supply of these minerals is a strategic national security
    concern for the United States and our allies. Because of the
    Biden administration's opposition to domestic mining, we are
    woefully reliant on foreign sources of minerals mined in
    appalling environmental and labor conditions. Instead, we can
    mine here.
        In northern Minnesota, mining is part of our way of life.
    For 140 years, we have mined the iron that won two world wars
    and built America. Today, the mining communities throughout the
    Iron Range provide the feedstock that accounts for 80 percent
    of America's steelmaking. And now this region has an
    opportunity to supplement its iron production with the Duluth
    Complex, which accounts for 95 percent of America's nickel,
    nearly 90 percent of our cobalt, 75 percent of our platinum,
    and more than a third of our copper.
        The Superior National Forest, which partially covers the
    Duluth Complex, includes 1 million acres of federally protected
    wilderness and a surrounding mining protection area set up in
    statute. In the remaining 2 million acres, mineral development
    is a desired condition of the forest plan. When the wilderness
    and its buffer zone were established, my predecessor,
    Congressman Jim Oberstar, a lifelong Democrat, wrote to then-
    President Jimmy Carter requesting he not take our livelihoods
    away, meaning mining and timber harvesting.
        With only 16 days left of his administration, President
    Obama pulled the Federal leases and moved to ban mining for
    purely political reasons. President Trump rightfully reinstated
    the leases and canceled the 20-year ban. Now, the Biden
    administration has once again pulled the mining leases and put
    forth a 20-year mining ban. To make matters worse, the
    Secretary of the Interior, who signed off on the mineral ban,
    stated twice under oath that she didn't even know that critical
    minerals were there.
        It is well past time for Congress to claw back its
    authority on these important issues. Therefore, I offer
    legislation today to right these wrongs. House Concurrent
    Resolution 34 exercises an authority passed by Congress, signed
    by the President, and enshrined in statute. It allows for
    Congress to overturn withdrawals of more than 5,000 acres.
        H.R. 3195, the Superior National Forest Restoration Act,
    not only overturns the harmful mining ban, but also reinstates
    the leases dating back to 1966; requires full consideration of
    the project-specific mine plan of operation, including the full
    Environmental Impact Statement; and exempts these actions from
    judicial review.
        Neither of these proposals ``fast track'' or ``greenlight''
    a project.
        Now, remember, opponents of the project here today will
    change the narrative. They will try and make today about the
    already federally protected area. They will ignore the fact
    that the Interior Secretary had no idea there were critical
    minerals in the withdrawal area. They will ignore the Project
    Labor Agreement signed with the Iron Range Building and
    Construction Trades, and they will ignore the open pit gold
    mine in Canada permitted in 3 years in the same watershed that
    flows into another part of my district, Lake of the Woods.
        We have clean water and mining. We have projects that
    propose using state-of-the-art technologies like dry stack
    tailings that would prevent any problems. So, let's pass these
    bills and study the full Environmental Impact Statement, which
    is the highest scrutiny allowed under the Federal Government.
    Let's mine the minerals we need for our defense applications,
    modern technology, and everyday use with American labor in
    northern Minnesota.

        Thank you, and I yield to my colleague from New York,
    Ranking Member Ocasio-Cortez.

           STATEMENT OF THE HON. ALEXANDRIA OCASIO-CORTEZ, A
         REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK

        Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. Thank you, Chair Stauber.
        Today, before this Committee we are considering a mining
    project that has already been rejected through scientific
    review.
        And while we are talking about the Boundary Waters today,
    we could just as easily be talking about Oak Flat or Rosemont
    or any number of extractive projects where corporations have
    continued to ignore the evidence and science, and push a profit
    agenda at the expense of nearby communities and ecosystems.
    These corporations can do this because, as we see today, the
    private sector has captured influence in many areas of our
    government. But from many of the questions we may be hearing,
    to statements we will be witnessing, and information provided,
    much of this hearing could have very well been orchestrated by
    the interests that seek to have this project renewed.
        So, what are the Boundary Waters? The Boundary Waters in
    northeastern Minnesota are pristine wilderness, but it is not
    luck that has kept these waters clean and made the wilderness
    there a sanctuary for endangered species. The Boundary Waters
    has more than a century-long history of Federal protections.
    Through treaties with Canada in 1909 and later the Wilderness
    Act of 1964, our country has long recognized the importance of
    preserving the Boundary Waters. And for countless generations
    before that, and to this day, the Ojibwe or Chippewa people
    have stewarded the land and waters and continue to gather,
    hunt, fish, and harvest in and around the area.
        The Boundary Waters supports a thriving outdoor recreation
    economy with hundreds of thousands of annual visitors and tens
    of thousands of jobs across northeastern Minnesota, and yet
    this region and its resources have been under threat for years.
        In 2012, Twin Metals Minnesota, a wholly-owned subsidiary
    of the Chilean mining company Antofagasta, requested an
    extension of two expired leases on Forest Service land in the
    Boundary Waters watershed to build a 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 could result in,
    and I quote, ``extreme, serious, and irreparable harm'' in the
    watershed of this wilderness area, putting the entire ecosystem
    at risk.
        My colleagues may say this is safe because of the legacy of
    taconite mining the region is used to in the Iron Range, and
    the fact that sulfide ore copper mining is a completely
    different form of mining. It would create sulfuric acid,
    otherwise known as battery acid drainage, miles from the river
    that flows into the Boundary Waters. This risks acid drainage
    into the watershed, which would cause permanent damage to the
    ecosystem.
        That should have been the end of the debate; but of course,
    it was not. As soon as President Trump came into office, the
    administration ignored the science and the input from the
    community, and reinstated the Twin Metals leases. But to no
    surprise, the Department of the Interior solicitor, under the
    current administration, found that President Trump improperly
    renewed these leases with inadequate NEPA analysis, and
    canceled them once again. After yet another thorough review and
    rounds of community input and tribal consultation, the current
    Administration finalized 20-year protections for the 225,000
    acres around the wilderness area, making the area ineligible
    for mining.
        Now, we are seeing today a proposal to use a clause of the
    Federal Land Policy and Management Act, or the FLPMA, that is
    widely accepted as unconstitutional to try to overturn the
    withdrawal. In fact, even the National Mining Association has
    argued the provision's unconstitutionality in court. Under this
    legislation, no challenge to the leases or permits could be
    heard ever, no matter how dire the harm to clean water, clean
    air, endangered species, or the people who live there.
        You will see today that choosing to protect this wilderness
    area and its critical watershed will hurt our country's ability
    to meet the mineral needs of our clean energy future. But this
    is a false choice. If we are going to build a sustainable
    mining industry--and we must--we need to do so respecting sound
    science and community input, including tribal consultation and
    process. In this case, years of process have led again and
    again to the decision that this type of mining in this place is
    not worth the risk.
        I look forward to hearing from today's witnesses. Thank you
    all for traveling all this way to be with us here in DC, and I
    yield back.

        Mr. Stauber. Thank you very much. I will now introduce our
    witnesses.
        The first witness is the Honorable Tom Bakk, who is a
    retired Minnesota Senate Majority Leader from Cook, Minnesota;
    Dr. Harvey Thorleifson is a Professor of Earth and
    Environmental Sciences from the University of Minnesota in
    Minneapolis; Ms. Becky Rom is the National Chair of the
    Campaign to Save the Boundary Waters in Ely, Minnesota; and Mr.
    David Chura serves as Board Chair for Jobs for Minnesotans from
    Duluth, Minnesota.
        I will now recognize Senator Bakk for his opening
    statement.

     STATEMENT OF THE HON. THOMAS BAKK, MEMBER OF MINNESOTA SENATE
                       (RETIRED), COOK, MINNESOTA

        Mr. Bakk. Thank you, Chairman Stauber, Ranking Committee
    Member Ocasio-Cortez, and members of the Committee. Thank you
    for the opportunity to testify today. My name is Tom Bakk, I am
    a lifelong resident of northeastern Minnesota, and a very
    proud, what we describe up north as an Iron Ranger.
        I care very deeply about the issue we are discussing this
    morning because I proudly represented the communities of
    northeastern Minnesota in our State Legislature for nearly
    three decades. As a Democrat for 26 years, as the DFL Caucus
    Leader for 9 years, and as an independent for the final 2 years
    of my service, to say I am passionate about protecting the
    well-being of our region for current and future generations is
    an understatement. That is why I was deeply disappointed when
    the Biden administration placed a 20-year ban on mining on
    225,000 acres of land in northeastern Minnesota earlier this
    year, in my former legislative district.
        I questioned whether this Administration realized that this
    area contains vast quantities of critical minerals it needs to
    accomplish its own energy transition goals. I questioned if
    they knew that multiple companies are pursuing responsible
    development of those very resources. And I questioned if they
    knew our region has been on sharp economic decline for decades,
    and that the potential high-paying union jobs from mining are
    desperately needed. Surely, they must have known that locking
    up a domestic treasure trove of minerals only increases our
    reliance on sourcing metals from foreign adversaries;
    countries, I might add, who don't protect workers in the
    environment like we proudly do here in the United States.
        Unfortunately, I don't believe they took any of that into
    consideration. For that reason, I jumped at the opportunity to
    come here today to encourage the Biden administration and this
    Committee to correct course on this harmful decision. I am also
    eager to share the story of why northeastern Minnesota is so
    unique.
        Iron Rangers are hardworking, largely blue collar, very
    proud Americans, because we have made our contribution to the
    state, to the country, and to the world. The American tanks,
    airplanes, battleships, aircraft carriers that helped the
    United States win the Second World War didn't come out of thin
    air; they were made from iron produced by our hardworking
    miners on the Iron Range in northern Minnesota. Electric cars,
    advanced military technologies, energy storage systems to cell
    phones in your pockets, the copper wiring that allows us to
    turn the lights on every day, these are all made from the
    critical minerals that are abundant underground in Minnesota.
        Perhaps one of the most exceptional things about our region
    is its natural beauty. Those of us that live in northeastern
    Minnesota want to protect our stunning lakes, rivers, wildlife,
    and woods that allow avid outdoorsmen like me to fish, hunt,
    and recreate outdoors year-round. When it comes to mining, it
    is not an either-or proposition. We can mine and protect our
    environment at the same time, despite the misinformation you
    may hear from anti-development activists. In fact, I have seen
    firsthand how the iron mining industry has allowed our outdoor
    economy to thrive for more than 140 years, and the water in
    northeastern Minnesota is among the cleanest in the whole
    state.
        As I look back on three decades that I spent in the
    Minnesota Legislature, I am most grateful for the relationships
    I forged across party lines in order to find the best solutions
    for the common good. I worry that we have lost the ability to
    do that in recent years. And sadly, what is happening to
    proposed mining projects in Minnesota is an alarming example of
    that polarization.
        On one hand, the Administration has set an aggressive
    agenda for producing clean energy here in the United States for
    shoring up domestic mineral supply chains and for creating
    American jobs. On the other hand, the same Administration
    removed from consideration 95 percent of our nation's nickel
    resources, 90 percent of our cobalt, and a third of our copper.
    It is extremely counterproductive to simply say no to domestic
    mining in a knee-jerk fashion, instead of allowing all
    stakeholders to evaluate projects based on their merits and to
    determine the best outcome. These short-sighted actions are
    driven by a small group of the loudest voices with much
    influence, rather than allowing the experts at our agencies to
    lead an objective process that includes public input.
        I commend Congressman Stauber's work to overturn the
    mineral withdrawal in northeastern Minnesota to correct course
    on an arbitrary, detrimental decision. I fully support
    Concurrent Resolution 34, which will allow mining projects in
    the region to be fairly reviewed through an established
    regulatory process. It is what the people of northern Minnesota
    expect and deserve.
        I look forward to your questions. Thank you.

        [The prepared statement of Mr. Bakk follows:]
      Prepared Statement of Senator Tom Bakk, Retired--Former Member and
           Leader of the Minnesota State House and Senate, 1995-2023
                          on Concurrent Resolution 34

        Thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony regarding the
    consideration of House Concurrent Resolution 34. I care very deeply
    about the issues related to this resolution, because I proudly
    represented the communities of northeastern Minnesota in our state
    legislature for nearly three decades, as a Democrat for 26 years, as
    the DFL Caucus leader for nine years, and as an Independent for the
    final two years of my service. To say I am passionate about protecting
    the well-being of our region for current and future generations is an
    understatement.
        That's why I was deeply disappointed when the Biden Administration
    placed a 20-year ban on mining on 225,000 acres of land in northeast
    Minnesota earlier this year in my former legislative district. I
    wondered if the administration realized that this area contains vast
    quantities of the critical minerals it needs to accomplish its own
    energy transition goals, or that multiple companies are pursuing
    responsible development of those resources. I wondered if they knew our
    region has been on a sharp economic decline for decades and that the
    potential high-paying union jobs from mining are desperately needed.
        Surely, they must have known that locking up a domestic treasure
    trove of minerals only increases our dangerous reliance on sourcing
    metals from foreign adversaries who don't protect workers and the
    environment like we proudly do here in the U.S.

        Unfortunately, I don't believe they took any of that into
    consideration.

        For that reason, the opportunity to submit this testimony is
    incredibly important to me. I strongly encourage the Biden
    Administration and this committee to correct course on this harmful
    decision. Additionally, I want to highlight why northeast Minnesota is
    so significant and unique.
        The American tanks, airplanes, battleships, and aircraft carriers
    that helped the U.S. win the Second World War weren't made out of thin
    air. They were made from the iron produced by our hardworking miners on
    the Iron Range in Minnesota.
        Electric cars, advanced military technologies, energy storage
    solutions, cell phones and the copper wiring that allows us to turn on
    the lights every day are made from the critical minerals that are
    abundant underground in Minnesota.
        Perhaps one of the most exceptional things about our region is the
    natural beauty. Those of us that live in northeast Minnesota want to
    protect our stunning lakes, rivers, wildlife and woods that allow avid
    outdoorsmen like me to fish, hunt and recreate outdoors year-round.
        When it comes to mining in Minnesota, it is not an either/or
    proposition. We can mine and protect our environment at the same time,
    despite the misinformation promoted by anti-development activists. In
    fact, I've seen firsthand how the iron mining industry has allowed the
    outdoor economy to thrive for more than 140 years, and the water in
    northeast Minnesota is among the cleanest water in the whole state.
        I firmly believe we can advance a responsible copper-nickel-cobalt
    mining industry in the region while continuing to strictly protect our
    natural resources we so cherish, in large part because Congress, the
    Minnesota Legislature, state and federal government agencies,
    environmental groups, mining and exploration companies, and mineral
    owners have spent decades conducting the research, working on laws and
    regulations, and establishing the permitting processes to assure that
    development of non-ferrous minerals in Minnesota will be managed
    responsibly.
        It is also paramount to remember that the nearby wilderness area,
    the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness (BWCAW), is already well-
    protected because of a significant decision made by Congress decades
    ago that established and banned industrial activities within the
    wilderness area. At the same time, Congress designated lands outside
    the BWCAW in the Superior National Forest where mining and other
    industrial activities were deemed desired conditions. Furthermore, both
    state and federal buffer zones were established around the wilderness
    area to allow access and provide additional protection.
        Companies with proposed mining projects aren't asking for special
    treatment. They are asking for their plans to be scientifically
    reviewed through the fair process as outlined under law through the
    National Environmental Policy Act. When the environmental and
    permitting process works well, U.S. scientists thoroughly test a mine
    plan and our agencies engage all stakeholders and the public to make a
    project the safest and best possible.
        The people of northern Minnesota will accept if the Biden
    Administration thoroughly reviewed proposed mine plans and decided
    against them because they are too risky. But because of the 20-year
    mining ban, the administration won't even consider a mine plan. That
    isn't fair to my neighbors and friends.
        For the past 40 years, communities in northeast Minnesota have
    experienced a decline in population by about 26%.\1\ Several companies
    have poured millions of dollars of investment into trying to advance
    high-tech, best-in-class mining projects that would bring thousands of
    good-paying full-time and spinoff jobs to the area. That's exactly the
    kind of economic comeback our region needs, yet the federal government
    doesn't seem to care. It touts goals that sound impressive on the
    surface while turning its back on communities like ours.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ https://worldpopulationreview.com/states/minnesota-population
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        On the one hand, the administration has set an aggressive agenda
    for producing clean energy here in the U.S., for shoring up domestic
    mineral supply chains and for creating American jobs. On the other
    hand, that same administration removed from consideration approximately
    95% of our nation's nickel resources, about 90% of our cobalt, and a
    third of our copper.
        According to the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, the
    estimated state, federal, and private mineral resources within the
    withdrawal area are significant: 88 billion pounds of copper, 27
    billion pounds of nickel, 1.6 billion pounds of cobalt, 22 million
    ounces of platinum, 54 million ounces of palladium, 11 million ounces
    of gold, and 338 ounces of silver.\2\ Developing these minerals would
    directly support the administration's goals on clean energy, supply
    chains and jobs. A domestic source of these resources is also
    absolutely critical to our national security.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \2\ https://www.lcc.mn.gov/lpsfc/meetings/170823/
    MN%20DNR%20Soping%20Comments_Federal
    %20Minerals%20Withdrawal%208_17_17.pdf
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Let me highlight the significance of those numbers with a couple of
    examples. The average electric car battery contains about 80 pounds of
    nickel, which means that because of the mineral withdrawal, the
    administration has stripped the U.S. of the potential to make more than
    337 million electric vehicles--more than enough for each person in the
    country. The average single-family home uses about 440 pounds of copper
    for electricity, so our ability to bring power to more than 200 million
    homes is lost because of the mining ban. With the global average
    household at five people,\3\ that's more than enough copper to bring
    electricity to the entire world population that currently has no access
    to power.\4\ I highly doubt that the administration took the time to
    consider these missed opportunities.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \3\ https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2020/03/31/with-
    billions-confined-to-their-homes-worldwide-which-living-arrangements-
    are-most-common/#:?:text=Around%20the%20world%2C%
    20the%20average,)%20and%20Europe%20(3.1).
        \4\ https://ourworldindata.org/energy-
    access#:?:text=work%20on%20Energy-,Summary,not%20
    have%20access%20to%20electricity.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Simply saying ``no'' to domestic mining instead of allowing all
    stakeholders to evaluate projects based on their merits to determine
    the best outcome is counterproductive to achieving our goals. It's
    driven by a small group of the loudest voices, with much influence,
    rather than allowing the experts at our federal and state agencies to
    lead an objective process that includes public input.
        One of the most disappointing things I learned after hearing that
    the Department of the Interior enacted the 20-year mineral withdrawal
    was that the environmental assessment conducted by federal agencies to
    make the mining ban determination was based on purely hypothetical
    situations. No environmental or project-specific data from companies
    like Twin Metals Minnesota or others was used to support its
    conclusions. This means that the government didn't consider the best
    information available to determine whether mining can be done safely in
    the region. The Environmental Assessment they released even
    acknowledges that any of the hypothetical impacts they came up with
    could be mitigated, avoided, or regulated to occur under the standards
    set forth by state and federal agencies. Why don't our agencies
    recognize their own authority to oversee and implement environmental
    regulations rather than undermine trust in their own scientific
    experts' ability to get it right? It just doesn't make sense.
        Ultimately, this mineral withdrawal shuts out major opportunities
    for America. This comes at a time when, according to the U.S.
    Geological Survey's 2023 Minerals Commodity Summaries report,\5\ the
    U.S. has reached a record high for U.S. mineral imports. Meanwhile,
    China is and will continue to be the leading supplier for most of the
    minerals our economy depends on. That begs the question: Who do we
    trust more to develop mineral resources in a way that is respectful of
    the environment and workers--China or the U.S.?
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \5\ https://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/mcs2023
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        As I look back on the three decades I spent in the Minnesota
    legislature, I'm most grateful for the relationships I forged across
    party lines in order to find the best solutions for the common good. I
    worry that we've lost the ability to do that in recent years, and
    sadly, what's happening to proposed mining projects in Minnesota is an
    alarming example of that polarization.
        It's time we come to our senses and realize that everything that
    sustains life is either grown or mined. If we want to maintain our
    standard of living and ensure a cleaner future, we must have mining.
    And we should be demanding that those minerals be mined here in the
    U.S., where we can properly enforce strong labor and environmental
    standards.
        I commend Congressman Stauber's work to overturn the mineral
    withdrawal in northeast Minnesota and to correct course on an
    arbitrary, detrimental decision. I fully support Concurrent Resolution
    34, which will allow mining projects in the region to be fairly
    reviewed through the established regulatory process. It's what the
    people of northern Minnesota expect and deserve.

                                     ______

        Mr. Stauber. Thank you for your testimony, Senator.
        I will now recognize Dr. Thorleifson for 5 minutes.

    STATEMENT OF HARVEY THORLEIFSON, PROFESSOR, DEPARTMENT OF EARTH
     AND ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES, UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA, MINNESOTA

        Dr. Thorleifson. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Madam Ranking
    Member, and members of the Subcommittee. My name is Harvey
    Thorleifson. I am a University of Minnesota professor. I hold
    degrees in geoscience and biology. My first employment in
    science was in aquatic ecology, and much of my career has
    focused on protection of water. I also have engaged in research
    to support the mining industry, and I have held leadership
    positions such as chair of the State Mining Society. Today, I
    speak as Chair of the Minnesota Center for Mineral Resource
    Education, which seeks to share information to support good
    decision-making by society.
        I believe that we all want the same thing: for people to be
    healthy, wealthy, and safe, while protecting our human and
    natural heritage.
        We need services, infrastructure, food, energy, water, and
    minerals, including materials needed for national security and
    green energy. But, as for other industries, past little-
    regulated mining left a legacy of landscape modification and
    pollution that we no longer tolerate. And although technology
    has advanced, we still are disturbed when we hear of tailings
    dam failures or acid drainage. We, therefore, are committed to
    reduce, reuse, and recycle.
        But that is not enough. We still need to mine somewhere.
    But reliance on imports makes us vulnerable to supply, causes
    lost jobs and revenue, and condones labor and environmental
    practices overseas. We, therefore, benefit from domestic mining
    that fully satisfies all rigorous regulatory requirements.
        In Minnesota, we value our clean air and water, we treasure
    our landscape, and we have benefited from industries. Mining is
    part of the Minnesota way of life, whether sand and gravel or
    crushed stone in every county, or iron ore for the needs of the
    nation. To the north in Canada are multiple major sulfide ore
    mines that produce needed metals that we import to the United
    States. The Minnesota Legislature has endorsed responsible
    mineral diversification and companies have been urged to
    explore and invest. The Duluth Complex, north and west of Lake
    Superior, has, therefore, been recognized as a world-class
    potential source of the metals that we need.
        New mining offers the opportunity for jobs for Minnesota
    families, much revenue, and decreased reliance on imports to
    the United States. However, the people of Minnesota will not
    tolerate what they deem to be unacceptable risk, such as the
    potential for significant pollution of water. We are determined
    to protect all waters and today, in particular, we are focused
    on the Boundary Waters in the upper Rainy River Basin. Concern
    has been expressed regarding the potential for new mining in an
    area that drains to the upper Rainy River. There has been past
    mining in this drainage, and current human activity has to
    manage its impact, although concern has focused on acid-
    generating sulfide minerals.
        The project that has been proposed in this area would have
    no pit, no headframe, no smelter, no smokestack, no long-term
    waste rock pile, no tailings pond nor tailings dam, but rather
    what has been indicated to be non-acid-generating dry stack
    tailings. We thus need to reconcile concern with the project as
    described, should further rigorous review confirm this lack of
    impact.
        In closing, mining in this watershed could result in jobs
    and metals needed by the nation, and a much lower chance of
    pollution than past mining. I urge those who seek to facilitate
    or prevent this mining to more explicitly describe the
    pollution they believe could plausibly occur as we ensure that
    there is a full discussion and analysis.
        In conclusion, the people of Minnesota are determined to
    protect the Boundary Waters, and there is concurrently
    recognition of the benefits that well-regulated mining can
    provide for the region and for the nation, and the need to
    rigorously review a proposal that companies were urged to
    develop.
        I have appreciated this opportunity to testify. Thank you.

        [The prepared statement of Dr. Thorleifson follows:]
       Prepared Statement of L. Harvey Thorleifson Ph.D., P.Geo., D.Sc.,
                       University of Minnesota Professor;
                                      and
             Chair, Minnesota Center for Mineral Resource Education
     on Concurrent Resolution 34 and H.R. 3195, ``Superior National Forest
                               Restoration Act''

        Good morning, Mr. Chairman, and Members of the Subcommittee. My
    name is Harvey Thorleifson. I am a University of Minnesota Professor,
    and I hold degrees in geoscience and biology.
        My first employment in science was in aquatic ecology, and much of
    my career has focused on protection of water. I also have engaged in
    research to support the mining industry, and I have held leadership
    positions, such as chair of the state mining society.
        At present, I am chair of the Minnesota Center for Mineral Resource
    Education, which seeks to share balanced information with the public.
        I believe that we all want the same thing, for people to be
    healthy, wealthy, and safe, while protecting our human and natural
    heritage. We thus need services, infrastructure, food, energy, water,
    and minerals, including materials needed for national security and
    green energy.
        But, as for other industries, past little-regulated mining left a
    legacy of landscape modification and pollution that we no longer
    tolerate. And although mining technology has advanced, we still are
    disturbed when we hear of tailings dam failures, or acid drainage.
        We are committed to reduce, reuse, and recycle, but that is not
    enough, we still need to mine, somewhere. Reliance on imports makes us
    vulnerable to supply, causes lost jobs and revenue, and condones labor
    and environmental practices overseas. We therefore benefit from
    domestic mining that fully satisfies all rigorous regulatory
    requirements.
        In Minnesota, we value our clean air and water, we treasure our
    landscape, and we have benefited from industries. Mining is part of the
    Minnesota way of life, whether sand and gravel or crushed stone in
    every County, or iron ore for the needs of the Nation.
        To the north in Canada are multiple major sulfide mines that
    produce needed metals that we import to the US.
        The Minnesota Legislature has endorsed responsible mineral
    diversification, and companies have been urged to explore and invest.
        The Duluth Complex north and west of Lake Superior thus has been
    recognized as a potential source of metals, including critical
    minerals.
        New mining offers the opportunity for thousands of jobs for
    Minnesota families, much revenue, and decreased reliance on imports to
    the US. However, the people of Minnesota will not tolerate what they
    deem to be unacceptable risk, such as the potential for significant
    pollution of water.
        Counties and Tribes in the north want to protect all waters, and
    today we are focused on the Boundary Waters in the upper Rainy River
    basin.
        Concern has been expressed regarding the potential for new mining
    in an area that drains to the Rainy River. There has been mining in
    this drainage, and activity presumably discharges wastewater, but
    concern relates to acid-generating sulfide minerals.
        The project that has been proposed would have no headframe, no
    smelter, no smokestack, no waste rock, no tailings pond, nor tailings
    dam. It thus is difficult to reconcile the level of public concern with
    the project as described.
        Mining in this watershed thus could result in jobs, and metals
    needed by the Nation, with a much lower chance of pollution than past
    mining.
        I urge those who seek to facilitate or prevent this mining to more
    explicitly describe the pollution that could plausibly occur.
        There is clear support to protect the Boundary Waters, either from
    significant pollution or any pollution, and no doubt people of Counties
    and Tribes who live in other watersheds yearn for a similar level of
    protection.
        I have appreciated this opportunity to testify.
                                     ______

        Mr. Stauber. Thank you, Dr. Thorleifson.
        I will now recognize Ms. Rom for 5 minutes.

     STATEMENT OF BECKY ROM, NATIONAL CHAIR, CAMPAIGN TO SAVE THE
                    BOUNDARY WATERS, ELY, MINNESOTA

        Ms. Rom. I live near Ely, Minnesota, the major gateway to
    the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness. I am the
    granddaughter of an Ely iron ore miner and the daughter of an
    Ely-based wilderness canoe trip outfitter. I serve as the
    volunteer National Chair of the Campaign to Save the Boundary
    Waters, a coalition of more than 400 businesses, conservation
    organizations, hunting and fishing groups, and youth groups
    like Kids for the Boundary Waters that are united to
    permanently protect the Boundary Waters from the risks
    associated with sulfide ore copper mining.
        I support Secretary Haaland's order banning mining of
    public minerals on Federal lands in the headwaters of the
    Boundary Waters. I strongly oppose the two House bills.
        Members of the Subcommittee have heard about the sulfide
    ore mineral wealth of northern Minnesota. The far greater
    wealth is the canoe country of northeastern Minnesota and
    Ontario, the Boundary Waters in Canada's Quetico Park.
        [Slide.]
        Ms. Rom. This aerial photo is a small part of the Boundary
    Waters in Quetico, and it depicts the greatest canoe country
    wilderness in the world.
        The Boundary Waters is cherished by the American people.
    The area has been protected by the Federal Government and the
    state of Minnesota for more than 120 years. The Boundary Waters
    became one of the nation's first wilderness areas in 1964, and
    every year since, more people have visited the 1.1 million-acre
    Boundary Waters than any other wilderness. It is America's most
    accessible wilderness, providing people of all abilities and
    income a world-class wilderness experience. And it is our
    nation's largest wilderness east of the Rockies and north of
    the Everglades. This area is 1854-ceded territory where Ojibwe
    people retain treaty rights to hunt, fish, and gather. Twenty-
    four percent of the Boundary Waters is water deemed
    exceptionally clean and immaculate by the Minnesota Pollution
    Control Agency.
        Although the Clean Water Act allows no water degradation
    whatsoever, our canoe country wilderness would be at grave risk
    of permanent damage if these bills were adopted. The science is
    utterly clear about the pollution and destruction that sulfide
    ore copper mining on upstream lands and waters would do.
        [Slide.]
        Ms. Rom. Polluted waters would flow north into the Boundary
    Waters. Yet, these two bills seek to benefit one Chilean mining
    company, Antofagasta, to the detriment of the Boundary Waters
    and the American people.
        The mine plan of Antofagasta's Twin Metals rejected by the
    BLM and shelved by the Minnesota DNR in 2022 is plain evidence
    of the sheer wrongness of mining in the headwaters of the
    Boundary Waters. The mine plan showed a toxic waste tailings
    storage facility on the shores of Birch Lake, directly upstream
    from the Boundary Waters. The plan proposed a waste storage
    technique called dry stacking, which was rejected by the DNR as
    wrong for northern Minnesota's wet climate, and it has failed
    at mines elsewhere in the nation.
        This mine would produce an insignificant quantity of
    copper, nickel, and cobalt relative to U.S. demand. Under the
    Antofagasta mine plan, minerals would be shipped as concentrate
    to a port for transport overseas for smelting. Antofagasta
    ships its metal concentrates from its current mines to low-cost
    smelters in China. By contrast, the proposed mine would cause
    enormous damage to the ecosystem, the landscape, and the
    regional economy. The benefits go to China and Chile; the harm
    and cost would go to America's lands and people.
        [Slide.]
        Ms. Rom. This is the Twin Metals mine site: 30 businesses
    are directly in the path of pollution of an Antofagasta Twin
    Metals mine. Dozens of other Boundary Waters businesses would
    be threatened.
        The only peer-reviewed economic study to consider the costs
    and benefits over a 20-year period found that the regional
    economy would produce more jobs and income under the mineral
    withdrawal than if mining were to proceed. Twenty-three percent
    of property owners in the four area townships say they will
    leave if copper mining were developed.
        Calls for a mine plan review, a process that Twin Metals
    has already failed, and for which it no longer has a credible
    mine plan, are misguided. Such a review is appropriate only for
    areas where significant landscape and ecological degradation is
    acceptable.
        The environmental review process for a mine is imperfect.
    Studies show that such reviews are wrong 9 out of 10 times in
    predicting no water quality degradation. Minnesota's water
    quality standards were not designed for the pristine waters of
    the Boundary Waters. They allow mines to discharge pollution at
    levels that are five or six times the existing conditions on
    Birch Lake.
        FLPMA provides the correct process for determining whether
    mines should be sited in valuable and vulnerable areas. The
    first and most important decision is this: Is this the right
    place for a sulfide ore copper mine?
        In 2016, the Forest Service concluded that the headwaters
    of the Boundary Waters was the wrong place. Such a mine in this
    place presented an unacceptable risk of harm to the Boundary
    Waters, and would result in damage that could not be mitigated
    or fixed. The 2022 Superior National Forest Mineral Withdrawal
    EA substantiates and validates this decision and the withdrawal
    order.
        I call on this Subcommittee to put the interests of the
    American people ahead of the interests of billionaire mining
    companies and overseas smelter operators. The Boundary Waters
    is a priceless asset of the people of Minnesota and the nation.
    Its clean water, healthy forests and wetlands, great array of
    wildlife, and world-class sport fishery are infinitely more
    valuable than the relatively small amount of minerals that
    could be extracted in the withdrawal area.

        [The prepared statement of Ms. Rom follows:]
     Prepared Statement of Becky Rom, National Chair, Campaign to Save the
                         Boundary Waters Ely, Minnesota
     on Concurrent Resolution 34 and H.R. 3195, ``Superior National Forest
                               Restoration Act''

    Introduction

        I support Public Land Order 7917, which withdrew 225,504 acres of
    public lands and minerals located in the headwaters of the Boundary
    Waters Canoe Area Wilderness (Boundary Waters) in the Superior National
    Forest (Withdrawal Area) from the federal mineral leasing program for
    20 years (Withdrawal Order). I strongly oppose House Congressional
    Resolution 34 and H.R. 3195.

    Overview of the significance and logic of the Superior National Forest
    Mineral Withdrawal (Public Land Order 7917); the extraordinary
    importance of the Boundary Waters, the Withdrawal Area, and the water;
    and the threat posed by sulfide-ore copper mining.

        The Boundary Waters is the most heavily visited Wilderness in the
    National Wilderness Preservation System--a distinction it has held
    every year since the Wilderness Act passed in 1964. At 1.1 million
    acres, it is the largest Wilderness east of the Rocky Mountains and
    north of the Everglades. The Boundary Waters is the only large lake-
    land Wilderness and the most family-friendly Wilderness in America. It
    offers unmatched fishing, hunting, and recreational opportunities for
    all Americans. The Boundary Waters significantly contributes to more
    than 22,000 jobs and $1.4 billion in tourism economic activity in
    northern Minnesota alone. It is at the heart of a diverse and stable
    economy in a huge swath of northern St. Louis, Lake, and Cook Counties.
        The Superior National Forest is a well-managed and immensely
    popular national forest in which many thousands of people live, work,
    and play. Converting national forest lands in the Withdrawal Area to
    single use--an industrial mining district stretching many thousands of
    acres--would seriously, perhaps fatally, unbalance that sustainable
    economic-residential-recreational region. Few would wish to live or
    play in the vicinity of a vast industrial operation that degrades the
    heart of the Superior National Forest.
        Congressional Resolution 34 and H.R. 3195 risk the Superior
    National Forest--including the Withdrawal Area; the 220,000-acre Mining
    Protection Area created by the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness
    Act of 1978 which protects three entry corridors; and the Boundary
    Waters. These areas together are referred to hereinafter as Protected
    Areas. The two bills also risk the downstream areas of Ontario's 1.1
    million-acre Quetico Park and the 218,000-acre Voyageurs National Park.
        The Protected Areas encompass a water-dominated northern landscape
    unique in America's public lands inventory; they hold ecological,
    social, and economic significance of continental and worldwide
    importance. The Withdrawal Area encompasses the federal lands and
    minerals lying within the Rainy River Headwaters sub-watershed. The
    Rainy River Headwaters forms the major portion of the headwaters of the
    Boundary Waters. The Protected Areas were greatly at risk of, and
    remained unprotected from, sulfide-ore copper mining pollution and
    defilement until the Withdrawal Order. Without the Withdrawal Order,
    the Boundary Waters would be at risk of devastating and irremediable
    water pollution by acid, heavy metals, and sulfates; 80.1% of the
    Boundary Waters lies within the Rainy River Headwaters, downstream of
    the areas in the Headwaters where Antofagasta of Chile and other
    companies sought to mine copper and other sulfide-ore minerals.
    Further, aquatic and terrestrial ecosystem destruction from mine
    development on the periphery and upstream of the Boundary Waters would
    have unpreventable spillover effects into the Wilderness. Frank Ongaro,
    the former executive director of Mining Minnesota, a copper mining
    industry group, admits that mining causes major damage. ``Mining by its
    nature and scale causes significant changes in the landscape and
    ecosystem.'' (Successful Non-Ferrous Mining: Promise or Reality, Eger,
    P. and Ongaro, F., 2014). Sulfide-ore copper mining in the Rainy River
    Headwaters would require ongoing maintenance and remediation for 500+
    years to mitigate, if even possible, such mining's inevitable pollution
    of the waters of the Protected Areas.
        Federal lands in the Withdrawal Area are managed for a variety of
    compatible, sustainable, non-exclusive uses. The Withdrawal Order
    protects lands in the Withdrawal Area and their multiple compatible
    uses, as well as the Boundary Waters and other Protected Areas, from
    the greatest threat they have faced. The 2022 Superior National Forest
    Mineral Withdrawal Environmental Assessment documents both the high
    risk of long-lasting environmental damage to forests and waters by
    sulfide-ore copper mining pollution and the impossibility of prevention
    and mitigation of such pollution in this fabulously water-rich
    environment. Proposals to develop sulfide-ore copper mines (including
    four deposits targeted by Antofagasta's Twin Metals) within the Rainy
    River Headwaters threatened this unique Wilderness, other Protected
    Areas, other parts of the Superior National Forest, and their enormous
    ecological, social, cultural, and economic values. The Boundary Waters
    and the other Protected Areas are highly vulnerable to sulfide-ore
    mining and acid mine drainage because of the abundance of water, the
    massively interconnected surface water and groundwater, and the low
    buffering capacity of the waters. Twenty percent of all freshwater in
    the entire 193-million-acre National Forest System is in the Superior
    National Forest. These waters are among the cleanest in America.
        The Duluth Complex geological formation underlying northeastern
    Minnesota contains only trace amounts of copper and other metals (less
    than one percent). As a result, enormous quantities of sulfide-bearing
    waste rock, polluted process and contact water, and tailings would be
    generated if mining were to occur. Peer-reviewed science published in
    the Journal of Hydrology shows that pollution from sulfide-ore copper
    mining in the Withdrawal Area would enter the waters of the Boundary
    Waters, which are designated Prohibited Outstanding Resource Value
    Waters (the highest level of protection afforded in Minnesota's
    federal-compliant anti-degradation rules). Meyers, J. Hydrology
    533:277-290. Pollution from sulfide-ore copper mines would cross the
    international boundary and damage Quetico, one of Canada's premier
    wilderness parks, and, farther downstream, Voyageurs.
        The Boundary Waters and the rest of the Superior National Forest
    are within the 1854 Treaty Ceded Territory; the Grand Portage, Bois
    Forte, and Fond du Lac Bands of Lake Superior Chippewa (Bands) have
    treaty rights to hunt, fish, gather, and conduct cultural practices
    that depend on protecting the land and existing water quality. All
    federal agencies share in the federal government's trust responsibility
    to the Bands to maintain those treaty resources.
        Interior Secretary Deb Haaland's Withdrawal Order is an essential
    first step toward permanent protection. Secretary Haaland's decision to
    protect the Boundary Waters by prohibiting mining on federal lands
    upstream from the heart of the Wilderness for 20 years--the maximum
    allowed under current law--was based on thorough analysis. The
    Environmental Assessment (EA) released with the Withdrawal Order
    details the impact of sulfide-ore mining on land, water, and wildlife;
    the potential harm to Native American communities, treaty rights, and
    resources; and the climate change implications resulting from the
    destruction of forest land and the vast consumption of energy by mining
    operations.
        The EA underlying the Public Land Order reflects intense awareness
    of the value of the public assets at risk; it states ``[t]he Boundary
    Waters Canoe Area Wilderness is a complex and interconnected ecosystem
    and offers recreational opportunities and other uses such that it is
    considered an irreplaceable national treasure.'' The Minnesota
    Pollution Control Agency is of the same mind; in its 2017 water quality
    assessment of the Rainy River Headwaters, which includes the Withdrawal
    Area, the MPCA describes the waters as ``immaculate'' and states
    ``[t]he majority of the waterbodies . . . had exceptional biological,
    chemical, and physical characteristics that are worthy of additional
    protection.''
    Personal Background

        My name is Becky Rom. I live a few miles north of Ely, Minnesota. I
    grew up in Ely as the daughter of a wilderness canoe trip outfitter and
    the granddaughter of an iron ore miner. Now a mother and a grandmother,
    I serve as the volunteer National Chair of the Campaign to Save the
    Boundary Waters, a coalition of more than 400 businesses, conservation
    organizations, and hunting and fishing groups that are united to
    permanently protect the Boundary Waters from the pollution and
    destruction that inevitably result from sulfide-ore copper mining. Our
    organization is headquartered in Ely and is led by people of
    northeastern Minnesota.
        My dad was Bill Rom, who, after serving as a naval officer in the
    Pacific in World War II, founded a wilderness canoe trip outfitting
    business (1946-1976) in Ely. For most of that time, Dad, Mom, my three
    brothers, and I lived in an apartment over the outfitting business,
    which was open from May 1 to October 1, 7 days a week, 6 am to 10 pm.
    The business was my family's life and everything revolved around it.
    Thousands of people came to my dad's business, Canoe Country
    Outfitters, during the summers. Daily conversations with canoe trip
    customers led me to appreciate the uniqueness and value of the
    wilderness. Returning from Boundary Waters trips, they wanted to share
    their experiences and talk about it all. They viewed the canoe country
    as an extraordinary gift.
        When my parents could escape from work, we ventured into the
    Boundary Waters. My first canoe trip was at the age of two. My brothers
    and I were trained as canoe trip guides; we spent many weeks in the
    canoe country each year. My first guiding trip was at the age of 14, at
    a time (1963) when girls did not customarily work as wilderness guides.
        In April 1967, the last hematite mine in Minnesota, the underground
    Pioneer Mine in Ely, closed forever and mining ended in our community.
    Over the past 50+ years, many people have moved to the Ely area because
    of the canoe country. It is a great place to live, to have the
    wilderness next door, to be able to venture out into it during all
    seasons and weather. Most of the people who live in northeastern
    Minnesota favor protection of the canoe country and are opposed to
    sulfide-ore copper mining in the Boundary Waters watershed. Polling
    shows that nearly 70% of Minnesotans support a permanent ban, and
    within Congressional District 8, my district, residents oppose mining
    near the Boundary Waters by a ten-point margin.
    The Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness

        The Boundary Waters is 1,719 square miles of lakes, streams,
    forests, and wetlands in Northeastern Minnesota. It is part of the
    great Quetico-Superior ecosystem, a wild 4.3-million-acre landscape
    that straddles the border of Minnesota and Ontario. This is the
    greatest canoe country wilderness on the planet. It is a watery,
    wildlife-rich paradise. All surface waters from the headwaters of the
    Boundary Waters flow to Hudson's Bay, coursing through the Boundary
    Waters, the Quetico, and Minnesota's Voyageurs National Park before
    turning north at Lake of the Woods. The waters are exceptionally
    clean--`immaculate' in the words of the Minnesota Pollution Control
    Agency. One can safely drink out of the lakes in the Boundary Waters.
    And the water is abundant. The Boundary Waters sits within the 3-
    million-acre Superior National Forest; the Superior contains 20% of the
    freshwater in the entire 193-million-acre National Forest System. The
    Boundary Waters itself is 24% freshwater. It is wild country--home to
    wolves, lynx, moose, loons, warblers, eagles, and countless other
    creatures--it is the only place in the lower 48 states where wolves
    were never extirpated. The forest of pine, spruce, cedar, and birch
    sits on a shallow layer of soil atop granite and other igneous rock.
    Lakes were carved into this Canadian Shield by glaciers. Travel today
    is by canoe or dogsled, on boots, skis, or snowshoes, much as the
    Anishinaabe and the fur-trading voyageurs traveled along the border
    lakes and then north. Attachment 1 shows a portion of the Boundary
    Waters and Quetico.
        Nothing else in our National Parks or our National Wilderness
    Preservation System is like the Boundary Waters. It is utterly unique.
    Nowhere else is there such a seemingly endless network of lakes,
    streams, and wetlands--all connected by portage trails through a boreal
    forest landscape. No other Wilderness is so accessible to people of all
    ages and abilities--babies in diapers can travel with their parents by
    canoe in the Boundary Waters. My own babies did. Elderly people and
    others with physical challenges can, with assistance, spend days
    traveling by canoe and camping in the Boundary Waters. These are among
    the reasons that the Boundary Waters is the most-visited Wilderness
    area in America. There is no other place like this. We cannot and will
    not allow sulfide-ore mining in its watershed.
    The Sulfide-ore Copper Mining Threat to the Boundary Waters

        The Duluth Complex is a massive body of sulfide-bearing ore that
    underlies much of the Superior National Forest, including the Boundary
    Waters, and extends south to Lake Superior. Trace amounts of copper,
    nickel, platinum, and palladium (in total less than 1%) are found in
    this low-grade ore body. Mining of the Duluth Complex, which has never
    been done, would present massive environmental risks. The sulfide-
    bearing ore would generate acid mine drainage. Mine infrastructure
    would destroy thousands of surface acres in the Superior National
    Forest in one of the most vibrant regions of recreation and economic
    activity in northern Minnesota.
        Sulfide-ore copper mining has never been done in Minnesota--this is
    not the same as my grandfather's hematite mining or taconite mining in
    the Mesabi Iron Range. Sulfide-ore copper mining poses a unique threat
    because the ore contains metals bound together with sulfur. When
    exposed to air and water, sulfide-bearing ore discharges acid mine
    drainage into ground and surface waters (sulfuric acid, heavy metals,
    and sulfates). Because there are only trace amounts of metals, the
    volume of waste rock and tailings (crushed ore) would be enormous. The
    waste rock and tailings would generate acid mine drainage for hundreds
    of years.
        The most immediate threat had been from Antofagasta, a very large
    mining conglomerate from Santiago, Chile, that owns Twin Metals
    Minnesota and sought approvals to mine public minerals in the Superior
    National Forest. Antofagasta purchased Duluth Metals, a Canadian junior
    mining company, in January 2015, and with that acquisition gained
    control of Twin Metals and two expired federal mineral leases. The four
    deposits--two shallow and two deep--are adjacent to the Boundary Waters
    and along rivers and lakes that flow into the Wilderness.
        If the Twin Metals mine plan were ever developed, acid mine
    drainage would flow from a tailings dump located on a 640-acre site
    owned by the State of Minnesota on the shores of Birch Lake into the
    waters that flow into the Boundary Waters. This toxic pollution from
    the tailings dump and underground pollution from the mine would flow
    into waters that are clean and very low in alkaline, meaning the waters
    have little capacity to buffer the acid generated by this type of
    mining. Scientific evidence of significant and permanent harm to the
    Boundary Waters is overwhelming and not credibly contradicted. The
    Forest Service has concluded that the inevitable damage to the Boundary
    Waters could not be mitigated or fixed. Attachments 2 & 3 show the flow
    path of water and the path of pollution in the Rainy River Headwaters.
    The Sulfide-Ore Copper Mining Threat to the Boundary Waters Economy

        Pro-Twin Metals boosters claim that copper mining would bring new
    jobs--but in fact the cost to the regional economy would far outweigh
    any alleged economic benefit of copper mining in the watershed of the
    Boundary Waters. Furthermore, underground mining is rapidly undergoing
    a major transformation. Anglo American, a large copper mining company
    that employed 87,000 miners worldwide at the time, said in 2017 that
    mines of the future will be fully automated and the only local people
    to be employed would in community relations addressing the lack of
    local jobs in mining.
        The endless mantra that sulfide-ore mines will provide jobs is an
    attempt to mask the negative long-term economic impact if such mining
    were allowed to occur next to the Boundary Waters. The vast percentage
    of the jobs would be temporary construction work lasting a year or two
    and filled by workers from far-flung places--not local communities. But
    the destruction of thousands of acres of land for mine infrastructure
    would be permanent, and it would definitely be local. That destruction
    and mining's water pollution would result in irreversible harm to the
    Boundary Waters watershed ecosystem. The current sustainable outdoors-
    oriented economy of Northeastern Minnesota would be devastated. The
    only peer-reviewed study of the economic impact of copper mining in the
    region was conducted by economists at Harvard University and concluded
    that over a period of 20 years both jobs and income in the Boundary
    Waters region would be higher if mining does not occur.
        The mineral withdrawal will lead to a far better outcome for the
    region economically, resulting in more jobs and more income over 20
    years. In the peer reviewed and published study ``Analysis of proposed
    20-year mineral leasing withdrawal in Superior National Forest,''
    Ecological Economics, March 2020, prominent Harvard economics professor
    James Stock compared the effects of the Forest Service's proposed 20-
    year mining ban near with the consequences of sulfide-ore copper mining
    in the Boundary Waters watershed. The conclusion: protecting public
    lands near the Boundary Waters from sulfide-ore copper mining generates
    greater long-term gain for the region (more employment and more income)
    than copper mining.
        The study compared two scenarios: Scenario 1--The Boundary Waters
    economy continues to develop during a 20-year mining ban; Scenario 2--
    The mining ban does not occur, and a Twin Metals/Antofagasta mine is
    developed. The study projected 36 employment and 72 income scenarios
    representing a range of employment and income effects over a 20-year
    period. The analysis showed that mining would likely have a negative
    effect on the regional economy in both employment and income because of
    the negative impact of mining on the recreational industry and on in-
    migration. The findings highlighted the important of considering the
    long-term effects of resource extraction in natural-amenity-rich areas.
    The preponderance of the scenarios (89%) found fewer jobs and less
    income resulting from a mining project, meaning that an economy based
    on copper mining would significantly underperform the existing growing,
    sustainable economy. This is the only economic study to analyze the
    longer-term dynamic economic effects of the two options over a 20-year
    timeframe.
        In their 2017 report, ``Sulfide-Ore Copper Mining and/or A
    Sustainable Boundary Waters Economy: The Need to Consider Real
    Tradeoffs,'' Drs. Spencer Phillips and Carolyn Alkire describe the key
    indicators of transition and economic growth in the diversifying and
    more stable modern economy that exists in the three-county Arrowhead
    region (St. Louis, Lake, and Cook Counties), which has developed in the
    years since the start of mining's decline in the early 1980s. In the
    modern Arrowhead (northeastern Minnesota) economy, amenity-based
    development has taken the place of mining as the engine of development
    in the region.

        In his Feb. 27, 2018 FLPMA comment letter, Dr. Spencer Phillips
    says that claims of increased mining employment must be viewed in
    consideration of an accelerating trend of decreasing labor intensity in
    the mining industry.

         A new wave of automation in mining uses autonomous and
                remotely controlled machinery monitored by a few persons
                who may be located far from mining sites.

         This continuing trend means that estimates made now of the
                number of jobs a mine may have to offer in the future are
                inflated and are not likely to be local jobs for local
                people.

         Copper mining giant Anglo America predicts automation will
                make the future mining industry ``unrecognizable'' to
                people who know it now and the human employee of the future
                will only need to focus on managing the company's community
                relations.

         In contrast ``. . . the mining withdrawal could save
                between 9,556 and 27,281 jobs.''

        Despite claims by mining companies to the contrary, the Withdrawal
    Order economically benefits the communities in and near the Withdrawal
    Area and the Boundary Waters, both in terms of jobs and income. Thirty
    businesses operate directly in the path pollution would travel from a
    sulfide-ore copper mine located in the Rainy River Headwaters. These
    businesses would not likely be able to survive if a Twin Metals mine
    were developed. A University of Minnesota survey of property owners in
    the four townships in the immediate area of the Withdrawal Area showed
    that 23% said they would move from the area if sulfide-ore copper
    mining were developed in the Headwaters.

    Protecting the Water Quality in the Boundary Waters is an Overriding
    Principle of Minnesota State Law.

        The Boundary Waters is a uniquely valuable place that should be
    protected from destructive sulfide-ore copper mining proposed on public
    lands in its headwaters. It is our nation's premier lake-land National
    Wilderness Area and the most visited of all such areas. A defining
    characteristic is water: twenty-four percent of the Boundary Waters is
    water, and these waters are described by the Minnesota Pollution
    Control Agency as extremely clean and immaculate. Minnesota has
    classified the waters of the Boundary Waters as ``prohibited
    outstanding resource value waters.'' Minn. Rule 7050.0335, Subp. 3.A.
    No degradation of water quality is allowed. See Attachment 4. In
    addition, Minnesota state law mandates that water be managed from a
    watershed perspective.

        Sparkling Clean Water--the Rainy River Headwaters. In addition to
    being highly valuable because of its exceptional water quality, the
    Headwaters, including the Boundary Waters, is uniquely vulnerable. The
    waters of the Boundary Waters and the surrounding Superior National
    Forest are vastly interconnected--lakes, rivers, streams, wetlands, and
    groundwater--and the extensive interconnectedness is poorly understood,
    meaning that water pollution could travel undetected for some
    indeterminate time and the route by which pollution moves--particularly
    through fractured bedrock--may not be decipherable. The water chemistry
    of the Boundary Waters and the surrounding Superior National Forest
    lands is poorly-buffered, i.e., low in alkaline or base compounds,
    meaning that newly introduced acid mine drainage would cause the pH of
    the waters to become acidic; alkalinity is necessary to counteract
    acidity. Mine drainage and deposition of air pollution from mines in
    the Headwaters would cause mercury contamination in fish and all who
    eat fish, both downstream and downwind. Acid mine drainage would cause
    the loss of aquatic life. Because the degraded waters would be in a
    vast lake-land national Wilderness Area, the damage could never be
    remediated, mitigated, or fixed without doing further extreme damage to
    the Wilderness.

        Sulfide-ore copper mining has a history of pollution. The EPA has
    determined that the Duluth Complex, which underlies the withdrawal
    area, is acid-generating. It also contains very low-grade ore. Waste
    from mines in the Duluth Complex will be vast--roughly 99% of the ore
    body. Mine waste would be a source of water degradation for hundreds of
    years. Leachate from mines in the Boundary Waters Headwaters would
    include sulfates, sulfides, and heavy metals such as arsenic, copper,
    zinc, and other toxic metals.

        The Withdrawal Order is thus essential to protecting the Boundary
    Waters from the ravages of sulfide-ore mining in its watershed. Half-
    measures will not do. The mining industry claims that modern technology
    will contain its toxic wastes and protect water from pollution, but
    every objective observer knows that is highly unlikely to be true. A
    peer-reviewed report on 14 modern sulfide-ore copper mines representing
    89% of current US copper production showed all 14 experienced
    accidental releases of pollution, and 13 of 14 (92%) copper mines
    experienced water collection or treatment system failures that resulted
    in significant water pollution. US Copper Porphyry Mines Report, Bonnie
    Gestring; Earthworks. 2012. In an update to the 2012 report, Earthworks
    reviewed available records reflecting the performance of 15 copper
    mines in the United States, the combined output of which represented
    essentially all (99%) of copper production in 2015 and found that 14 of
    the 15 top U.S. copper mines (93%) failed to capture and control
    wastewater, resulting in significant water quality impacts. U.S.
    Operating Copper Mines: Failure to Capture & Treat Wastewater,
    Earthworks. 2019.

        Experts agree: Dave Chambers, a registered professional
    geophysicist has been reviewing the potential for mine proposals within
    the Duluth Complex to produce pollution, including but not only acid
    mine drainage (AMD), since 2009. According to Dr. Chambers:

            ``. . . the Duluth Complex contains disseminated metal sulfides
            proven to generate acid. If built, sulfide-ore mines in the
            Complex have the potential to generate AMD.

            The risks have been well-known for decades, by the U.S.
            Environmental Protection Agency, Minnesota's state agencies and
            by mining companies. AMD is still occurring at the nearby and
            now-closed Dunka mine, where millions of tons of Duluth Complex
            rock were blasted and stockpiled and have been leaching AMD
            since at least the early 1970s. Despite steps taken to
            neutralize the acid, the Dunka mine drainage still carries
            sulfate and dissolved metals at concentrations hundreds of
            times higher than background levels for northeastern Minnesota.

            Water contamination from mining wastes can still be an
            unanticipated problem, despite all the planning involved, money
            spent and good intentions. There is no 100% guarantee that AMD
            won't cause off-site contamination.

            The Twin Metals deposits contain sulfides at higher
            concentrations than other Duluth Complex deposits and could be
            expected to produce the same contaminants at higher rates and
            concentrations, in mine drainage more likely to be acidic.
            Suggestions that we can guarantee the prevention of AMD do not
            represent the risks of AMD, and the caution that is needed to
            protect the Boundary Waters and its watershed.

            Here is a troubling fact: a 2012 review of water-quality
            impacts from 14 operating U.S. sulfide-ore copper mines found
            that 100% of the mines experienced pipeline spills or
            accidental releases and 13 out of 14 mines experienced failures
            to control contaminated mine seepage, leading to harmful water-
            quality impacts. Despite assurances to the contrary.

            In a 2019 update to the report, records reflecting the
            performances of 15 U.S. copper mines were examined, and it
            found that 14 of the top 15 copper mines (93%) failed to
            capture and control wastewater, resulting in significant water-
            quality impacts. Recently, a report of five hardrock mines in
            Alaska, some identified as ``model'' mines by Twin Metals,
            documented 8.150 spills from 1995 to 2020.

            This is the challenge with mining. Even with the best of
            designs and best efforts, spills and leaks happen. Mining
            occurs in the natural environment, not in a controlled factory.
            The Boundary Waters is too important to risk.''

            Letter to the Editor, Star Tribune, June 12, 2022

        Technology is indeed a slender reed upon which to rest the welfare
    of the Boundary Waters given the overall history of industrial
    accidents and technological failures that regularly beset the world:
    pipelines, trains, oil refineries, space shuttles, and mines. For
    example, in August 2014 the tailings dam at the Imperial Metals Mount
    Polley mine in British Columbia failed, with disastrous consequences.
    Just 1 year earlier, Knight-Piesold--the designer of the failed
    tailings dam--had this to say: ``Modern dam design technologies are
    based on proven scientific/engineering principles, and there is no
    basis for asserting that they will not stand the test of time.''
    Speaking after the Mount Polley disaster, Brian Kynoch, President of
    Imperial Metals, said ``I apologize for what happened. If you asked me
    two weeks ago if this could have happened, I would have said it
    couldn't.''

    Metals from the Area Covered by the Superior National Forest Mineral
    Withdrawal Are Insignificant Relative to U.S. Demand and Irrelevant to
    National Security and the Green Economy.

        Sulfide-ore copper mining in the Withdrawal Area would sacrifice
    the Boundary Waters while producing an insignificant quantity of metals
    compared to United States demand. In addition to providing only a drop
    in the bucket in terms of demand, the metals would be shipped out of
    the United States, most likely to China, for final processing, and sold
    on the world market. The argument that metals in the Withdrawal Area
    are needed for the transition to a ``green'' economy is not credible.
    So-called critical minerals do not exist there in sufficient quantities
    to justify irreparably damaging the Wilderness. The amount of minerals
    is tiny in terms of current U.S. demand--1.5 percent as to cobalt, 3.6
    percent as to nickel, and 2.3 percent as to copper (based on 2019
    annual consumption). The only viable solution for transition to a green
    economy is to continue to rely on our longtime and secure allies--
    Canada, Australia, Norway, and others--for cobalt and nickel. Looking
    to the watershed of the Boundary Waters does next to nothing to help in
    the transition. Not only is the quantity of metals insignificant in
    terms of U.S. demand, but also any such metals would be irrelevant
    because they would be shipped to China for smelting and processing and
    sold on the world market.

        Copper. Copper is abundant throughout the world. United States and
    world resources are plentiful and growing. The United States is among
    the top copper producers in the world. The U.S. Geological Survey
    Materials Flow Analysis section assesses a low disruption potential for
    copper in the U.S. economy. The United States has only three active
    copper smelters. They are fully integrated, meaning the companies that
    own them also own their own copper mines that supply the smelters with
    enough concentrates to keep them operating at full capacity. Any new
    mine in the watershed of the Boundary Waters would send its copper (and
    nickel) concentrates out of the United States for processing. The Mine
    Plan for a Twin Metals mine, for example, called for transporting its
    metal concentrates to a port facility. Antofagasta, the owner of Twin
    Metals, sends its copper-nickel concentrates from its mines in South
    America to China for smelting and refining.

        Nickel. The United States does not have a significant amount of
    nickel. Its close trading partner, Canada, is a leading supplier of
    nickel (and other critical minerals) to the United States. Canada has
    more than 28 times the nickel reserves as the United States and on
    average its deposits are of double or higher grade than those in the
    United States. Canada is also eager to supply more metals to the United
    States. Other major trading partners for nickel include the countries
    of Norway, Finland, and Australia, all of which are on the Department
    of Defense's Security of Supply countries (USGS OFR-1127, p. 5). The
    United States has no nickel smelters. As discussed above, any nickel
    concentrate from mining in the watershed of the Boundary Waters would
    be shipped overseas, likely to China, for processing.

        Cobalt. A Twin Metals mine would produce a very small quantity of
    cobalt. Cobalt would be a by-product from smelting and refining nickel
    concentrates, which would be done off-shore, most likely in China.
    Cobalt grades in Twin Metals deposits are among the lowest of all
    deposits in the world and production, even if not sent abroad, would be
    insufficient to dent U.S. demand. At most, a Twin Metals mine might
    meet 1.5% of the U.S. annual demand for cobalt (based on 2019 annual
    consumption). As U.S. consumption rises, this percentage would decline.
    By contrast, the United States currently imports 57% of its cobalt
    needs from Canada, Norway, Japan (USGS OFR-1127, p. 29) and Finland,
    all close U.S. allies and trading partners. Australia alone has 83
    deposits containing cobalt, 55 of which are of double or higher grade
    than the Duluth Complex deposits in the Boundary Waters watershed. For
    example, one of those deposits alone, if mined, has enough contained
    cobalt to supply the United States at current demand, for more than 270
    years. Another Australian deposit, the currently operating Murrin-
    Murrin mine, has grades five times better than the best a Twin Metals
    mine could offer and contains 198,000 tons of cobalt, more than 42
    times what a Twin Metals mine could produce. With a Twin Metals mine,
    the United States would sacrifice the Boundary Waters and still need to
    import more than 98% of its cobalt.

        The United States could dramatically reduce demand for minerals by
    investing in a circular economy--including recycling, reuse,
    manufacturing improvements and substitution that would create jobs
    domestically while not putting places such as the Boundary Waters at
    risk of toxic mining. Many minerals identified as critical are
    discarded as waste material and are not recovered during smelting and/
    or refining. Stronger laws, regulations, and standards could compel the
    recovery of minerals from existing mines, waste, and tailing piles,
    thus adding to the supply chain. It is estimated, for example, that
    there is as much cobalt among e-waste landfills in the eastern Unites
    States as in all the Democratic Republic of Congo.
    A Mine Plan Review is inadequate to protect the Boundary Waters

        The claim that the Withdrawal Order undercuts the regulatory review
    process and that only a specific mine plan should be studied ignores
    federal law that plainly establishes a more important process--that is,
    a process to determine whether any mine at all, no matter its plan of
    operations, should be allowed on unique, fragile, highly-valued public
    lands. The question is not whether a specific mine plan is clean
    enough; the question is whether the landscape at issue should be
    subjected to the destruction and disruption that are an integral part
    of mining. No amount of review of a mine plan would change the
    inevitable impact of a Twin Metals mine: significant degradation of the
    greater ecosystem and negative alteration of the landscape over many
    thousands of acres; and pollution of water, land, and air materially
    greater than existing conditions even if the mine were to comply with
    federal and state pollution standards. Repair, mitigation, or fixing of
    a polluted Boundary Waters is not possible. Moreover, industrial
    accidents happen frequently--too often at catastrophic scale. Neither
    would the review of a mine plan address the negative impact on the
    regional economy. The only peer-reviewed study on the topic found that
    protecting the Boundary Waters from copper mining would result in more
    jobs and more income over a twenty-year period.
        Two peer-reviewed studies by Dr. Ann Maest and Jim Kuipers, P.E.,
    compared predicted and actual water quality at hardrock mines, the
    reliability of predictions in environmental review, and the state-of-
    the-art methods and models of predicting water quality at hardrock
    mines. Among their findings was this: mine projects that are both near
    groundwater or surface water and possess an elevated potential for AMD
    or contaminate leaching--all of which is true for sulfide-ore mining in
    the Headwaters--are so high risk that water quality exceedances are a
    near certainty. This is true for 85% of mines near surface water and
    93% of mines near groundwater. Of the sites that developed AMD, 89% had
    predicted that they would not. J.R. Kuipers et al, ``Comparison of
    Predicted and Actual Water Quality at Hardrock Mines: The reliability
    of predictions in Environmental Impact Statements,'' 2006.
        Antofagasta's Twin Metals has no viable mine plan. Twin Metals has
    no leases to mine federal minerals in the Withdrawal Area; leases
    issued unlawfully in 2019 without the required Forest Service consent
    were canceled in 2022. Although the mining company submitted a mine
    plan to the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the Minnesota
    Department of Natural Resources (DNR) in December 2019, the BLM
    rejected the mine plan and the DNR halted all consideration of the mine
    plan in February 2022. Twin Metals had failed to substantiate its claim
    that its waste ore and tailings would not be acid generating; its dry
    stack storage proposal was rejected by the DNR as inappropriate for
    northern Minnesota's wet environment (Finding of Facts and Conclusions
    of Law for the Northmet Project, 2018); and the proposal to store
    millions of tons of waste on state land on the shores of Birch Lake
    exposed the State of Minnesota to financial risk. In conclusion, there
    is no viable Twin Metals mine plan and nothing to review. See
    Attachment 5.

    The Boundary Waters Can Contribute Significantly to Solving the Climate
    and Extinction Crisis; The Boundary Waters region is vital for carbon
    sequestration.

        The 4.3 million-acre Quetico-Superior region is primarily boreal
    forest. Boreal forests store more carbon than any other terrestrial
    ecosystem--almost twice as much per acre as tropical forests. Keeping
    carbon locked in these forests and out of the atmosphere is a vital
    part of the fight to keep warming below 2 degrees Celsius. According to
    a federal government report prepared for members and committees of
    Congress, each acre of terrestrial boreal forest stores on average
    about 180 tons of carbon in its vegetation and soils. Destruction of
    boreal forest for industrial mining is a double whammy--the release of
    much of that carbon into the atmosphere and the loss of the capacity of
    the land to take up carbon in the future. The loss is even greater if
    wetlands are destroyed. Soil carbon levels in wetlands are nearly
    double the level in the terrestrial boreal forest.
        Mechanical destruction of vegetation and soil is not the only harm
    that would result from permitting copper mining. The carbon storage
    assets of the Boundary Waters region (surface vegetation, soils,
    wetlands, and peatlands) are incredibly vulnerable to acid mine
    drainage--the water pollution that inevitably results from sulfide-ore
    mining.
        Protecting the Boundary Waters is critical for greenhouse gas
    emission avoidance. An estimate of greenhouse gas emissions, based on a
    2014 Prefeasibility Report for the proposed Twin Metals mine, is
    23,444,730 metric tons of CO2 over a 20-year life of the mine. This is
    equal to greenhouse gas emissions from adding nearly five million
    passenger vehicles to the roads for one year.

        The Boundary Waters is crucial for climate adaptation and
    resilience. According to climate modeling by The Wilderness Society,
    the Quetico Superior region is one of the 8 most important regions in
    the nation for climate adaptation and resiliency. It is the one
    remaining intact biome in Minnesota--a largescale ecosystem with clean
    freshwater, clean air, a healthy boreal forest, and a wide range of
    birds and other wildlife. The Withdrawal Public Order is an equitable
    outcome that respects the people who live in and visit the region,
    including the Bands that enjoy hunting, gathering and fishing rights by
    treaty. Protecting the Headwaters and the Boundary Waters is part of
    the solution to the climate and extinction crises and an important step
    on the road to environmental justice.
        The climate modeling identified 74 places in the United States that
    are crucial to our ability to sustain biodiversity in the face of a
    changing climate. The analysis found that the Quetico-Superior region
    is one of the top places in the nation. A recent study by The Nature
    Conservancy with similar findings underscores the necessity of keeping
    these areas intact and undeveloped. Consistent with this, The Nature
    Conservancy, The Conservation Fund, and The Trust for Public Land have
    acquired large swaths of land across northern Minnesota to keep them
    protected. Allowing the creation of an industrial mining zone in the
    Headwaters of the Boundary Waters would undermine the work that these
    and other organizations are doing to prepare us for the future.

    The views of the American People; Increased protection of the Boundary
    Waters from sulfide-ore copper mining has strong state support.

        Most people across the state of Minnesota and across party lines
    support protecting the Boundary Waters from the risk of sulfide-ore
    copper mining.

        ``Minnesotans understand mining and are, in general, not anti-
    mining. They also understand the role of certain metals, such as cobalt
    and nickel, in national security and for a clean energy transition.
    However, Minnesotans reject as a false choice the claim that sulfide-
    ore copper mining in the Boundary Waters watershed is needed or even
    relevant. Minnesotans overwhelmingly oppose sulfide-ore copper mining
    in the watershed of the Boundary Waters, where it would pose a danger
    to the Boundary Waters. Opposition to sulfide-ore copper mining in the
    Boundary Waters watershed cuts across demographic, geographic, and
    ideological lines, making protection of the watershed a clear winner in
    Minnesota.'' John Anzalone, IMPACT Research.

        In February 2018 Fabrizio Ward (former President Trump's pollster)
    found that by a 48% margin, Minnesotan voters are against sulfide-ore
    copper mining in areas near the Boundary Waters (70% oppose/22% favor).
    Opposition to sulfide-ore copper mining near the Boundary Waters
    extends to Congressional District 8 (CD-8), the location of the
    Boundary Waters and its watershed (the Rainy River Headwaters). Most
    voters (56%) in CD-8 are opposed to sulfide-ore copper mining in areas
    near the Boundary Waters. Voters are aware that outdoor recreation and
    public lands contribute greatly to Minnesota's economy. Nearly nine in
    ten believe that the outdoor recreation economy, meaning people who
    come to hunt, fish, camp, and see wildlife, as well as those who
    manufacture and sell equipment for those activities, are important to
    Minnesota's economic future. Furthermore, four in five voters say that
    due to the presence of public lands and the state's lifestyle of
    outdoor recreation, Minnesota has an advantage over other states in
    attracting good jobs and innovative companies.
        In July 2020, ALG Research found that voters in Minnesota oppose
    sulfide-ore copper mining on the edge of the Boundary Waters by a 39-
    point margin (62% oppose/23% favor). Opposition to sulfide-ore copper
    mining on the edge of the Boundary Waters is both geographically broad
    and bipartisan. Democrats oppose by a 69-point margin; Independents by
    a 48-point margin; and Republicans by a 3-point margin. Voters in CD-8
    oppose sulfide-ore copper mining on the edge of the Boundary Waters by
    a 10-point margin. ALG Research found that voters overwhelmingly
    support permanent protection for the Boundary Waters. More than two-
    thirds of the voters (68%) want the Boundary Waters permanently
    protected from threats such as sulfide-ore copper mining. ALG Research
    found that the Boundary Waters is uniquely popular among Minnesotans.
    The area gets a 84% favorability rating, with a notable 66% very
    favorable. The positivity toward the Boundary Waters crosses
    geographic, demographic, and ideological lines and is bolstered by the
    view that outdoor recreation and tourism are significantly more
    important to Minnesota's economic future than mining (45% outdoor
    recreation and tourism/10% mining/35% both).

        Finally, a poll conducted by Change Research of Minnesota midterm
    voters in November 2022 found that 7 in 10 (69%) support legislation to
    permanently protect the Boundary Waters from the threat of sulfide-ore
    copper mining.

    Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness: For nearly 120 years, the State
    of Minnesota and the federal government have worked together to protect
    and preserve the canoe country of Northeastern Minnesota.

        In 1902, the U.S. Land Office withdrew 500,000 acres in the future
    Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness from settlement. In 1905, General
    C.C. Andrews, Minnesota's land commissioner, persuaded the U.S. Land
    Office to withdraw from settlement 659,700 more acres in the future
    Boundary Waters. In 1909, President Theodore Roosevelt established the
    Superior National Forest of more than 1.1 million acres. Also in 1909,
    the Minnesota Legislature created a 1,200,000-acre statutory Superior
    Game Refuge, similar in area to the Superior National Forest and
    including most of what is now the Boundary Waters.
        In 1926, U.S. Agriculture Secretary W.M. Jardine established a
    `roadless area' of 640,000 acres in the Superior National Forest to
    ``retain as much as possible of the land which has recreational
    opportunities of this nature as wilderness.'' Federal land acquisitions
    and boundary changes increased federal ownership to over two million
    acres. In 1938, the U.S. Forest Service established the Superior
    Roadless Primitive Area covering most of the current Boundary Waters.
        Because of threats for dam building along the U.S.-Canada border,
    in 1930 Congress passed the Shipstead-Newton-Nolan Act to protect
    waters levels. Minnesota's Legislature followed suit by passing the
    `Little Shipstead-Newton-Nolan Act' to provide similar prohibitions on
    state lands.
        In 1948, Congress passed the Thye-Blatnik Act to buy out private
    in-holdings in what is now the Boundary Waters. The Act also provided
    for payments-in-lieu-of-taxes to Cook, Lake, and St. Louis Counties for
    certain federal lands.
        In 1949, President Harry Truman issued an executive order for an
    air-space reservation, which prohibits airplanes flying below 4,000
    feet above-sea-level over the Boundary Waters. The Minnesota
    Legislature passed a law to regulate aircraft and watercraft modeled
    after federal regulations.
        The Wilderness Act became law in 1964. The Act established the
    National Wilderness Preservation System and designated 9 million acres
    of America's national forests to be Wilderness Areas. The Boundary
    Waters was so designated, representing 1 million of the 9 million
    acres. The National Wilderness Preservation System now includes 110
    million acres of national public lands.

        The Minnesota Legislature passed legislation in 1976 to ban mining
    on state lands located in the Wilderness.

        In 1978, Congress took additional action that provided what was, at
    the time, a greater level of protection for the Boundary Waters than
    any other federal Wilderness. The 1978 Boundary Waters Wilderness Act
    banned mining in the Boundary Waters and on 220,000 acres of Superior
    National Forest lands along three entry corridors (Echo, Fernberg, and
    Gunflint) and along the southern edge of the Trout Lake Unit. Finally,
    the 1978 Act charged the U.S. Forest Service with protecting the
    Boundary Waters, including for the following purposes: ``(1) provide
    for the protection and management of the fish and wildlife of the
    wilderness so as to enhance public enjoyment and appreciation of the
    unique biotic resources of the region, (2) protect and enhance the
    natural values and environmental quality of the lakes, streams,
    shorelines and associated forest areas of the wilderness, (3) maintain
    high water quality in such areas, (4) minimize to the maximum extent
    possible, the environmental impacts associated with mineral development
    affecting such areas . . .'' (Pub. L. No. 95-495).

        In 2003, the Minnesota Legislature designated 18,000 acres of state
    land within the perimeter of the Boundary Waters as `wilderness' within
    the statutory classification of the Minnesota Outdoor Recreation Act.
    This is Minnesota's only state wilderness.
        On December 14, 2016, the U.S. Forest Service withheld its consent
    to two applications for mineral lease renewals (the only two federal
    mineral leases in the Superior National Forest), finding that sulfide-
    ore copper mining in the watershed of the Boundary Waters posed an
    unacceptable risk of harm to the Boundary Waters and that the resulting
    damage could never be fixed or mitigated. A 2017 Memorandum Opinion by
    the Interior Solicitor in the Trump Administration bypassed this
    withholding of consent, but the U.S. Forest Service did not withdraw
    its decision denying consent. In January 2022, the Interior Deputy
    Secretary Tommy Beaudreau canceled the two mineral leases because they
    had been renewed unlawfully. (NEPA violations; BLM regulation
    violations; and the lack of the Forest Service consent required by
    federal law).
        On October 20, 2021, the U.S. Departments of Interior and
    Agriculture announced that the U.S. Forest Service filed an application
    for a 20-year mineral withdrawal of more than 225,000 acres of Superior
    National Forest lands located in the watershed of the Boundary Waters.
    The purpose of the withdrawal, as stated in the application, superbly
    describes what is at stake: the preservation of the world's greatest
    canoe country. The application precisely describes why a 20-year
    mineral withdrawal is not only appropriate, but critically necessary.
    Portions of the application are attached as Attachment 6. The
    centerpiece of the mineral withdrawal process Is a science-driven
    environmental analysis of potential impacts of mining on important
    natural and cultural resources of the Rainy River watershed, including
    the Boundary Waters: water quality, fish and wildlife, Tribal trust and
    treaty rights, and the local recreation and amenity-based economy,
    among other things. The result of this analysis informed the Secretary
    of the Interior's decision as to whether to grant the withdrawal
    request. The Forest Service prepared, and the BLM reviewed, an
    Environmental Assessment of the proposed federal mineral withdrawal;
    its extensive scientific, economic, and cultural analysis concluded
    that a mineral withdrawal was the best way to protect the unique
    ecosystem of the Boundary Waters. The potential for irreversible
    mining-related impacts on the Boundary Waters, the Mining Protection
    Area and other Protected Areas, and 1854 Ceded Territory, to the extent
    located within the Rainy River Watershed, warranted a mineral
    withdrawal for the maximum allowable period of 20 years. In contrast,
    the Forest Service concluded that a ``piecemeal, project-specific''
    review would be a poor alternative to provid[ing] a ``broader, more
    comprehensive approach to protect the ecological integrity of this area
    . . .'' finding that a case-by-case, or mine-by-mine review, is an
    inefficient and time-consuming approach. Secretary Haaland acted to
    thwart a dire threat--sulfide-ore copper mining in the headwaters of
    the Wilderness--that would, without a doubt, have resulted in
    irreversible environmental and socioeconomic damage to the Headwaters,
    the Boundary Waters, and the region.
        The history of Boundary Waters protection by the State of Minnesota
    and the federal government reflects the extraordinarily high value that
    Minnesotans and other Americans place on the Boundary Waters. The great
    majority of the people have demanded and continue to demand that the
    canoe country wilderness of northern Minnesota remain intact and
    ecologically healthy. From the first public comment period on the issue
    of sulfide-ore copper mining in the watershed of the Boundary Waters in
    2016 until the public comment period on the Mineral Withdrawal in 2021-
    2, the federal government has received over 675,000 comments from the
    American people urging protection of the Wilderness from sulfide-ore
    copper mining. The 120-year history of state and federal protection
    shows that their governments have listened and acted.
    The Concurrent Resolution is Unconstitutional

        The resolution filed with the U.S. House to veto the Withdrawal
    Order that protects 225,504 acres of federal lands in the headwaters of
    the Boundary Waters by banning mining for 20 years is not only bad
    policy, but it is also unconstitutional. The Federal Land Policy &
    Management Act (FLPMA) explicitly delegates to the Secretary of the
    Interior the authority to make large-tract withdrawals of 5,000 acres
    or more of public lands from mineral extraction for up to 20 years. 43
    U.S.C. Sec. 1714(c)(1). Among other requirements, the statutory
    provision provides that such withdrawals ``shall terminate and become
    ineffective at the end of ninety days'' if Congress adopts a concurrent
    resolution of disapproval. This provision is widely understood to be an
    unconstitutional legislative veto under the U.S. Supreme Court's 1983
    Chadha case. That case held that similar language in an immigration
    statute was unconstitutional because it violated the requirement that
    any congressional invalidation of an agency's exercise of lawfully
    delegated authority may only be accomplished through bicameral
    legislation followed by presentment to the President. I.N.S. v. Chadha,
    462 U.S. 919, 959 (1983). Section 1130 of the House of Representatives
    Manual lists FLPMA's large-tract withdrawal authority as among several
    dozen unconstitutional legislative veto provisions that Congress has
    not amended since the Chadha decision. In a case challenging Secretary
    Ken Salazar's 2012 withdrawal of approximately 1 million acres
    surrounding Grand Canyon National Park, mining proponents including the
    National Mining Association claimed, among other things, that the
    Secretary lacked authority to make the large-tract withdrawal because
    the legislative veto provision was both unconstitutional (as all
    parties agreed) and not severable from the statute. In a 2017 decision,
    the Ninth Circuit resoundingly rejected this claim, finding that the
    provision is severable from the large-tract withdrawal authority and
    therefore the invalid legislative veto provision does not affect the
    Secretary's withdrawal authority. National Mining Ass'n v. Zinke, 877
    F.3d 845, 861-66 (9th Cir. 2017). As the court noted, Congress has
    never attempted to override exercise of the Interior Secretary's large-
    tract withdrawal authority, which has been used some 90 times since
    FLPMA's passage in 1976. Congress of course retains authority to
    override a large-tract withdrawal through normal legislative
    procedures.
    Conclusion

        The Boundary Waters is a priceless asset of the people of Minnesota
    and the nation; its clean water, healthy forests and wetlands, great
    array of wildlife, and world-class sport fishery are infinitely more
    valuable than the relatively small amount of minerals that could be
    extracted in the Withdrawal Area. The Withdrawal Order is a
    comprehensive approach to protect and preserve the fragile and vital
    social and natural resources, ecological integrity, and wilderness
    values in the Rainy River Headwaters, the Boundary Waters, and
    downstream Superior National Forest lands, Canada's Quetico Park, and
    Minnesota's Voyageurs National Park.

                                     *****

                                  Attachment 1

              Aerial photo of the Boundary Waters and Quetico Park
    [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                Attachment 2

    Map of the water flowage from the headwaters into the Boundary Waters,
                   Quetico Park, and Voyageurs National Park
    [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                Attachment 3

    Map of the path pollution would flow from a Twin Metals mine; based on
                  peer-reviewed and published hydrology study
    [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                Attachment 4

      Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Water quality and the Boundary
                     Waters and the Rainy River Headwaters

        Under Minn. Rule 7050.0335, Subp. 3.A., the waters of the Boundary
    Waters are ``prohibited outstanding resource value waters.'' Minn. Rule
    7050.0255, Subp. 14 states:

            ``Exceptional characteristics of outstanding resource value
            waters'' means characteristics for which an outstanding
            resource value water is designated, including wilderness,
            scientific, educational, ecological, recreational, cultural, or
            aesthetic resource characteristics or other special qualities
            that warrant stringent protection from degradation.'' (emphasis
            added)

        Minn. Rule 7050.0265, Subp.7 is clear about the stringency of that
    protection: ``The commissioner [of the Minnesota Pollution Control
    Agency (MPCA)] shall prohibit a proposed activity that results in a net
    increase in loading or other causes of degradation to prohibited
    outstanding resource value waters identified under part 7050.0335,
    subparts 3 and 4.''

        The antidegradation provision is designed to achieve and maintain
    the highest possible water quality: ``[W]ater quality necessary to
    preserve the exceptional characteristics of outstanding resource value
    waters shall be maintained and protected.'' MN Rules 7050.0250.C.

        During the past 20 years or so, Minnesota has expanded its policy
    regarding the protection of state lands and waters. In Minn. Stat. Sec.
    103A.212 (2018), first adopted in 2010 (2010 Minn. Laws ch. 361, art.
    4, Sec. 48), the Legislature set forth the watershed management policy
    of the state:

            ``The quality of life of every Minnesotan depends on water.
            Minnesota's rivers, lakes, streams, wetlands, and groundwater
            provide a foundation for drinking water and the state's
            recreational, municipal, commercial, industrial, agricultural,
            environmental, aesthetic, and economic well-being. The
            legislature finds that it is in the public interest to manage
            groundwater and surface water resources from the perspective of
            aquifers, watersheds, and river basins to achieve protection,
            preservation, enhancement, and restoration of the state's
            valuable groundwater and surface water resources.''

        Thus, the policy of the State of Minnesota is to manage its waters
    from a watershed perspective and to preserve and protect those waters.

        In 2017, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) released its
    water quality assessment of the Headwaters, the Rainy River-Headwaters
    Watershed Monitoring Assessment Report (Report). The Report describes
    the excellent quality of the waterbodies within the watershed as having
    exceptional biological, chemical, and physicial characteristics worthy
    of additional protection:

            ``The immaculate waters found within the watershed not only
            produce some of the highest quality fisheries in the state but
            also offer visitors many scenic and natural views. The most
            visited Wilderness Area (Boundary Waters Canoe Area) in the
            United States is located within this watershed, with water as a
            major focal point. Today over 99% of the Rainy River-Headwaters
            Watershed is undeveloped and utilized for timber production,
            hunting, fishing, hiking, and other recreational opportunities.
            Large tracts of public land exist within this watershed,
            including county land, national and state forests, wildlife
            management areas, scientific and natural areas, state parks,
            and a national park. . . . Overall, water quality conditions
            are good to excellent and can be attributed to the forests and
            wetlands that dominate land cover within the Rainy River-
            Headwaters Watershed . . . The majority of the waterbodies
            within the watershed had exceptional biological, chemical, and
            physical characteristics that are worthy of additional
            protection.'' (emphasis added) Report p.1.

        The Report said the 2021 Watershed Restoration and Protection
    Strategies report (WRAPS) for the Headwaters would focus on protection
    strategies to ensure that the watershed would remain pristine. As the
    draft WRAPS report, the MPCA press release about the report, and the
    water quality data make clear, the Headwaters deserves and requires
    complete protection.

            `` `The rivers and lakes in these watersheds are some of the
            cleanest waters in the state,' says Katrina Kessler, MPCA
            assistant commissioner for water policy and agriculture.
            `That's why it's so important that we focus not only on
            restoring waters that don't meet water quality standards, but
            also protecting lakes and streams from becoming impaired in the
            first place. That's especially true for areas like the Boundary
            Waters that are enjoyed and treasured by so many residents and
            visitors.' '' MPCA reports: Protection rather than restoration
            is priority for two Boundary Waters watersheds (August 30, 2021
            WRAPS press release)

        The Headwaters includes 80.1% of the Boundary Waters. The MPCA
    notes that ``wilderness recreation and national park tourism are the
    prime economic drivers due to the scenic beauty, camping and fishing
    opportunities.'' (https://www.pca.state.mn.us/water/watershed/rainy-
    river-headwaters) The extraordinary high water quality in the upstream
    portion of the Rainy River Headwaters was noted: ``[L]akes and streams
    in the watersheds bordering the Boundary Waters Canoe Area in northern
    Minnesota offer some of the most pristine water quality in the state.''
    (emphasis added) This extraordinary high water quality is attributed to
    the fact that ``[m]ore than 99 percent of the watershed is undeveloped
    and used both for timber production, and for hunting, fishing, hiking,
    and other recreation.'' (https://www.pca.state.mn.us/water/watershed/
    rainy-river-headwaters and WRAPS press release) This 99% naturally-
    vegetated landscape generates and delivers exceptionally clean water
    downstream through and to the non-wilderness portion of the Headwaters
    to the Boundary Waters and on to the border lakes shared with Ontario
    in Quetico and Voyageurs. [emphasis added]

                                  Attachment 5

                          Map of Twin Metals site plan

    [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                Attachment 6

      Portions of the 2021 FLPMA Application for Superior National Forest
                               Mineral Withdrawal

        ``The Federal lands associated with this withdrawal application are
    located within the Vermillion and Rainy Headwaters sub-watersheds of
    the Rainy River watershed in the Superior National Forest and are
    adjacent to the BWCAW and the MPA. The Rainy River watershed in Cook,
    Lake, and Saint Louis Counties in Minnesota supports outdoor
    recreation, wilderness, and biota critical to the socioeconomic
    conditions of the area. The BWCAW is a complex and interconnected
    ecosystem and offers recreational opportunities and other uses such
    that it is considered an irreplaceable national treasure. It provides
    opportunities for true solitude, outstanding primitive recreation in an
    unconfined and undeveloped natural setting, and a connection with
    untrammeled nature. Water, especially water quality, is a focal point
    for this wilderness. Approximately 1175 lakes varying in size from 10
    acres to 10,000 acres and several hundred miles of streams comprise
    about 190,000 acres (20%) of the BWCAW surface area and provide for the
    opportunity for long distance travel by watercraft. This type of
    experience is rare within the continental United States and the BWCAW
    is the only large lake-land wilderness in the National Wilderness
    Preservation System. Potential impacts from mining could alter water
    quality and thus degrade key components of the wilderness ecosystem
    such as habitat for wildlife (lynx, moose, loons), fish (walleye, lake
    trout, and other game fish), and wild rice, and have negative impacts
    on the recreation economy and native culture and food systems.
    Mining Affects People, Resources, and Wilderness Character

        There is interest in the development of hardrock minerals,
    involving the removal or mining of sulfide-bearing rock, within this
    portion of the Rainy River watershed. Any development of these mineral
    resources could ultimately result in the creation of permanently stored
    waste materials and other conditions upstream of the BWCAW and the MPA
    with the potential to generate and release fugitive dust, tailings, and
    effluent with elevated levels of acidity, metals, and other potential
    contaminants. These impacts, and any potential failure of required
    mitigation measures, containment facilities, or remediation efforts at
    mine sites and their related facilities located upstream of the BWCAW
    and the MPA could lead to irreversible degradation of this key water-
    based wilderness resource and jeopardize the purposes for the
    designation of the BWCAW and the MPA specified by Sec. 2 of the BWCAW
    Act (Pub. L. 95-495, 92 Stat. 1649). These concerns are exacerbated by
    the fact that perpetual maintenance of waste storage facilities, along
    with the perpetual treatment of water discharge emanating from the
    waste storage facilities, will likely be required to mitigate and/or
    address these adverse effects, yet it is not certain that such
    maintenance and treatment can be assured in perpetuity. Additionally,
    increased traffic, noise, light, dust, and other emissions resulting
    from mining operations could change the character and experience of the
    wilderness, and would affect recreation experiences and other National
    Forest uses outside the wilderness, and the amenities-based economy
    that exists in the area. The Forest Service has reviewed the current
    circumstances and resulting threats to social, economic, and natural
    resources and now, as a matter of policy, seeks to pursue a holistic
    approach to ensure resource protection of this delicate ecosystem. This
    application is submitted to advance a comprehensive approach to
    protection of the fragile and vital social and natural resources,
    ecological integrity, and wilderness values that are threatened by
    potential future sulfide mining.

        Salient examples of the potential impact of mining on key BWCAW
    resource components involve wild rice and fisheries, and the
    traditional uses and values drawn from them by Indigenous peoples. The
    requested withdrawal area is within the 1854 Ceded Territory for the
    Chippewa Bands, where their continued exercise of usufructuary rights
    to hunt, fish, and gather are protected by the 1854 Treaty of LaPointe.
    Treaty protected resources that are important to the subsistence-based
    lifestyle of the Bands include fish, wild rice, and other aquatic
    wildlife, which would be particularly vulnerable to any contamination
    caused by sulfide ore mining in the watershed. The ability to continue
    to have access to these food sources contributes to food security for
    the Bands. Wild rice, also known as ``Manoomin'' in Tribal language, is
    not only Minnesota's State Grain (MN Stat. Sec. 1.148) but also a key
    component of the spiritual and physical well-being of the Bands.
    According to a 2008 Minnesota Department of Natural Resources study
    (https://files.dnr.state.mn.us/fish_wildlife/wildrice/natural-wild-
    rice-in-minnesota.pdf):

            Nowhere has natural wild rice been more important, nor had a
            richer history, than in Minnesota. No other native Minnesota
            plant approaches the level of cultural, ecological, and
            economic values embodied by this species. Natural wild rice has
            been hand harvested as a source of food in the Great Lakes
            region for thousands of years. The Ojibwe people have a special
            cultural and spiritual tie to natural wild rice. Known to their
            people as Manoomin, it is revered as a special gift from the
            Creator. In addition, many immigrants to Minnesota adopted hand
            harvesting of natural wild rice as an annual ritual.

        The potential sulfide ore mining in this area has the potential to
    elevate sulfate levels in downstream waters (Miller 2002, USEPA 2014)
    and change the balance of the wilderness ecosystem and its associated
    subsistence lifestyle forever. If sulfate loading increases, evidence
    suggests that it would diminish the yield and ability to harvest wild
    rice and possibly present risks to food security. If sulfate enters
    wild rice waterbodies, it penetrates the sediment where the plant's
    roots grow. In these anaerobic conditions, bacteria transform (or
    ``reduce'') the sulfate into sulfide. Higher concentrations of sulfide
    can be toxic to roots and inhibit plant growth (Myrbo et. al. 2017a, Ng
    et. al. 2017, Pastor et. al. 2017, Pollman et. al. 2017). The
    scientific literature indicates elevated sulfate causes long-term
    declines in fish abundance, species number, and genetic diversity, and
    may facilitate the establishment of invasive species (Jennings et. al.
    2008, Daniel et al 2014). As a result, the potential downstream effects
    from mining include sulfide impacts to wild rice production, an
    important economic and tribal commodity (Johnson et al. 2019).

        Sulfates also result in the production of methylmercury, the toxic
    form of mercury that bio-accumulates in fish (Coleman et al. 2015,
    Myrbo et. al. 2017b). Lakes and streams in the area are already listed
    as impaired waters of the state for methylmercury in fish (MPCA 2007).
    Minnesota's State Bird, the Common Loon, an iconic symbol of the
    wilderness revered for its unusual wailing call, (https://
    www.youtube.com/watch?v=WDxtAoUQkSk&t=30s.; (https://
    www.projectremote.com /blog/loons-in-the-bounary-waters/) is often
    spotted by visitors of the BWCAW. The Common Loon is particularly
    sensitive to methylmercury (Evers et al 2008), a risk potentially
    exacerbated by mining. The flora and fauna of the BWCAW, as exemplified
    by the Common Loon and wild rice, are demonstrative of a distinct and
    irreplaceable wilderness resource. Moreover, the history of both Tribes
    and others in the region who practice a subsistence lifestyle is
    interwoven with the BWCAW and its water-based resources.

        Climate change increases the risk of bioaccumulation of toxic
    mercury in the aquatic food chain (Ghandi et al. 2014). The Fourth
    National Climate Assessment (USGCRP, 2018) reveals that the average
    temperature in the contiguous United States has increased by 1.2+F
    (0.7+C) relative to the beginning of the last century. Temperature is
    expected to rise over the next few decades, regardless of emissions, by
    an estimated average annual temperature of 2.5+F (1.4+C). The upper
    Midwest has experienced the greatest rate of change in rising
    temperatures across the nation and significant increases in major storm
    events. Temperature has risen 2.0+F since the beginning of the last
    century. Since 2000, the number of very heavy rains (6 inches or more
    in a day) have been 2-3 times more frequent than in the 20th century
    (Runkle et. al, 2017). Climate change related to rising temperatures is
    increasing the overall availability and accumulation of forms of
    mercury in northern Minnesota wetlands (Pierce et al. 2019) which are
    connected to downstream aquatic food chains (Monson, B.A.).

        Breaches or leakage of sulfate rich mine waters can have dramatic
    impacts on the production of the form of the toxic metal mercury which
    accumulates in the aquatic food chain, especially in fish. Also, the
    increased likelihood of larger storms, due to climate change, increases
    runoff and the potential for breaches of contaminated water to impact
    water supplies (Saniewska et al. 2014, Thomson and Rose 2011).

        Minnesota Department of Health (MDH) fish consumption advisories
    for pregnant women, women who could become pregnant, and children under
    age 15 suggest safe consumption be limited to only one serving per
    month for many preferred species (lake trout, walleye) and one serving
    per week for whitefish, herring, and other species (For some lakes in
    the application area, the MNDNR advises not to eat the fish. For
    example, White Iron Lake in St. Louis County, MNDNR advises not to eat
    walleye larger than 23 inches. https://www.health.state.mn.us/
    communities/environment/fish/docs/eating/specpoplakes.pdf; MDH 2021). A
    2011 MDH study indicated that 10 percent of Minnesota newborns in the
    Lake Superior Basin have toxic levels of mercury in their blood, likely
    from pregnant mothers eating fish (McCann 2011). Mercury in water and
    food has been shown to have detrimental effects on neural, nervous, and
    reproductive systems in humans with young children and developing
    fetuses particularly at risk (Kim et al. 2016, Henriques et al. 2019).
    Since subsistence users rely on these fish resources for food,
    increased mercury concentrations likely pose disproportional health
    risks to this population, raising an environmental justice issue.

        Consequently, mining poses risks to perpetuating the health and
    traditional cultural values of the Chippewa Tribe due to impacts on
    wild rice, fish and other subsistence livelihood resources that connect
    the Chippewa to the land, their values, cultural heritage, and to one
    another. Hunting and gathering are cultural and spiritual activities
    that are crucial to the identity of the Chippewa (Great Lakes Indian
    Fish and Wildlife Commission (GLIFWC). 2016. Metallic Mineral Mining:
    The Process & the Price. https://www.flifwc.org/publications/pdf/
    2016Process.pdf; GLIFWC 2016).

        As a final example, it is well documented that hardrock mining like
    that which is proposed adjacent to the BWCAW poses risks to public
    health from other changes to air and water. Six out of ten of the World
    Health Organization's identified chemicals of major public health
    concern are known to be released from hardrock mining. Arsenic,
    asbestos, cadmium, lead, particulate air pollution, and mercury could
    pose health risks such as cancer to workers and communities downstream
    and downwind of mining operations. A loss of a feeling of mental well-
    being due to the increased economic and emotional burden on families
    and individuals could arise from compromised health conditions due to
    toxic pollution of the region's air and water (Onello et. al. 2016).

        Thus, the purpose underlying this withdrawal request is to
    effectuate a policy choice, based on current information concerning
    resources, uses, and threats, to pursue a holistic approach to
    protection of National Forest System resources located in the Rainy
    River Watershed, including the BWCAW, and the MPA, as well as the 1854
    Ceded Territory, from the known and potential adverse environmental
    impacts arising from exploration and development of Federally-owned
    minerals conducted pursuant to the mineral leasing laws. (emphasis
    added) Some of these concerns were identified in the Chief of the
    Forest Service's letter declining to consent to two hardrock mineral
    leases (MNES-01352 and MNES-01353) in December 2016, and prompted the
    filing of an application for a withdrawal of 234,328 acres of National
    Forest System (NFS) land on the Superior National Forest in January
    2017. Others, such as Tribal and subsistence uses, and the effects of
    climate change on precipitation regimes were not, however. For the
    reasons set forth herein, the Regional Forester now believes that this
    new withdrawal application is a prudent, comprehensive course of action
    given the potential impacts to the social, cultural, economic, and
    natural resources described in part above, in light of pending plans
    for mine operations and pending applications for other hardrock mineral
    development activities within the withdrawal area.''

        . . .``All these considerations, encompassing social, economic,
    cultural, and natural resource effects and legal implications, support
    the conclusion that a withdrawal order is a prudent and more
    comprehensive and efficient means to establish protection of National
    Forest resources from adverse mining impacts. Mining adjacent to BWCAW
    and MPA risks irreparable harm to irreplaceable wilderness and
    ecosystem integrity, values, and resources. Although the primary
    footprint of the proposed mines would be outside the BWCAW, there are
    critical linkages between aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems that are
    highly dependent on chemistry of water flowing through them. Large
    scale mining activity at the top of the watershed can cause many
    effects in the primary and secondary footprint related to water flow
    and chemistry (including aerial deposition) that will affect everything
    lower in the watershed. Given the high level of linkages between
    aquatic and terrestrial components of the ecosystem in the BWCAW, these
    effects will also extend into terrestrial vegetation and could cause an
    ecological cascade of effects to vegetation, wildlife, and rare species
    of plants and animals within the BWCAW wilderness. The expected
    extremes in precipitation and temperature due to warming climate are
    likely to exacerbate mining impacts, and reduce the resilience of
    forests and watersheds to disturbance caused by mining. (Frelich LE.
    Terrestrial Ecosystem Impacts of Sulfide Mining: Scope of Issues for
    the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness, Minnesota. USA. Forests.
    2019; 10(9):747. https://doi.org/10.3390/f10090747).''

                                     ______

     Questions Submitted for the Record to Ms. Becky Rom, National Chair,
                      Campaign to Save the Boundary Waters

                 Questions Submitted by Representative Grijalva

        Question 1. During the hearing, you mentioned several reports with
    relevant evidence addressing Members' questions. Could you please send
    the Committee any materials that clarify or expand on answers provided
    during oral questioning?

        Answer. See articles that follow on the next page.
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                     ______

        Mr. Stauber. I thank Ms. Rom for her testimony.
        I now recognize Mr. Chura for 5 minutes.

     STATEMENT OF DAVID CHURA, BOARD CHAIR, JOBS FOR MINNESOTANS,
                           DULUTH, MINNESOTA

        Mr. Chura. Good morning, Chairman Stauber and members of
    the Committee. Thank you for the opportunity to testify today
    in support of Concurrent Resolution 34 and the Superior
    National Forest Restoration Act. My name is David Chura, and I
    am the Chair of Jobs for Minnesotans.
        Jobs for Minnesotans is a unique, non-partisan coalition
    that brings together labor unions, businesses, and local
    communities. Our coalition was founded in 2012 by the Minnesota
    Building and Construction Trades Council, as well as the
    Minnesota Chamber. We are committed to the principle that
    Minnesota can both create jobs and protect the environment.
        I am the grandson of an immigrant miner, and I have
    witnessed firsthand the impact and difference a good job in the
    mining industry can make for families and communities. I have
    also watched the mining industry transform into the modern,
    responsible, and sustainable practices that they implement
    today.
        Our workers are skilled, they are professional, and they
    prioritize safety, communities, and the protection of the
    environment.
        Jobs for Minnesotans encourages Congress to exercise its
    authority to overturn the withdrawal of 225,000 acres of the
    Superior National Forest from future leasing and exploration
    and development activities. The withdrawal was unnecessary.
        The BWCA, a place that I love and where I have another trip
    planned for this July, already has strict protections in place
    both within its boundaries as well as buffer zone surrounding
    it where no mining can occur. The Administration should rely on
    studying site-specific project proposals. The withdrawal is
    simply saying no to any and all projects, instead of using
    scientific inquiry and a public process to determine the
    outcome.
        By overturning the withdrawal and reinstating leases that
    were in place for more than 50 years and 10 presidential
    administrations, you aren't giving blanket approval for mining.
    If a mine can't show that it can meet or exceed standards to
    operate safely and responsibly, it shouldn't be permitted.
    However, instead of a generic ban that chills investment and
    exploration and deepens our dependence on imports, projects
    should be allowed to follow a timely, predictable, and
    transparent regulatory and environmental review process.
        The arbitrary withdrawal is a statement of distrust. It
    appears the Interior Department does not trust its own
    scientific process that has regulated and protected this nation
    for decades, nor trust in the employees at Federal agencies to
    review the environmental impacts of a specific project.
        Additionally, this ban is for 20 years, preventing any
    companies from pursuing exploration or development at a time
    when demand for critical minerals is skyrocketing. It is
    paramount for the United States to have access to a secure
    domestic source of metals, especially nickel and cobalt,
    minerals that are critical to U.S. manufacturing,
    infrastructure, clean energy, and battery storage technology.
        According to the International Energy Association, since
    2010, the average amount of minerals needed for a new unit of
    power has increased by 50 percent. The transition to cleaner
    energy means a shift from a fuel-intensive to a very mineral-
    intensive system. Domestically sourcing those minerals provides
    job, economic, energy, and national security for Americans.
        The Duluth Complex is a domestic mineral resource needed to
    advance the clean energy transition. Mining has been the
    lifeblood of this region for over 140 years, and has existed in
    harmony with our other core businesses such as forest products,
    transportation, health care, education, and tourism. Further,
    it has existed all the while protecting the environment.
        We should allow our mining workers and investors the
    opportunity to scientifically prove they can safely mine for
    minerals and protect the surrounding environment by following
    the extensive environmental review process. The economic
    opportunities are significant: an unprecedented level of
    investment that will revitalize the entire region,
    strengthening our families, schools, hospitals, and more.
        The minerals needed for a cleaner tomorrow will come from
    someplace. We should all want those minerals to come from
    operations where we, as Americans, have a say in the regulatory
    process, where we have strong safety and environmental
    requirements and oversight of mining operations. Supporting
    these bills means supporting scientific review of specific
    projects; supporting family-sustaining, middle-class jobs; and
    the strengthening of our vital local communities.
        Thank you for the opportunity to testify today.

        [The prepared statement of Mr. Chura follows:]
    Prepared Statement of David T. Chura, Board Chair, Jobs for Minnesotans
     on Concurrent Resolution 34 and H.R. 3195, ``Superior National Forest
                               Restoration Act''

        Thank you for the opportunity to testify in support of House
    Concurrent Resolution 34 and the Superior National Forest Restoration
    Act. Jobs for Minnesotans is a unique non-partisan organization that
    brings together labor unions, businesses, and local communities. Our
    coalition was co-founded in 2012 by the Minnesota Building and
    Construction Trades Council and the Minnesota Chamber of Commerce. Jobs
    for Minnesotans represents 70,000 union workers, over 2,300 members of
    the Minnesota Chamber and hundreds more local chamber members, elected
    leaders and residents of the state. The organization is committed to
    the principle that Minnesota can both create jobs and protect the
    environment for future generations.
        I am the grandson of an immigrant coal miner and I have witnessed
    first-hand the difference a good job in mining can make for families
    and communities. Unlike seasonal tourism jobs in the region where peak
    employment is less than four months of the year, mining provides year-
    round, family-sustaining careers that consistently put food on the
    table and provide post-secondary education opportunities for their
    kids.
        I have also watched the mining industry transition to the modern,
    responsible, and sustainable practices of today. Our workers are
    skilled, professional and they prioritize safety, communities, and the
    protection of the environment. The mines that have been proposed in the
    region are not the mines of the 19th century. The companies proposing
    projects aim to leverage global state-of-the-art technology that they
    want to prove can both protect the environment and responsibly create
    jobs.
        Jobs for Minnesotans encourages Congress to exercise its authority
    to overturn the Department of Interior's withdrawal of 225,000 acres of
    the Superior National Forest from future leasing and exploration and
    development activities.
        The withdrawal was unnecessary. The Boundary Waters Canoe Area
    Wilderness, a place I love and where I have another trip planned for in
    July, already has strict protections in place within its boundaries as
    well as buffer zones surrounding it where mining is prohibited. The
    Administration should rely on studying a site-specific project
    proposal. Every mine is unique and specific to its leases, location,
    and mining methods. Every geological deposit the proposal sits on is
    different and should be evaluated individually based on merit. The
    withdrawal is simply saying ``no'' to any and all projects instead of
    using scientific inquiry and a public process to determine the outcome.

        Without the withdrawal, the below federal and state regulations
    exist to protect the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness. Congress,
    the Minnesota Legislature, state and federal government agencies,
    environmental groups, mining and exploration companies, and mineral
    owners have spent decades conducting the research, working on laws and
    regulations, and establishing the permitting processes to assure that
    development of copper, nickel, and other nonferrous minerals in
    Minnesota will be managed responsibly:

         Mining was banned in the BWCAW by the Wilderness Act of
                1964. The 1978 Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness Act
                created an additional mining ban in the 220,000-acre
                ``Mining Protection Area'' to create a buffer around the
                BWCAW area.

         In 1976, the State of Minnesota adopted Minnesota Statutes
                Section 84.523 prohibiting all mining within the BWCAW
                while expressly allowing ongoing mineral exploration and
                development outside of the protected areas. The Superior
                National Forest Plan identifies mining as a desired
                condition.

         Since 1967, Minnesota state leases for nonferrous minerals
                have required that lessees meet all state and federal
                regulations (including requirements of U.S. Forest Service
                and Bureau of Land Management) on federal and state surface
                land, use good environmental engineering practices, receive
                approval from the DNR commissioner for surface use, notify
                surface owners in advance of activities requiring use of
                the surface of leased premises, and retain responsibility
                for damages.

         In 1971, the state legislature passed the Minnesota
                Environmental Rights Act (MERA)

         In 1973, the state legislature passed the Minnesota
                Environmental Policy Act (MEPA) and the related rules that
                contain provisions specifically requiring review of mining
                projects.

         The Minnesota Legislature enacted a law (1980) and DNR
                subsequently adopted rules to regulate drillers of
                exploratory borings.

         The DNR adopted mineland reclamation rules for iron mining
                (1981) and nonferrous mining, including copper-nickel
                (1993), after public hearings and comments. The nonferrous
                mining rules extended the mining ban beyond the BWCAW to
                the ``Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness Mineral
                Management Corridor'' including a 1/4-mile-minimum mining-
                free buffer around the BWCAW.

         Minnesota passed the Wetland Conservation Act (1991) and
                associated regulations, require wetlands replacement and
                setting aside certain significant peatlands.

         The Legislature required financial assurance for
                nonferrous mines, and DNR enacted new financial assurance
                rules (1993).

        By overturning the withdrawal in the Superior National Forest and
    reinstating leases that were in place for more than 50 years and 10
    presidential administrations, you aren't giving blanket approval for
    mining. If a mine can't show it can meet or exceed standards to operate
    safely and responsibly--it shouldn't be permitted. However, instead of
    a generic ban that chills investment and exploration and deepens our
    dependence on imports, projects should be allowed to follow a timely,
    predictable, and transparent regulatory and environmental review
    process.
        The arbitrary withdrawal is a statement of distrust. It appears the
    Interior Department does not trust its own scientific process that has
    regulated and protected this nation for decades nor trust in the
    employees at Federal agencies to review the environmental impacts of a
    specific project. Additionally, this ban is for 20 years, preventing
    any companies from pursuing exploration or development at a time when
    demand for critical minerals is skyrocketing.
        It's paramount for the U.S. to have access to a secure, domestic
    source of metals, especially nickel and cobalt--minerals that are
    critical to U.S. manufacturing, infrastructure, clean energy and
    battery storage technology. According to the International Energy
    Association, since 2010 the average amount of minerals needed for a new
    unit of power has increased by 50% as renewables increase their share
    of total capacity additions. The World Bank predicts the global need
    for copper over the next 25 years will be equal to the amount of copper
    mined in total over the last 5,000 years. The amount of nickel used per
    electric car could go from 20 kg to 40-50 kg by 2025, more than
    doubling the need. Annual global cobalt consumption is expected to
    reach 220,000 tons in 2025, increasing to 390,000 tons in 2030. That's
    almost double.
        The transition to clean energy means a shift from a fuel-intensive
    to a mineral-intensive system. Domestically sourcing those minerals
    provides job security, economic security and national security for
    Americans.
        The Duluth Complex in northeast Minnesota is a domestic clean
    energy mineral resource needed to advance the clean energy transition.
    Mining has been the lifeblood of this region for over 140 years,
    supporting workers and communities with safe, family sustaining jobs.
    It has existed in harmony with our other core industries of forest
    products, transportation, health care, education and tourism. Further,
    it has existed all while protecting the environment. We should allow
    our mining workers and investors the opportunity to scientifically
    prove they can both safely mine for minerals AND protect the
    surrounding environment, by following the extensive environmental
    review process.
        Mining has existed in the Rainy River Basin (in Minnesota, Ontario
    and Manitoba) for most of the last century, including a significant
    number of historic nonferrous mines and several operating or permitted
    nonferrous mines. During this time, mining has co-existed with
    wilderness and recreation, with 43 historic mine sites (including 18
    nonferrous mines) located within 10 miles of the Quetico Provincial
    Park and Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness.
        The economic opportunities are significant. An unprecedented level
    of investment that will revitalize the entire region--strengthening
    families, schools, hospitals and more. With the enactment of the
    withdrawal, our region now has experienced the loss of $1.5 billion in
    annual wages, and more than $2.5 billion in annual economic production
    based on studies conducted by the University of Minnesota Duluth.
        The minerals needed for a cleaner tomorrow will come from
    someplace. We should all want those minerals to come from operations
    where we as Americans have a say in the regulatory process, where we
    have strong safety and environmental requirements and oversight of
    mining operations.
        Ethical sourcing of copper, nickel, and other mineral resources
    goes beyond just mitigating environmental impacts. Mining here, at
    home, allows us to lessen our dependence on countries who have little
    to no regard for the environment, human life, and good wages. We have a
    moral obligation to explore mining here. And we have an obligation to
    protect and preserve our environments in the process. This isn't an
    either-or situation. We can, and need, to have both. In northeast
    Minnesota, mining will be done safely, with strict environmental and
    worker safety standards.
        Currently, there is only one operating mine in the U.S. that
    produces nickel. The Eagle Mine in Michigan is also in a water-rich
    environment and has operated safely since 2014. It's also critical to
    understand that it currently takes a minimum 8-10 years to get a mining
    project through review and permitting, so we can't just wait until
    there are shortages.
        Supporting these bills means supporting scientific review of
    specific projects, supporting family sustaining middle-class jobs and
    strengthening the vitality of local communities.

        I thank you again for the opportunity to provide my testimony.

                                     ______

         Questions Submitted for the Record to Mr. David Chura, Chair,
                              Jobs for Minnesotans

                 Questions Submitted by Representative Stauber

        Question 1. Mr. Chura, the minority-invited witness testified
    verbally and in writing that the mineral resources in the Duluth
    Complex are ``insignificant''. What is your understanding of the
    mineral value of the Duluth Complex?

        Answer. The mineral value of the Duluth Complex is significant. In
    fact, in a presentation from Dr. Jim Miller, Department of Geological
    Sciences at the University of Minnesota Duluth, the copper-nickel
    precious mineral resources was described as ``immense''.\1\ Recent
    estimates indicate the Duluth Complex contains nearly eight billion
    tons of ore, making it one of the world's largest undeveloped
    deposits.\2\ Technical reports for six projects in the Duluth Complex
    disclose approximately: 28.1 million metric tons of copper, 8.3 million
    metric tons of cobalt. Putting those numbers in context, compared to
    other sources around the world, the Duluth Complex has both a
    significant concentration and volume of copper making it potentially
    one of the most productive sites in the world matched only by Sudbury
    (located in Canada) and Noril'sk (located in Russia).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ https://mn.water.usgs.gov/projects/tesnar/2011/Presentations/
    MillerDC%20Min_USGS%20 workshop.pdf.
        \2\ https://www.mesabitribune.com/mine/minnesota-has-themetals-for-
    ev-green-energy-economy/article_810ada2c-7646-11eb-bb2c-
    bb7589cbe044.html.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The nickel concentrations are slightly lower than other deposits
    but there is significantly more volume of nickel in the Duluth Complex
    compared to other sites, making the Duluth Complex an extremely
    important source of nickel internationally, again, matched only by
    Sudbury and Noril'sk.\3\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \3\ O. Roger Eckstrand & Larry J. Hulbert, Magmatic Nickel-Copper-
    Platinum Group Element Deposits, in Mineral Deposits of Canada 205,
    205-06 (Wayne Goodfellow ed., 2007).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Copper has been referred to as the life blood of green energy and
    plays a key role in the fight against climate change. S&P Global has
    predicted copper production will need to double by 2035 to meet demands
    driven by global net-zero emission goals. In it's best-case scenario,
    S&P Global estimates production from global mines will be 3.5 billion
    pounds short of meeting copper demands in 2035.\4\ All deposits are
    important and needed in order for our country to meet the growing
    demand for the critical minerals required to achieve the clean energy
    transition.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \4\ https://www.spglobal.com/commodityinsights/en/market-insights/
    latest-news/energy-transition/071422-world-copper-deficit-could-hit-
    record-demand-seen-doubling-by-2035-s-p-global.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        It's also important to note that as an example of a project
    proposed in the withdrawal area, Twin Metals Minnesota, is ranked in
    the top ten biggest nickel projects in the world. That is
    significant.\5\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \5\ https://www.mining.com/featured-article/ranked-worlds-biggest-
    nickel-projects/.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Finally, Department of Energy Secretary Granholm chastised ``Not In
    My Backyard'' attitudes that slow clean energy infrastructure. ``Our
    backyard is now everybody's backyard,'' she told attendees at an
    Infrastructure Week event. Granholm noted there's been a ``sea change''
    in the ``permission that the administration has given for folks on the
    left to be able to say, `Yes, we can respect our environmental laws,
    and we can move quickly at the same time.' '' \6\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \6\ https://subscriber.politicopro.com/newsletter/2023/05/gop-
    floats-breaking-up-permitting-talks-00097279.

        Question 2. Can you elaborate on the labor organizations
    represented by Jobs for Minnesotans, and their position on the H. Con.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Res. 34 and the Superior National Forest Restoration Act?

        Answer. Labor organizations on the board of Jobs for Minnesotans
    includes:

         North Central States Regional Council of Carpenters

         Minnesota Building & Construction Trades Council

         Laborers' International Union of North America--LiUNA!

         International Union of Operating Engineers Local 49

         Minnesota Pipe Trades Association

        In addition to the comments provided by the labor union, business
    and local communities coalition--Jobs for Minnesotans--in support of H.
    Con. Res. 34 and the Superior National Forest Restoration Act, I am
    aware that the International Union of Operating Engineers Local 49 also
    sent a separate letter expressing support for H. Con. Res. 34.

        Question 3. Although we do have tourism jobs in Minnesota, they are
    largely seasonal. In your experience, do the seasonal jobs offered up
    as alternatives to mining jobs provide family-sustaining and economy-
    growing wages?

        Answer. Tourism is an integral part of our culture in northern
    Minnesota, but our diverse economy's foundation is supported by high
    paying mining jobs. According to 2022 data from the Minnesota
    Department of Employment and Economic Development, the average annual
    wage for tourism workers is $26,553, while the average wage for miners
    is $114,262.\7\ Mining jobs are family and community sustaining wages
    that will help the local economy through spending in a variety of
    sectors: local businesses, hospitality, recreation, healthcare
    services, and more. They also support key public services and local
    medical care facilities. Jobs in mining bring families into
    restaurants, consumers into shops and students into local schools.
    These students and young adults are also needed to help staff up the
    seasonal jobs in the tourism industry. To see the health of any
    community, it is important to look beyond the census numbers. A healthy
    community has a robust K-12 system. Ely used to have around 150 kids in
    a grade. This year Ely's 9th grade had 33 students and the 10th grade
    had 32 students.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \7\ https://mn.gov/deed/assets/2022_WDB3_RP_080222_tcm1045-
    264886.pdf.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The 750 full-time jobs and the additional spinoff jobs created by
    the Twin Metals project may not sound like a lot to someone living in
    an urban area, but for the communities of northeast Minnesota where
    these jobs will be located, these jobs mean everything. Using the
    current population of Ely and Babbitt as a benchmark, the full-time and
    spinoff jobs from the proposed project could employ nearly half of the
    local population with wages that are, on average, 123 percent higher
    than the average annual wage in the region. Further, these jobs
    represent the opportunity for graduating high school students to stay
    in the area or for others to return home.
        In Figure 5 below, you can see how mining's contribution to gross
    regional product (GRP) in the region has increased 600% since 2001
    compared to the slow growth in tourism. Additionally, employment in
    mining increased 37% between 2009 and 2018. In comparison, the tourism
    industry experienced the slowest level of growth during the time period
    consistently, increasing from $310 million in 2001 to $622 million in
    2018. Employment in the tourism related North American Industry
    Classification System (NAICS) code for ``arts, entertainment, and
    recreation'' only increased 3% and in ``accommodation and food
    services'', employment growth was just 7%.\8\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \8\ Table 1, PDF page 15 https://conservancy.umn.edu/bitstream/
    handle/11299/216463/
    UMD%20BBER%20Mining%20Economic%20Impact%20Report%202020.pdf?sequence=1&i
    s Allowed=y.

     Figure 5. Comparison of Duluth-Superior MSA GRP to Local Industries'
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      GRPs

    [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Source: Economic Impact of Ferrous and Nonferrous Mining on
    Minnesota and the Arrowhead Region, June 3, 2020 \9\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \9\ Figure 5, PDF page 13 https://conservancy.umn.edu/bitstream/
    handle/11299/216463/
    UMD%20BBER%20Mining%20Economic%20Impact%20Report%202020.pdf?sequence=1&i
    s Allowed=y.

    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     ______

        Mr. Stauber. Thank you for your testimony, Mr. Chura.
        I will now recognize the Members for 5 minutes of
    questioning, and I will recognize myself first.
        Senator Bakk, thank you once again for joining us today.
    Ms. Rom's husband stated to the New York Times about miners,
    and I quote, ``Resentment is the primary driver of the pro-
    mining crowd here. They are resentful that other people have
    come here and been successful, while they were sitting around
    waiting for a big mining company. They want somebody to just
    give them a job so they can all drink beer with their buddies
    and go four-wheeling and snowmobiling with their buddies, and
    not to have to think about anything except punching a clock.''
        Senator Bakk, do you agree that miners are driven only by
    resentment of the elites that oppose mining?
        Mr. Bakk. Mr. Chairman, nothing could be further from the
    truth. Some of the hardest-working people in our country work
    in our mines and provide the raw materials and the steel that
    make our life possible. I have a son that works in one of the
    mines, a daughter-in-law that works in one of the other ones.
    And I find that statement offensive.
        But let me explain to you a little about Iron Rangers. They
    toil very hard in very tough weather conditions in blue collar
    jobs, very physical labor. So, when the weekend comes, they are
    not looking for strenuous outdoor recreation because they have
    a very strenuous job all week.They are looking for the kind of
    recreation that doesn't require strenuous activity, largely.
    And that is why there is a strong culture of motorized
    recreation in northeastern Minnesota, things like snowmobiles,
    I remind the Committee, were actually invented in Minnesota.
        Mr. Stauber. Yes.
        Mr. Bakk. And all-terrain vehicles, which are produced in
    Minnesota, both Polaris and Arctic Cat, and Minnesotans produce
    them for all over the world. And boats and motors, Minnesota is
    one of the largest boat manufacturers in the entire nation.
        And I think the culture is that of motorized recreation
    because the jobs are so physical during the week, and that is
    how people like to play and recreate. But I find it very
    offensive to characterize them as anything other than
    hardworking Minnesotans making a huge contribution to our
    country.
        Mr. Stauber. Thank you, Senator.
        Dr. Thorleifson, great to see you again. The Democrat-
    invited witness testified that minerals in the withdrawal area
    are ``insignificant.'' As a trained geologist with decades of
    experience, do you agree or disagree with Ms. Rom's
    characterization of the Duluth Complex as insignificant?
        Dr. Thorleifson. Well, the production isn't going to give
    us instant mineral commodity self-sufficiency, but this is
    significant in many ways. The Duluth Complex is an immense
    resource on the world scene in terms of potential for nickel,
    copper, other elements. The production would be significant for
    people who have jobs in the mine. The production would be
    significant for the shareholders who have already invested a
    half-billion dollars.
        So, if a rigorous environmental review demonstrates that
    not only will there be no impact downstream at the Boundary
    Waters, but downstream from the first mile, the metal
    production is significant for the nation. Thinking of copper,
    nickel, cobalt, platinum, for some of these elements this
    production from this mine would be as much as 5 percent of our
    consumption, as much as 10 percent of our imports.
        If this is combined with two or three other mines in the
    country, as well as new domestic refining capacity, suddenly we
    could go from a situation where we are completely reliant on
    imports to producing a quarter of our supply domestically. And
    if there are international troubles, that could be very
    significant for the well-being of the nation, where we are not
    scrambling to maintain international trading relationships, but
    we have built a buffer at home.
        Mr. Stauber. Thank you. I would also like to enter into the
    record testimony from Mr. Dean Peterson last week, another
    geologist with decades of experience in the field and in
    academia, who testified about the importance of the Duluth
    Complex.

        [The information follows:]
        Testimony of Dean M. Peterson Ph.D., Chief Geologist, Big Rock
                                  Exploration
                    Before the Natural Resources Committee,
                  Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources
                             May 2, 2023 Hearing on
             ``Examining the Mineral Wealth of Northern Minnesota''

    Introduction

        Mineral deposits are formed as end products of a wide variety of
    Earth processes and reflect, in essence, a tapestry of time, processes,
    and geologic terranes. Geologists have long used such knowledge to
    target exploration programs for specific ore deposit types/commodities
    within different geologic terranes. Any coherent examination of the
    vast mineral wealth of Northern Minnesota must begin with an
    understanding of the geology of the Lake Superior region and how
    specific profound global geological events in Earth history set the
    stage for the unique set of world-class mineral resources found
    therein.
        My 35+ years as an economic geologist have primarily been spent out
    in the field unraveling the geology and mineral potential of the
    Precambrian rocks of Northern Minnesota. My Ph.D. from the University
    of Minnesota focused on the gold and copper-zinc mineral potential of a
    large area of Archean granite-greenstone terrane north of the Mesabi
    Range. I have worked extensively as an academic researcher and as the
    Senior Vice President of Exploration for Duluth Metals on understanding
    the geology and Cu-Ni-Co-PGE mineralization of contact-type deposits of
    the Duluth Complex. My two seasons of field research on seemingly 100%
    exposure of mafic intrusions in the McMurdo Dry Valleys of Antarctica,
    that are similar to the intrusions in the Duluth Complex, has led to a
    profound new understanding of how these mineral systems work and form
    world-class ore deposits of critically important minerals. I have
    recently been a Ph.D. committee member for a University of Michigan
    student studying the origin of the Ti-Fe-V ores of the Longnose and
    TiTac deposits along the western margin of the Duluth Complex. I have
    completed academic research studies on the eastern-most Mesabi Range,
    defining coherent zones of iron ores at Dunka Pit that perhaps one day
    could be mined to make DRI-grade (very-low silica) taconite pellets,
    and am currently actively engaged at Big Rock Exploration in a drilling
    program for manganese resources within the Emily Deposit of the Cuyuna
    Range.
        It is these unique rocks and their known and potential mineral
    wealth that is the focus of today's hearing, and I am happy to share my
    knowledge to the committee. This written testimony will attempt, in
    general terms, to explain how Northern Minnesota's known mineral
    resources, including Fe-Mn deposits within the states iron ranges and
    copper-nickel-cobalt-platinum group element (Cu-Ni-Co-PGE) & titanium-
    iron-vanadium (Ti-Fe-V) deposits in the Duluth Complex, are the
    outcomes of specific geological events unique to the Lake Superior
    region.
    Geology of Northern Minnesota

        Minnesota is situated at the southern edge of the Canadian Shield,
    the nucleus of the North American continent that formed during
    Precambrian time. This period of time encompasses about 85% of Earth's
    history, beginning with the formation of planet Earth about 4.550
    billion years (Ga) ago and ending about 0.54 Ga, when organisms with
    hard parts, such as shells, rapidly diversified. The great span of
    Precambrian time is divided for convenience into two major parts--the
    Archean Eon (4.55-2.50 Ga) and the Proterozoic Eon (2.50-0.54 Ga). The
    rocks formed in Minnesota during this enormous span of time record a
    complicated geologic history that involved volcanoes, ocean islands,
    mountain chains, earthquakes, and eons of time where the landscape
    simply weathered and eroded away.
        As the various mountainous Precambrian landscapes of Minnesota were
    slowly eroded to low relief over 2.7 billion years, Precambrian rocks
    that were once much deeper within the Earth are now exposed on the
    surface in Minnesota's flat terrain. These rocks record processes and
    conditions that existed beneath landscapes long since removed by
    erosion. Presently, the deeply eroded Precambrian rocks of Northern
    Minnesota are mostly covered by a veneer of glacially deposited clay,
    silt, sand, and gravel.
    Archean 2.7 Ga Rocks of Northern Minnesota
        The Archean rocks of Minnesota are part of the Superior Province of
    the Canadian Shield. The Superior Province is subdivided into
    subprovinces, which are broadly east-west, linear belts of rocks of
    similar geologic history and age. The subprovinces in Minnesota from
    south to north include the Minnesota River Valley, Abitibi-Wawa,
    Quetico, and Wabigoon.
        The 2.7 Ga Archean rocks of Northern Minnesota occur mainly north
    of the Mesabi iron range, and may be seen in Voyageurs National Park,
    in the western part of the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness, and
    in scattered areas elsewhere between International Falls and Ely. This
    group includes the Abitibi-Wawa granite-greenstone subprovince, the
    Quetico subprovince, and the Wabigoon granite-greenstone subprovince.
    The Abitibi-Wawa and Wabigoon subprovinces originally were parts of
    volcanic chains that were later deformed and intruded by granite. The
    Quetico subprovince was likely a large sedimentary basin on or between
    the volcanic arcs of the Wabigoon and Abitibi-Wawa. The granites welded
    the greenstone belts together to form the core of the North American
    continent. The end of the Archean Eon is a profound time in Earth
    history. The formation of stable cratonic cores of continents allowed
    for the deposition of vast sequences of sedimentary rocks. World-wide,
    Archean greenstone terranes are known to host some of the largest
    mineral deposits on Earth, especially iron, orogenic gold, and copper-
    zinc-rich volcanogenic massive sulfide deposits.
    Paleoproterozoic 1.9-1.7 Ga Rocks of Northern Minnesota
        One of the most profound events in Earth's history is recorded in
    the Paleoproterozoic rocks of Northern Minnesota. That event was the
    proliferation of cyanobacterial life on Earth in shallow water oceanic
    settings at the margins of eroded Archean cratons. This ancient life,
    which is recorded in the rocks as fossil stromatolites, released oxygen
    into the Earth's oceans and atmosphere and thus precipitated vast
    quantities of dissolved iron out of the ocean to form the chemical
    sedimentary rocks we call iron formation. Paleoproterozoic rocks occur
    in Minnesota from St. Cloud northeast to Moose Lake and Carlton, and
    north up to the Mesabi Iron Range near Eveleth and Hibbing. The
    southern part of the Paleoproterozoic terrane, approximately south of a
    line that runs west from Jay Cooke State Park, is a mixture of
    metamorphosed sedimentary and volcanic rocks and includes the Fe-Mn ore
    deposits of the Cuyuna iron range. To the south, these rocks were
    intruded later by several large granitic intrusions, emplaced between
    1.80 and 1.76 Ga, that collectively form an amalgamation referred to as
    the East-Central Minnesota batholith.
        The northern part of this terrane is made up of slate and
    graywacke, iron formation, and quartzite. The base of this sequence is
    quartzite, formerly sandstone, that was deposited on top of the older
    Archean bedrock. Above the quartzite is the Biwabik Iron Formation,
    long mined for its vast quantities of iron ore. Slate and graywacke
    overly the iron formation and covers a vast area from the Mesabi Iron
    Range south to Jay Cooke State Park, where one can easily see that it
    has been folded and deformed.
        The metamorphosed volcanic and sedimentary rocks that make up the
    southern part of the Paleoproterozoic terrane are likely part of a
    former mountain belt, the Penokean orogen, that extended west from Lake
    Huron to South Dakota, and perhaps farther, from about 2.0 to 1.8 Ga
    ago. The eroded remnants of this belt have geologic similarities to
    modern mountain belts along the west coast of North America. Therefore,
    geologists infer that mountainous terranes comparable to those
    currently found in western California existed long ago in Minnesota.
    During this mountain forming orogenic event, the crust was uplifted,
    and a large basin formed to the north; sediment shed into this northern
    segment produced the thick sequence of slate and graywacke in the
    deeper parts, and along the northern margin of this basin, the Pokegama
    Quartzite and Biwabik Iron Formation were deposited forming the Mesabi
    Iron Range, one of the largest mining districts in the world. In 2019,
    the Paleoproterozoic age iron deposits of the Lake Superior region
    (Northern Minnesota and Michigan) accounted for 98% of the usable iron-
    ore products in the United States.
    Mesoproterozoic 1.1 Ga Rocks of Northern Minnesota
        Mesoproterozoic rocks of Northern Minnesota occur along the shore
    of Lake Superior, continue south along the Minnesota-Wisconsin border,
    and extend southwest into Kansas. These rocks formed around 1.1 Ga ago
    along the Midcontinent Rift system, a major feature that formed by the
    spreading apart of older continental crust. As the crust spread and
    thinned, fractures and faults formed, providing pathways for molten
    magma from the mantle to work its way to the surface, where it erupted
    as volcanoes. The base of the volcanic pile was intruded by magma that
    cooled more slowly below the surface, forming troctolite, gabbro,
    anorthosite, and granite. The wholesale partial melting of the Earth's
    mantle, and transfer of these magmas upwards into the Earth's crust, is
    the reason why Northern Minnesota hosts enormous quantities of critical
    minerals associated with the Mid-Continent Rift. Essentially every atom
    of copper, nickel, cobalt, platinum, palladium, gold, silver, titanium,
    vanadium, and iron known to exist in Mesoproterozoic age ore deposits
    of Northern Minnesota were transferred by buoyant magmas from the
    Earth's mantle to crust by these magmas. When volcanism ceased,
    blankets of sand, now sandstone, were deposited in a basin on top of
    the volcanic rocks, such as the Hinckley Sandstone exposed in Banning
    State Park.
        Rocks similar to the Mesoproterozoic volcanic rocks exposed along
    the north shore of Lake Superior were mined extensively for copper in
    Michigan, but no similar deposits of economic scale have been found
    here. In Minnesota, an enormous reserve of copper, nickel, cobalt and
    associated platinum, palladium, and gold exists at the base of the
    Duluth Complex, along the northwest edge of the Mesoproterozoic system,
    and in an intrusion near the town of Tamarack. The sandstones that
    overlie the volcanic rocks have been quarried in the past for building
    and paving stone, and gabbro and anorthosite is quarried for both
    dimension stone and road aggregates.
    Mineral Resources of Northern Minnesota

        Since the 1880s, two broad types of mineral resources have been
    actively mined and/or explored for in northern Minnesota. They are: 1)
    Ferrous resources, which include iron (Fe) deposits of the Archean 2.7
    (Ga) Vermilion Range, the Paleoproterozoic 1.85 Ga Fe deposits of the
    Mesabi Range, and manganese-iron (Mn-Fe) deposits of the Cuyuna Range;
    and 2) Non-ferrous resources, which include the Mesoproterozoic (1.1
    Ga) Cu-Ni-Co-PGE and Ti-V deposits of the Mid-Continent Rift. Also,
    numerous mineral exploration programs in the Archean 2.7 Ga greenstone
    belts of Minnesota over the last 60 years have identified numerous
    prospective lode-gold and copper-zinc target areas. This written
    testimony includes as a supporting document a bedrock geology and
    mineral resource map of Minnesota that highlights the 8th Congressional
    District (Peterson, 2022).
    Ferrous Resources

        The ferrous mineral resources of Northern Minnesota include several
    categories of marine chemocline mineral systems outlined in recent USGS
    publications (Schulz et al., 2017 and Hofstra and Kreiner, 2020). These
    categories include: 1) Superior-type iron deposits (Mesabi Range), 2)
    Iron-Manganese deposits (Cuyuna Range, 100 million tons), and 3)
    Algoma-type iron deposits (Vermilion Range (102 million tons). Brief
    descriptions of the geology and mineral resources of the Mesabi and
    Cuyuna iron ranges is provided below.
    Superior Type Iron Resources of the Mesabi Iron Range
        Superior type iron formation resources of Minnesota are exemplified
    by the long-standing mining of iron resources of the Biwabik Iron
    Formation along the length of the Mesabi Iron Range. The Mesabi Iron
    Range is largely located in St. Louis and Itasca counties and has been
    the most important iron ore district in the United States since 1900.
    The Mesabi Iron Range is 120 miles long, averages one to two miles
    wide, and is comprised of rocks of the Paleoproterozoic Animikie Group.
    The Animikie Group on the Mesabi Iron consists of three conformable
    major formations: Pokegama Formation at the base; Biwabik Iron
    Formation in the middle; and the overlying Virginia Formation. On the
    Mesabi Iron Range, these three formations display gentle dips to the
    southeast at an angle of 3-15 degrees.
        Leached and iron enriched direct ores (or natural ores) were the
    first materials mined from strongly oxidized pockets along fault and
    fracture zones and the blanket oxidation at the surface in the iron
    formation (Marsden et al., 1968), with the first shipment beginning in
    1892. Taconite, which is the material that is mined today using
    magnetic separation methods, constitutes most of the iron formation and
    pertains to the hard, non-oxidized portions of the iron-formation. Maps
    of currently active taconite mining operations and the historic natural
    ore mines on the Mesabi Iron Range are presented on inset maps 1, 2,
    and 3 on the provided bedrock geology and mineral resources map
    (Peterson, 2022). Compiled grade/tonnage ore reserve calculations for
    the active taconite operations on the Mesabi iron range are given in
    Table 1.

      Table 1. Recent grade-tonnage reserve estimates of the Mesabi Iron
                             Range taconite mines.
    [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

     Mn-Fe Resources of the Cuyuna Iron Range
        The Cuyuna Range is about 160 km west-southwest of Duluth in
    Aitkin, Cass, Crow Wing, and Morrison Counties, and is part of a
    Paleoproterozoic (1.9-1.8 Ga) geologic terrane which occupies much of
    east-central Minnesota. Since their discovery in 1904, it has been
    recognized that the iron-formations and associated ore deposits of the
    Cuyuna Range contained appreciable quantities of manganese which was
    extracted as ferromanganese ores from several mines on the North range
    from 1911 to 1984. The presence of this manganese resource sets the
    Cuyuna range apart from other iron-mining districts of the Lake
    Superior region.
        The Cuyuna iron range is traditionally divided into three
    districts, the Emily district, the North range, and the South range.
    The Emily district extends from the Mississippi River northward through
    Crow Wing County and into southern Cass County. Although exploration
    drilling has been extensive in the Emily district, mining never
    commenced. The North range, located near the cities of Crosby and
    Ironton in Crow Wing County, was the principal site of mining activity
    (ceased in 1984) of the Cuyuna. The South range, where only a few mines
    were operated in the 1910s and 20s, comprises an area of northeast-
    trending, generally parallel belts of iron-formation extending from
    near Randall in Morrison County northeast for about 100 km. In addition
    to the three named districts, numerous linear magnetic anomalies occur
    east of the range proper, and may indicate other, but as yet poorly
    defined, beds of iron-formation.
        Several attempts have been made over the last 70 years to estimate
    the size of the manganese resources of the Cuyuna iron range. For
    example, Lewis (1951) estimated that 455 million metric tons of
    manganiferous iron-formation containing from 2 to 10 percent manganese
    were available to open-pit mining to a depth of 45 meters. Dorr et al.,
    (1973) used that estimate to establish that the Cuyuna range contains
    approximately 46 percent of known manganese resources in the United
    States. US Steel geologist Richard Strong (1959) estimated iron and
    manganese resources from several well-drilled deposits in the Emily
    District and Beltrame et al., (1981) estimated a minimum of 170 million
    metric tons of manganiferous rock with an average grade of 10.46 weight
    percent manganese. All of these historic grade/tonnage estimates should
    be considered with a certain amount of skepticism as they do not
    conform to current best practices of mineral resource estimation. A
    listing of the grade and tonnage from properties that Strong (1959) and
    Beltrami et al., (1981) estimated manganese resources is given in Table
    2.

    Table 2. Historic grade-tonnage estimates (non-NI 43-101 compliant) of
    manganese resource within the Cuyuna Iron Range. Table only lists those
                properties with estimated >500,000 tons of ore.
    [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    Non-ferrous Resources

        The non-ferrous mineral resources of Northern Minnesota include
    several categories of mafic magmatic mineral systems outlined in recent
    U.S. Geological Survey publications (Schulz et al., 2017 and Hofstra
    and Kreiner, 2020). These categories include: 1) Contact-type Cu-Ni-Co-
    PGE sulfide deposits; 2) Conduit-type Ni-Cu-Co-PGE sulfide deposits:
    and 3) Iron-Titanium oxide (Fe-Ti-V-P) deposits. All of these non-
    ferrous mineral resources are related to the 1.1 Ga Mid-Continent Rift.
    A summation of published values of known in-situ contents of base
    metals (Cu-Ni-Co) and precious metals (Pt-Pd-Au-Ag) for the contact-
    type and conduit-type mineral resources of Northern Minnesota is given
    in Table 3.

     Table 3. In-Situ value estimate of the known mineral deposits of the
                 Mid-Continent Rift in the State of Minnesota.
    [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    Contact-type Cu-Ni-Co-PGE sulfide deposits
        Contact-type Cu-Ni-PGE magmatic sulfide deposits (Zientek, 2012) of
    the midcontinent of North America are exemplified by the large, mainly
    disseminated sulfide deposits that occur along the basal contact of the
    Duluth Complex where magmas intruded and incorporated footwall
    Paleoproterozoic Animikie Group metasedimentary rocks and Archean
    granitoids. Major deposits include Birch Lake, Maturi, Mesaba,
    NorthMet, Serpentine, and Spruce Road. Disseminated and local massive
    sulfide mineralization of the Duluth Complex was historically estimated
    to contain about 4.4 billion metric tons of ore with average grades of
    0.66% Cu and 0.2% Ni at a 0.5% Cu cut-off (Listerud and Meinike, 1977).
    Recent exploration and project development for many of these Duluth
    Complex contact-type deposits has led to upgraded mineral resource
    estimates for many of these deposits via the publication of numerous Ni
    43-101 compliant mineral resource estimates. Combined together the
    upgraded estimate contains 9.57 billion metric tons with average grades
    of 0.406% Cu, 0.126% Ni, and 0.326 g/t Pt-Pd-Au.
    Conduit-type Ni-Cu-Co-PGE sulfide deposits
        Conduit-type Ni-Cu-PGE sulfide deposits are defined as magmatic
    sulfide mineralization restricted to small- to medium-sized mafic and/
    or ultramafic tube-like intrusions or dikes that served as pathways for
    flow-through of picritic and/or Mg-rich basaltic magmas (Schulz et al.,
    2014). These important sulfide deposits are unique in that they
    typically contain more metal and sulfur than could be derived from a
    magma volume equal to the limited volume of the small intrusions that
    host deposits. This implies that these deposits were products of a
    greater volume of magma than the current volume of the host intrusion.
    Thus, conduit-type sulfide deposits are the product of a large volume
    of magma that moved through open conduit systems, enriching an
    immiscible sulfide liquid with metals such as Ni, Cu, Co, and PGE.
    Rocks that make up host intrusions generally do not represent primary
    magmas, but are accumulations of olivine, pyroxene, and immiscible
    sulfide liquid.
        The Tamarack deposit is the only documented conduit-type sulfide
    deposit in Northern Minnesota. The ultramafic Tamarack Intrusive, with
    a minimum intrusion age of 1105.61.2 Ma (Goldner, 2011), is
    made up of several distinct intrusive bodies, including an ovoid-shaped
    Bowl Intrusion of oxide gabbro and two sulfide mineralized intrusive
    dike-like peridotite bodies that give the complex a tadpole shape
    (Taranovic et al., 2015). Mineralization at Tamarack consists of
    disseminated to net textured to massive pyrrhotite, pentlandite,
    chalcopyrite, and minor cubanite.
    Ti-Fe-V Resources of the Duluth Complex
        Small titanium-ironvanadium oxide-rich, plug-like,
    discordant intrusions along the southern basal section of the Duluth
    Complex are called Oxide-Ultramafic Intrusions, or OUIs. Rock types
    carrying the Ti-FeV oxide mineralization in OUIs include
    dunite, peridotite, and pyroxenite, typically with more than 10% semi-
    massive to massive oxide zones (Severson and Hauck, 1990). Deposits,
    including the major OUIs Longnose, TiTac, and Water Hen, can also carry
    minor Cu sulfide mineralization.
        Identified resources of Minnesota's OUI associated Ti-Fe-V deposits
    include the: 1) Longnose deposit, with a NI 43-101 indicated resource
    of 58.1 million tons averaging 16.6% TiO2 (inferred 65.3
    million tons averaging 16.4% TiO2) based on 27 drill holes
    and using a cut-off grade of 8% TiO2; 2) Titac deposit, with
    a NI 43-101 inferred resource of 45.1 million tons averaging 14%
    TiO2 based on 32 drill holes and using a cut-off grade of 8%
    TiO2; and 3) Water Hen deposit, with a crudely estimated 62
    million tons averaging 14% TiO2 and significant graphite
    resources, based on 37 drill holes.
    Summary

        Ore deposits represent the preferential concentration of specific
    elements within the earth via the transfer of mass and energy over
    space and time. The bedrock geology within the state of Minnesota
    represents a mosaic of geological terranes that facilitated ore-forming
    processes unique to this region and underpins a remarkable endowment of
    mineral resource wealth within the United States. The geology and
    mineral deposits of the Lake Superior area in general, and Northern
    Minnesota in particular, are unique. No other area of the United States
    of America hosts such an array of Precambrian rocks and the world-class
    ore deposits that these rocks contain. As the fifth most valuable state
    with respect to mineral production (USGS, 2022), Minnesota stands alone
    in its potential to advance the domestic supply of many critical
    minerals into the United States economy and lead the way toward a
    brighter future.
    References

    Beltrame, R.J., Holtzman, R.C., and Wahl, T.E., 1981, Manganese
    resources of the Cuyuna range, east-central Minnesota: Minnesota
    Geological Survey Report of Investigations 24, 22 p.

    Dorr, J.VN., II, Crittenden, M.D., Jr., and Worl, RG., 1973, Manganese,
    in Probst, D.A., and Pratt, W.P., eds., United States Mineral
    Resources: U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 820, p. 385-399.

    Goldner, B.D., 2011. Igneous petrology of the Ni-Cu-PGE mineralized
    Tamarack Intrusion, Aitkin and Carlton Counties. Unpublished M.S.
    thesis, Univ. Minn.-Duluth, Duluth, MN, pp. 155.

    Hofstra, A.H., and Kreiner, D.C., Systems-Deposits-Commodities-Critical
    Minerals Table for the Earth Mapping Resource Initiative: U.S.
    Geological Survey Open-File Report 2020-1042, 24 p.

    Lewis, W.E., 1951, Relationship of the Cuyuna manganiferous resources
    to others in the United States, in Geology of the Cuyuna range-Mining
    Geology Symposium, 3rd, Hibbing, Minnesota, Proceedings: Minneapolis,
    University of Minnesota, Center for Continuation Study, p. 30-43.

    Listerud, W.H., Meineke, D.G., 1977. Mineral resources of a portion of
    the Duluth Complex and adjacent rocks in St. Louis and Lake Counties,
    northeastern Minnesota. Minn. Dept. Nat. Res. Div. Min. Rep. 93, pp.
    74.

    Marsden, R.W., Emanuelson, J.W., Owens, J.S., et al., 1968, The Mesabi
    Iron Range, Minnesota, in Ridge, J.D. (ed.), Ore Deposits of the United
    States, 1933-1967: New York, American Institute of Mining,
    Metallurgical, and Petroleum Engineers, Inc., The Grafton-Sales Volume,
    v. 1, p. 518-537.

    Peterson, D.M., 2022, Precambrian bedrock geology and mineral resources
    map of Minnesota: Highlighting the 8th Congressional District of the
    U.S. House of Representatives, Big Rock Exploration map BRE-Map-2022-01

    Schulz, K.J., DeYoung, J.H., Jr., Seal, R.R., II, and Bradley, D.C.,
    eds., 2017, Critical mineral resources of the United States--Economic
    and environmental geology and prospects for future supply: U.S.
    Geological Survey Professional Paper 1802, 797 p., https://doi.org/
    10.3133/pp1802.

    Schulz, K.J., Woodruff, L.G., Nicholson, S.W., et al., 2014, Occurrence
    model for magmatic sulfide-rich nickel-copper-(platinum-group-element)
    related to mafic and ultramafic dike-sill complexes. U.S. Geol. Surv.
    SIR 2010-5070-I, pp. 80.

    Severson, M.J., Hauck, S.A., 1990. Geology, geochemistry, and
    stratigraphy of a portion of the Partridge River intrusion. Nat. Res.
    Resch. Inst. NRRI/TR-59/11, pp. 149.

    Strong, R., 1959, Report on Geological Investigation of the Cuyuna
    District, Minnesota, 1949-1959, US Steel Internal Report, 318 pages.

    Taranovic, V., Ripley, E.M., Li, C., Rossell, D., 2015. Petrogenesis of
    the NI-Cu-PGE sulfide-bearing Tamarack Intrusive Complex, Midcontinent
    Rift System, Minnesota. Lithos, 212-215, 16-31.

    U.S. Geological Survey, 2022, Mineral commodity summaries 2022: U.S.
    Geological Survey, 202 p., https://doi.org/10.3133/mcs2022.

    Zientek, M.L. 2012. Magmatic ore deposits in layered intrusions--
    Descriptive model for reef-type PGE and contact type Cu-Ni-PGE
    deposits. U.S. Geological Survey OFR 2012-1010, 48 pp.

                                     ______

        Mr. Stauber. Mr. Chura, thank you again to you and Jobs for
    Minnesotans for the important work you do.
        Wages for the mining sector in Minnesota far outpace the
    average in the state by about 25,000. In your experience as
    Chairman, can you compare the benefits of high-wage, year-round
    mining jobs and seasonal tourism jobs?
        Mr. Chura. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Yes, tourism is an
    important part of our culture in northern Minnesota, but most
    of those jobs are seasonal jobs compared to the jobs that
    mining would provide, which are family-sustaining jobs.
        If you look at the average wage in the tourism industry, it
    is around $23,000 annually. Compare that to the average wage of
    a mining job, which is around $98,000 annually. That is a 123
    percent increase in the average wage for the region when you
    look at a mining wage compared to other job opportunities.
        In addition, the benefits are significant. A friend of mine
    who is a miner who went through a battle with cancer, she put
    it to me this way. She said, ``The difference between the
    benefits that I had working for a mine and others, I didn't
    have to put together a GoFundMe site.''
        One job within the mining industry creates about two spin-
    off jobs as well, which further benefit our communities. So,
    these jobs are important, and they are significant.
        Mr. Stauber. Thank you for your testimony. I have run out
    of time. I now turn it over to the Ranking Member for her 5
    minutes of questioning.
        Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
        Senator Bakk, I was hoping you could help me clarify
    something. I see here that you are testifying today as a former
    State Senator, but we have seen some materials here that
    suggest you may be a registered lobbyist within the state of
    Minnesota to lobby on behalf of Twin Metals Minnesota. Is that
    correct?
        Mr. Bakk. Thank you for the question. I retired after
    almost 30 years in the State Legislature on----
        Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. Are you presently a registered lobbyist
    in the state of Minnesota for Twin Metals Minnesota?
        Mr. Bakk. Let me explain it to you.
        Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. Is it yes or no?
        Mr. Bakk. I am going to give you a yes or no.
        Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. Is it----
        Mr. Bakk. I retired on January 3 and opened and started a
    consulting business, an LLC. I have a number of clients. Some
    of them require registration with the Minnesota Campaign
    Finance Board.
        Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. And is Twin Metals Minnesota one of
    those clients?
        Mr. Bakk. Twin Metals is one of them, and I did disclose
    that.
        Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. OK, was that disclosed with the state? I
    failed to see it in your opening statement, I failed to see it
    in the statement you just delivered here.
        And, to clarify, Twin Metals Minnesota, it is that
    company's leases that were canceled by the Biden administration
    that are partially subject to the matters of this hearing
    today.
        But I want to thank you. I think it is important for us to
    have clarity. I am not sure why that detail was excluded. I
    think it is highly relevant present experience that should be
    disclosed.
        Mr. Stauber. Ranking Member Ocasio-Cortez, it was disclosed
    in his written testimony.
        Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. In his written testimony, but not the
    opening statement.
        Mr. Stauber. And it is required that he did disclose that.
        Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. And did, OK. But I would like to note it
    was not included in the opening statement.
        And Mr. Chura, you are employed by Minnesota Power, an
    ALLETE company, correct?
        Mr. Chura. That is correct. But I am here today
    representing Jobs for Minnesotans.
        Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. And Minnesota Power supplies electricity
    in northeastern Minnesota. Mines in northeastern Minnesota are
    one of the largest customers of Minnesota Power, correct?
        Mr. Chura. Correct.
        Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. I would like to submit to the record
    here an article from the Star Tribune citing that 74 percent of
    Minnesota Power's energy does not go to Minnesotans. It goes to
    the taconite mines and paper mills. So, these mines are one of
    the largest customers of Minnesota Power.
        I also want to reiterate what we have heard here today. We
    have two witnesses that have present connections, not past, in
    stakeholders with a financial interest in advocating for large
    new mines in the state, regardless of whether or not it would
    result in economic benefits. I think this is important, and
    relevant connections that should be clearly communicated.
        Ms. Rom, we have heard plenty on that so far, but I want to
    talk a little bit about the harms that this project would
    actually cause to the ecosystem and the people who live in the
    Boundary Waters area. You have shared that nearly 70 percent of
    Minnesotans support a permanent ban on sulfide ore copper
    mining in the Boundary Waters and headwaters. How have industry
    lobbying like what we have heard today distorted some of the
    on-the-ground communities' perspective?
        Ms. Rom. Thank you, Ms. Ocasio-Cortez, for your question.
        I am here as a volunteer. For the last 10 years,
    constituents of Minnesota, oftentimes the 8th Congressional
    District, and also Americans from across the country have been
    coming to Washington, DC to plead our case as volunteers, as
    people who love the Boundary Waters, who work in the Boundary
    Waters, have businesses there.
        Antofagasta last year spent over $1 million on lobbyists to
    lobby in Washington, DC in opposition to the volunteers like me
    that you are seeing here. And that doesn't count Mr. Bakk, who
    is a Minnesota lobbyist. So, there has been a significant
    financial unevenness, if you will, with the American people
    against this giant billionaire mining company. The----
        Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. I apologize, and feel free to continue
    your sentence, but I would also like to hear if you could speak
    more to the science that leads us to believe that this project
    would be harmful to the ecosystem, as well.
        Ms. Rom. Thank you. The science is overwhelming. It has
    been peer reviewed, it has been published. It demonstrates that
    a sulfide ore copper mine in the location of the Twin Metals
    mine would pollute the Boundary Waters. It is not a matter of
    if; it is a matter of when.
        The EPA has said this is acid-generating ore. Twin Metals
    never was able to prove that was otherwise. And most recently,
    the state of Minnesota said to Twin Metals, ``You can't put
    your tailings waste facility on our land because that will
    expose us to potential Superfund liability.''
        So, it is the consensus of the scientific community that
    this would pollute, damage, and destroy the Boundary Waters.
        Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. Thank you. I yield back.
        Mr. Stauber. Thank you. The Chair now recognizes
    Representative Fulcher for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Fulcher. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank the panel
    for being here, and for your comments and input.
        We are here today to talk about H.C. Res. 34, disapproving
    the Administration's disapproval of 225,000 acres-plus National
    Forest System lands from disposition under the United States
    mineral and geothermal leasing laws.
        And 225,000-plus acres, I think it is worth putting that in
    perspective. If I have done my math right--and I did it pretty
    quickly, but I think it is right--that is 12.3 times larger
    than the New York Congressional District 14, Ranking Member's
    district, 12.32 times. That is a fair amount of space.
        And the problem is it is not just in Minnesota, it is all
    over the country, including my home state of Idaho. We have a
    cobalt mine we have been trying to get permitted for 30-plus
    years, 30-plus years. How in the world these organizations can
    finance for that long, when you never know if and when you are
    going to get a permit, is beyond me.
        And here is what that has led to. Mr. Chairman, I think
    there is a chart if we can put it on the screen, a year 2022-
    dated net import reliance chart.
        [Chart.]
        Mr. Fulcher. If you would, please take a look at that. This
    is from the U.S. Geological Survey, and for me, a picture is
    worth a thousand words. It tells you just how reliant the
    United States has become on other nations when those resources
    are under our feet.
        Here are some statistics. According to this backup info on
    this chart, the U.S. Geological Survey, 2023 Minerals Commodity
    Summaries Report: ``The U.S. reached a record high for U.S.
    mineral imports, marking an all-time low for supply chain
    stability.'' According to the report, the U.S. is more than 50
    percent reliant on 51 minerals, up from 47 the prior year. The
    U.S. is 100 percent net import reliant on 15 of those 51
    minerals.
        Mr. Fulcher. And I think I have a chart behind me on
    copper, which will kind of tell the story on that.
        [Chart.]
        Mr. Fulcher. According to Benchmark Mineral Intelligence,
    they estimate that more than 300 new mines need to be built
    just to meet the electronic vehicle demand of the people who
    are opposing the mining in this country.
        I mean, you can't make this stuff up. I love you guys on
    the other side of the aisle, but you cannot think when it comes
    to this type of thing. You are locking us into demand outside
    this country. But yet you want electronic vehicles.
        Ms. Rom, have you ever been to China?
        Ms. Rom. No.
        Mr. Fulcher. Have you ever seen a mine in China?
        Ms. Rom. No, but I do know that the metal concentration
    from Twin Metals will go to China----
        Mr. Fulcher. I used to do business there, quite a bit of
    it. I used to do business there personally. I have seen them.
    Believe me, if you don't like it in Minnesota, you really won't
    like it in China. And they happen to live on the same planet
    you and I do. But with these policies, and by just locking
    things down, that chart is what you get.
        Ms. Rom. May I respond?
        Mr. Fulcher. No, you can't. Not now. I will relax in a
    minute here. Well, no, I won't relax. I will turn it over in a
    minute.
        Ms. Rom. May I respond, sir?
        Mr. Fulcher. This is what you get when you take this not-
    in-my-backyard argument. And not only that, but we are much,
    much, much more responsible than China.
        So, on the one side, my friends say we want to lock it
    down, we want more electronic vehicles, we want to have green
    this, green that, but not to support the industry here. Same
    thing with windmills, same thing with solar panels, by the way.
    Let's go get it from someplace else. Let's use child labor and
    do it irresponsibly in China. OK. Makes a lot of sense. But
    that is your argument.
        Mr. Chairman, it is time that we respect not only the needs
    of our nation and the reliability of that, but it is time that
    we do so responsibly, and we also are responsible with the
    environment. That is the point. We are the environmentalists.
    We are the one who is doing it responsible. These minerals are
    going to come from some place. Why not do it responsibly?
        Ms. Rom, you had something to say.
        Ms. Rom. Thank you.
        Mr. Fulcher. You have 15 seconds.
        Ms. Rom. Thank you.
        First of all, we are not anti-mining, but we aren't so poor
    that we can't save the most special places in America.
        Mr. Fulcher. Oh, OK. Take a look at that chart. I am
    reclaiming my time. Take a look at the chart, and you tell me
    that you are not anti-mining in those interests that you
    represent.
        Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
        Mr. Stauber. Thank you very much. The next questioner will
    be Mr. Huffman from California.
        Mr. Huffman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        And, Mr. Foucher, we love you, too.
        Mr. Fulcher. Fulcher.
        Mr. Huffman. Fulcher. I knew that, too.
        We have a misinformation problem here in this Committee. We
    don't talk about the places where we actually can sustainably
    mine. We don't talk about the opportunities to get a lot of
    this material from recycling, which is going to create great
    jobs. We don't talk about the Salton Sea, which may not be
    exactly in my backyard, but it is kind of close, and I am
    saying yes. And I want you to come and see how huge amounts of
    lithium and manganese are going to be drawn out of the brine
    that we are going to use for geothermal energy, and it is going
    to be great for jobs, and for electrifying the transportation
    sector and for the Salton Sea region. We don't talk about any
    of that.
        What we do talk a lot about are really special, wild places
    that are worth protecting in this country, that are undeniably
    unique and beautiful, but are threatened by an extractive
    industry that the Trump administration has granted access to
    and the Biden administration, in an open, science-based
    process, decides need to remain protected. That pattern is
    playing out over and over in this Subcommittee, unfortunately.
    And with the Boundary Waters, this is a unique ecological area
    that needs to be protected.
        In this hearing and with some of this legislation, it seems
    like we are paving new frontiers in gaslighting. We have a bill
    called the Superior Forest Restoration Act, which has nothing
    to do with restoring a forest; it is about restoring mining
    interests in that forest. I mean, give me a break.
        We are having a pep rally here for the taconite mining that
    has historically taken place safely in another part of the
    state, and we are not even talking about taconite mining in
    this case. We are talking about a Chilean company that wants to
    come in and set up shop in the watershed of a river that flows
    right into the Boundary Waters. And when the Forest Service
    took a look around the world at the operating sulfide ore
    copper mines around the world, they found that 100 percent of
    them have pipeline leaks and other accidental releases of acid
    mine drainage. Everybody knows this type of mining is different
    than the taconite mining that everybody has been celebrating
    here, and it involves a much greater risk of acid mine
    drainage.
        So, we have to stop the gaslighting. There is a lot that we
    could talk about to find the minerals sustainably that we need
    to make this important clean energy transition, but we have to
    stop talking about special places and presenting this false
    choice.
        Now, Ms. Rom, we have mentioned several times that one of
    the two pieces of legislation we are considering, H. Con. Res.
    34, is unconstitutional. And I don't want you to get too wonky
    about legislative vetoes and all of the arcane reasons, but can
    you maybe in 30 seconds tell us why it is unconstitutional?
        Ms. Rom. Thank you. Well, this is the first time in more
    than 90 large mineral withdrawals under FLPMA where a Member of
    Congress has introduced a resolution for a legislative veto,
    sad to say.
        In 1983, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in the Chadha case
    that legislative vetoes which bypassed the President are
    unconstitutional. It has never been challenged since then. And
    in 2017, in a case brought by the National Mining Association
    arguing that, sure, it was unconstitutional, but you can't
    sever it from FLPMA, so the whole mineral withdrawal section
    fails, the Ninth Circuit said no. So, everybody agrees it is
    unconstitutional.
        It is also extremely sad that a resolution has been brought
    relative to a mineral withdrawal order that protects America's
    great canoe country wilderness.
        Mr. Huffman. Now, the mining industry itself has argued
    that this very type of legislation is unconstitutional,
    correct?
        Ms. Rom. Yes, it is also in the House Manual.
        Mr. Huffman. Right, so this isn't even really a debatable
    point.
        Ms. Rom. No.
        Mr. Huffman. This is unconstitutional stuff. And that is
    one of the bills that we are considering.
        Let's go to the type of mining that we are talking about
    here. This is fundamentally different, what Twin Metals, the
    Chilean company, is proposing to do in the watershed of the
    Boundary Waters, correct?
        Ms. Rom. Yes. It has less than 1 percent metal content,
    which means 99 percent is waste. My grandfather, the mining he
    did, it was 50 to 70 percent pure iron ore. Taconite is 20 to
    30 percent iron ore. This is radically different.
        Mr. Huffman. All right. And lastly, we have heard a lot
    about the economic arguments here, including from some who have
    personal vested interests in the economics of this mining
    proposal. But there was a peer-reviewed Harvard study that
    actually looked at mining withdrawal versus the granting of
    permits for these mines. They found something over a 20-year
    period. Are you familiar with their finding?
        Ms. Rom. I am. It is the only independent, peer-reviewed
    study that looked across 20 years and considered costs and
    benefits, and it said the regional economy would be far better
    off, both in terms of more income and more jobs, if there was
    no mining in the watershed of the Boundary Waters.
        Mr. Huffman. Thank you very much. I yield back.
        Mr. Stauber. Thank you very much. The Chair now recognizes
    Mr. Rosendale.
        Mr. Rosendale. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair and Ranking
    Member Ocasio-Cortez.
        And I really appreciate the fact that you brought up the
    insinuations about conflicts and self-enrichment about people
    that are testifying, and how that actually impacts the quality,
    if you will, of the testimony and what we are trying to do
    here. I do appreciate that.
        So, Mr. Chair, I would like to ask you a question. Do you
    know if Secretary Haaland produced the information in regards
    to the Freedom of Information Act requested by the Protect the
    Public's Trust which pertains to her daughter lobbying
    employees of the Department of the Interior and Bureau of Land
    Management, and also participating in a protest at the
    Department of the Interior, which devolved into a riot?
        I questioned her about that at the last hearing. The
    information was requested back in January, and I don't know if
    she has ever fulfilled that.
        Mr. Stauber. I can't answer that. I don't have direct
    knowledge of whether the Committee has received that yet.
        Mr. Rosendale. OK. We sure would love to know. If we are
    going to have discussions about conflicts and self-enrichment,
    that the Secretary of the Interior, you would think that she
    would want to provide that information to make sure that she at
    least provided the perception of an unbiased and impartial
    ability to conduct her job.
        Chairman Stauber and Ranking Member Ocasio-Cortez, thank
    you for holding the hearing today. I believe the ability to
    mine hardrock minerals resources on American soil is one of the
    most important tactics that we can use to provide our country
    with sustainable energy independence as our country moves
    toward cleaner energy production.
        As this Committee is aware, my state, Montana, is one of
    the most mineral-rich states in our nation, and the withdrawal
    of mining in this Minnesota territory sets a precedent that
    will be wide-reaching to many other states, and blocks our
    transition toward energy independence and further our reliance
    on China for necessary minerals, as we have seen by these
    charts. It is of vital importance that this Committee protect
    our nation's ability to mine and produce minerals necessary
    while refusing to acquiesce to political activists who are
    seeking to prevent our ability to provide our country with a
    cleaner and more independent future.
        This Congress, I have been vocal about the Administration's
    refusal to adhere to the Mineral Leasing Act's requirement to
    hold quarterly lease sales, and this action from Interior only
    further exemplifies this Administration's lack of seriousness
    in creating a cleaner, more independent energy infrastructure
    right here in America.
        This hearing will provide us with the opportunity to
    continue our fight against this Administration's arbitrary
    decision-making, and allow us to gather the information needed
    to help stimulate the Minnesotan economy and prevent against
    bad precedent, forbidding other states from mining and
    obtaining these important minerals. I sincerely hope that this
    Committee will take this seriously, and continue to fight for
    and protect the freedoms of Montanans, Minnesotans, and all
    Americans.
        We have several mines that are being tied up right now in
    Montana because of activist judges for copper, for coal, for
    the things that we need to provide not only heat, not only
    energy, but an economy. And as I have discussed in this room
    many times over, to have low-cost energy has lifted more people
    out of poverty and terrible conditions where they don't even
    have fresh water than virtually anything else that we have
    done. And we have to start unleashing these minerals.
        And if you believe, if you believe, Ms. Rom, that mining
    for minerals in the United States is bad, then you have not
    been to China, as my colleague from Idaho referenced, because
    the labor standards and the environmental standards that are
    being utilized around the world are much, much worse. And if
    you believed what you are sitting there preaching to us, you
    would demand that it was taking place here in our country,
    because we do it with better labor standards and environmental
    standards than anyone else in the world.
        I yield back.
        Mr. Stauber. Thank you very much. And now the Chair
    recognizes the Ranking Member of the Full Committee, Ranking
    Member Grijalva.
        Mr. Grijalva. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and the Ranking
    Member. I appreciate the time.
        I thought, rather than rehashing a settled score, I was
    hoping we could instead be working together as a Committee to
    reform the future of mining to make it more sustainable,
    modern, and predictable: the certainty question that keeps
    coming up. But I am not only concerned, we have completely
    different visions about what that future should be.
        And our clean energy future should not be an excuse to
    extend mining industries' control and destruction even further.
    This is an opportunity to raise the bar for mining across the
    globe, set the example, demonstrate that some places like the
    Boundary Waters are simply too special to mine.
        And I was hopeful last time around, 2019, that we had
    reached some common ground when House Republicans championed
    the withdrawal on the boundary of the Yellowstone National
    Park. That provision was signed into law by President Trump as
    the package that established 1.3 million acres of wilderness
    and protected Montana's Paradise Valley from a mine that was
    being proposed because of the opposition and concern of the
    surrounding communities.
        What is good for the goose sometimes has to be good for the
    gander, as well. And this withdrawal of the Boundary Waters
    that the Administration has re-implemented is necessary. It is
    a special place. We continue to have those arguments over and
    over again.
        But the fact remains that we are working with a law, 1872
    mining law, that essentially puts control and an inordinate
    amount of power and decision-making in the hands of the
    industry and not in the hands of the public and the public
    interest. And that is the premise. That is the basis. I don't
    hear from my colleagues across the aisle one peep about doing
    something about reforming and changing that antiquated law.
        And as long as that law maintains where no royalties are
    paid, I don't care if the company is foreign, like in this
    case, Chilean, I don't care. They don't pay any royalties.
    There is no tribal consultation, firm, established, meaningful
    consultation with tribes ahead of time. There is no protection
    for special places, and there is no real transparency and no
    real discussion about what sustainability is in the mining
    industry and how that should be crafted, because no options are
    presented other than a yes-or-no proposition on these
    questions.
        So, I am glad the Biden administration withdrew it. I am
    glad they are following the science. I am glad they are
    following the process in the Boundary Waters.
        I also think that as this discussion continues, that we
    lowered the bar in these discussions. And as long as this law
    is in place, these discussions are going to continue to be one
    of fact and science versus the power and the influence under
    the 1872 law that industry and the mining industry in
    particular have over public interest and public policy.
        I would like to ask all four of you for a yes-or-no answer.
    The 1872 Mining Law, its function, do you believe that it
    should be reformed in the kind of parameters that I have
    discussed earlier?
        I would just go down the aisle, if you don't mind, starting
    with you, Mr. Senator.
        Mr. Bakk. Well, I am not familiar with it, but if it should
    be reformed, there should be a bill introduced, and it should
    go through the regular Committee process, through the Congress.
        Mr. Grijalva. And we should probably have a hearing like we
    are having a hearing here today. Those bills have been
    introduced time and time again. And I think, given the
    discussion around mining, that it is time we had that hearing.
        Sir?
        Dr. Thorleifson. Thank you for the opportunity. My job is
    science to inform all involved, so I would hope to be active in
    supporting any deliberations on that matter.
        Ms. Rom. I strongly support modernizing and reforming the
    1872 Hardrock Mining Act.
        Mr. Grijalva. Sir?
        Mr. Chura. I welcome a discussion on mining. I welcome a
    discussion on giving projects the opportunity to go through a
    process to show that they can operate safely and responsibly.
        Mr. Grijalva. So, you would support reform to the 1872
    mining law?
        Mr. Chura. I would support a discussion on the regulations
    in place.
        Mr. Grijalva. OK. I had questions. I have something for the
    record, Mr. Chairman, an opening statement.
        With that, let me yield back, and I appreciate the time.
        Mr. Stauber. Without objection, you can enter your opening
    statement.

        [The prepared statement of Mr. Grijalva follows:]
     Prepared Statement of the Hon. Raul M. Grijalva, a Representative in
                       Congress from the State of Arizona

        Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member Ocasio-Cortez. And thank
    you to our witnesses for taking time out of your busy schedules to
    travel here today.
        Many of us here are very familiar with the fight over mining in the
    Boundary Waters watershed.
        We've been having hearings on this issue going back years. At this
    point, it should be settled, as the Ranking Member already stated.
        That's because the Biden administration--unlike the previous
    administration--took the time and effort do the process right and
    landed on the decision to protect the Boundary Waters region from
    mining for the next 20 years.
        The decision was based on sound science, community input, robust
    tribal consultation, and, at the end of the day, the best interests of
    the American people.
        But Republicans don't like it. As they've made pretty clear this
    congress, their priority isn't science or protecting communities--their
    priority is putting the polluting industry above all, and using any
    means necessary to do so.
        That includes holding our entire economy hostage unless we pass
    their ransom note of extreme demands, including a long list of
    polluters over people policies.
        They've also taken to breaking long-established Committee norms.
        For instance, last week, the Majority held a field hearing in
    Minnesota, the home state of the Boundary Waters, to discuss mining.
        As Chair Stauber mentioned at the field hearing, he was
    disappointed that the Minority didn't attend.
        But I would like to remind him that they gave us only a little over
    a week's notice.
        When Democrats held the Majority, we often gave the Minority a
    month's notice or more to make sure they could plan to attend.
        And community members noticed--press coverage after the hearing
    called out the fact that it was not a balanced discussion.
        The hearing was supposedly an opportunity to hear from the
    community, but they certainly didn't want to hear from everyone.
        Notably not on the witness list were the Chippewa Bands, whose
    lands and waters would be most impacted by mining pollution.
        And of course, there was no testimony from any of the 70 percent of
    Minnesotans who are in favor of Boundary Waters protections.
        I find it hard to believe that leaving these stakeholders out of
    the conversation was an accidental oversight.
        And now, with today's hearing, my colleagues across the aisle are
    resorting to unconstitutional bills to get their industry-driven agenda
    across the finish line.
        For a party that claims to be all about process, there seems to be
    a lot of finding ways to get around the rules.
        By contrast, the mineral withdrawal we're discussing today is
    squarely within the administration's authority, and they followed all
    proper procedures to do it.
        My colleagues say that the mining industry needs certainty--well
    this is certainty, the Boundary Waters watershed is off limits.
        Rather than rehashing a settled score, I hope we can instead work
    together to reform the future of mining to make it more sustainable,
    modern, and predictable. But I'm concerned we have different visions
    for the future.
        My vision is one that gives tribes the opportunity to provide input
    early and often, lets land managers decide where mining should occur,
    and provides a fair return for taxpayers.
        Our clean energy future is not an excuse to extend mining industry
    destruction even further.
        This is an opportunity to raise the bar for mining across the globe
    and demonstrate that some places, like the Boundary Waters, are simply
    too special to mine.

                                     ______

        Mr. Stauber. Ranking Member Grijalva, I really appreciate
    you bringing up the facts and the science. The fact is they are
    not even allowing the facts and the science to go forward in an
    Environmental Impact Statement in this case.
        The Chair now recognizes the Full Committee Chair, Mr.
    Westerman.
        Mr. Westerman. Thank you, Chairman Stauber, and thank you
    for your leadership on this issue, for doing the field hearing,
    and for really going through a regular order process, getting
    the facts out, getting witnesses here. And, hopefully, we will
    be able to do a markup and get a bill on the Floor through
    regular order that has a lot of different input on it.
        Senator Bakk, thank you for being here today, as well as
    all the witnesses. I want to ask you, Senator, having lived in
    the area and represented the area, why is a mineral withdrawal
    even required to prevent mining in this area of the Superior
    National Forest?
        Mr. Bakk. Thank you for the question. I think what often
    gets lost is the fact that the Superior National Forest, of
    which the Boundary Waters is a portion, the forest is much
    larger than that, but the management plan for the Superior
    National Forest, mining is a permissible and desired use.
        Mr. Westerman. Exactly, and when Congress established the
    Boundary Waters Canoe Area, they put boundaries around the
    Boundary Waters and they said, ``Here is an area that could be
    managed, where the resources can be used,'' and that is the
    law.
        And we have the Administration coming in and saying, ``No,
    we are going to withdraw the minerals from this area.'' And the
    law is that you can go in and develop these resources. But we
    have an administrative state that tries to usurp the will of
    Congress, which, really, if you can tell, probably gets under
    my skin.
        Dr. Thorleifson, it was mentioned in testimony that the
    Boundary Waters just isn't the right place to build a mine. As
    a geologist, can you tell me where the right place to build a
    mine is?
        Dr. Thorleifson. Well, I agree that the Boundary Waters is
    not a good place for mining. But our question today is how far
    upstream does the precaution need to extend, and----
        Mr. Westerman. I am going to get to that, but where is the
    right place to develop a mine?
        Dr. Thorleifson. The right place to build a mine is where
    the activity is permitted, and where the rules are clear----
        Mr. Westerman. Or where the ore is available?
        Dr. Thorleifson. Absolutely. The geology dictates where you
    build a mine----
        Mr. Westerman. It is not like we have a choice to go
    somewhere where there is not copper ore, or cobalt, or nickel
    and build a mine because you are not going to find any there.
        And to my next point, this mine proposed is underground,
    isn't it?
        Dr. Thorleifson. That is right.
        Mr. Westerman. I am going to ask you a really tough
    scientific question: Which way does water flow?
        Dr. Thorleifson. North.
        Mr. Westerman. I mean, up or down? Towards gravity or away
    from gravity?
        Dr. Thorleifson. Definitely down.
        Mr. Westerman. So, if you are below ground in the mine, can
    water flow up to the Boundary Waters from there?
        And I know the concern is the tailings outside the mine,
    but we are talking about a dry stack tailings process.
        As a geologist, what do you think the odds are that you
    would get any kind of runoff from this mine ending up in the
    Boundary Waters Canoe Area; and from an engineering
    perspective, all of the containment areas and check points that
    you have to have to prevent that?
        And you can also talk about that in terms of the Canadian
    mines on the other side of the border that are using these
    processes. Have they had seepage into the Boundary Waters area?
        Dr. Thorleifson. Well, that is a question that needs to be
    established by engineers. And through the environmental review,
    the company has produced a plan in which the sulfide content of
    the tailings would be very low. There would be precautions in
    place to ensure no seepage. And that needs to be verified. And
    we need to apply lessons that have been developed through
    industry.
        For example, across the border in Canada, sulfide mines
    like Flin Flon, Thompson, Manitouwadge, Shebandowan, these are
    places where we have learned lessons--for example, the impact
    of smelters--and we have learned how to contain tailings to
    ensure that the tailings composition is such that there will be
    no impact.
        Mr. Westerman. How long does it take to permit a mine in
    Canada in this area?
        Dr. Thorleifson. As long as it takes, which sometimes it is
    not very long.
        Mr. Westerman. About 3 years is what I understand.
        Mr. Chura, you are talking about jobs, and Ms. Rom made a
    point about this ore might have to be exported to China to be
    refined. And although I believe that is incorrect, that the
    plan is to actually refine the ore in the United States, this
    chart tells the story.
        [Chart.]
        Mr. Westerman. In 1995, we produced over 3 times more
    copper than China. Today, they produce about 11 times more
    copper than we do. They have 50 smelters and we have 2.
        Here is a summary of a report from USGS and Commerce that
    says in America today we produce about $120 billion worth of
    ore, net of exports. When we refine that, the value of it
    becomes $900 billion. And when we manufacture things out of
    what has been refined, it is $3.7 trillion to the GDP.
        So, what is the economic and jobs impact if we were to
    actually take this ore, and we could permit a refinery and do
    the refining and the manufacturing here, rather than exporting
    our wealth to China, who, by the way, is building a coal-fired
    plant every week so they can refine these metals from around
    the world and manufacture the stuff to ship back so we can make
    electric grids, windmills, solar farms, and electric vehicles?
        Mr. Chura. Yes, thank you for the question. If you look
    just at, like, one particular project proposed to provide 750
    jobs, plus you have the spin-off jobs, about 2 to 1 there that
    benefit the community, if you want to put that in kind of a
    comparison, if you think about the populations of Ely and
    Babbitt, those jobs would employ nearly half of the population
    there.
        So, the number of spin-off jobs would be significant. It
    would be great if we could do additional refining and
    processing in this country, to see that further expansion and
    kind of control of the supply chain, as well. It needs to start
    with mining, though. We need that ore, and this is an
    opportunity to extract that ore domestically, where we have
    sound provisions in place and where we have oversight, where we
    have a say in the process. That is an important piece of all of
    this, making sure that we have oversight, and strong laws and
    regulations in place.
        Mr. Westerman. Thank you.
        I know my time has expired, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. And it
    is interesting that it is not that we went through the
    environmental permitting process and found out there were
    problems; you can't even go through the process because it has
    been usurped by an activist administration.
        Mr. Stauber. That is correct.
        Mr. Westerman. I yield back.
        Mr. Stauber. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
        Representative Kamlager-Dove, you are up for 5 minutes.
    Thank you.
        Ms. Kamlager-Dove. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
        Ms. Rom, the Campaign to Save the Boundary Waters works
    with a coalition of over 400 businesses, conservation and
    hunting and fishing organizations. So, how do you, local
    businesses and the Ely community, respond to the claims that
    mining in the withdrawal area would help the economy?
        Ms. Rom. Well, it would be devastating economically to
    northern Minnesota and harmful to all of Minnesota.
        And I would just like to say that since 2016, over four
    different processes and comment periods lasting over 454 days,
    675,000 Americans have weighed in on whether or not there
    should be mining in the watershed of the Boundary Waters, and
    they have all said no. So, the vast majority of people in
    northeastern Minnesota, Minnesota, and America say no to copper
    mining, no to risk to the Boundary Waters. And all of them, or
    many of them, have an economic stake in this.
        We have canoe manufacturers in southern Minnesota, in
    central Minnesota that rely on the Boundary Waters for their
    business. A polluted Boundary Waters would hurt them as much as
    it would hurt the Boundary Waters businesses in northeastern
    Minnesota, which is an amenity-based economy. People live there
    for a whole variety of reasons. Tourism, yes, it is important,
    but it is only a part of what we are.
        I had a friend who worked for the World Bank who lived just
    outside of my town. People from all over the world can live in
    this amazing place next to the Boundary Waters, bring their
    hard-earned dollars to our community and support our community.
    And they say they will move away if copper mining is developed
    in the headwaters of the Boundary Waters.
        Ms. Kamlager-Dove. Thank you. I guess it is safe to say
    that many of the businesses and community members that you work
    with, that their livelihoods would be directly impacted by the
    Twin Metal mines, correct?
        Ms. Rom. Correct.
        Ms. Kamlager-Dove. To your knowledge, did your coalition
    have any heads-up about this legislation?
        Ms. Rom. No.
        Ms. Kamlager-Dove. And in comparison, did those in your
    community have the opportunity to comment before the mineral
    withdrawal was completed?
        Ms. Rom. Yes, and that is one of the processes I was
    talking about. Since 2016, when the Forest Service first asked
    the American people if it should consent to the renewal of the
    leases, at that time 74,000 Americans said no. And we have had
    time after time, eight listening sessions, to weigh in. It is
    generally about 98 percent opposition to copper mining in the
    headwaters of the Boundary Waters throughout three
    administrations: the Obama, the Trump, and the Biden
    administration.
        Ms. Kamlager-Dove. Did the mining industry have the
    opportunity to comment before the mineral withdrawal was
    completed?
        Ms. Rom. Yes, they had equal opportunity.
        Ms. Kamlager-Dove. My colleagues say that they care about
    protecting the environment and addressing community concerns,
    but to me it seems like they are proceeding on behalf of the
    mining industry and not consulting at all with the people who
    feel that their well-being for clean water and for the
    opportunity to keep their business open, for the ability to
    fish, to hunt, and recreate will be challenged, if not
    devastated.
        I have one more question for you, Ms. Rom, because you
    mentioned in your testimony that one of your grandparents was
    an iron ore miner, and one of your parents was a wilderness
    canoe trip outfitter. So, can you speak in these remaining
    seconds a little more about your relationship to the Boundary
    Waters and your relationship to mining in the region?
        Ms. Rom. Sure. My grandfather, Casper Rom, was an immigrant
    from Eastern Europe who came over in 1892 to work in the iron
    ore mines around Ely, and he worked there until he actually was
    killed in a mine cave-in in 1918.
        So, my father grew up as his ninth baby without a dad. And
    in those days there was no safety net from anybody. He went on
    to form a wilderness canoe outfitting business after he served
    in the Pacific as a naval officer in World War II. He wanted to
    share what he grew up with, with people from all over the
    world. And he did that.
        And I grew up, as his daughter, one of his four children, I
    had three brothers, living over his business. It was our life.
    And I experienced meeting thousands of people from all over the
    country who came back out of the woods from canoe trips,
    wanting to talk about the life-changing experience they had.
        So, I know the mining industry. I grew up with first iron
    ore mining and then taconite mining. My uncle, Frankie, had a
    sawmill and a chainsaw shop. And I started guiding canoe trips
    when I was 14. I am now 74, so it is a long time ago.
        But needless to say, the Boundary Waters is incredibly
    important not only to me, but to the American people. And for
    120 years the Federal Government and the State Government have
    promised the American people that they would keep it pristine,
    ecologically healthy, and intact not only for us, but for my
    children and my grandchildren and the children after them.
        Ms. Kamlager-Dove. Thank you, Ms. Rom.
        And Mr. Chair, I yield back.
        Mr. Stauber. Thank you very much.
        Mr. Lamborn, you are up for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Lamborn. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding
    this very important hearing.
        According to International Energy Agency projections,
    material increases needed to secure a carbon-free economy are
    enormous. Lithium would need to increase by 4,200 percent,
    graphite by 2,500 percent, nickel by 1,900 percent, and other
    rare Earth minerals by at least 700 percent. These percentages
    go up even higher when trying to achieve these goals by 2040,
    which is the goal of numerous states and the Biden
    administration. For example, lithium would have to increase by
    over 13,000 percent under current consumption rates to reach
    the Biden administration's goals by 2040, according to an R
    Street study.
        So, Dr. Thorleifson, these minerals have to come from
    somewhere. If they aren't mined here, where will they be mined?
        Dr. Thorleifson. Thank you, Representative Lamborn.
        I agree with you. We have a tremendous need for materials
    to facilitate the green economy, to sustain our national
    security, to sustain our way of life. They will come from
    somewhere. And the way to obtain these materials is not by
    lowering environmental standards, because----
        Mr. Lamborn. Well, where will they come from? That was my
    question.
        Dr. Thorleifson. They will come from overseas, unless we
    produce them domestically. So, we must not lower environmental
    standards; we must not simply approve projects because we think
    we have to, to sustain the supply.
        In reality, the default mechanism for obtaining these
    materials is to watch commodity prices rise, and then wait for
    certain countries to decide to go into production. And then we
    will be stuck paying more, and being dependent on their supply.
    The way to get these materials is to ensure a healthy and
    effective regulatory process. We need good information, and we
    need regulatory procedures that are not only clear, but
    predictable such that people know that they can carry a project
    through to completion, meet the requirements, and produce the
    materials that are needed.
        Mr. Lamborn. OK, thank you. Let me ask about China in
    particular.
        The United States Geological Survey released its 2023
    Mineral Commodity Summary a few months ago. According to this
    report, mineral imports made up more than one-half of the U.S.
    consumption of mineral commodities, and the United States was
    100 percent net import reliant for 15 of those mineral
    commodities. China supplies 26 different minerals, of which the
    United States is over 50 percent import reliant, which is more
    than for any other country.
        What are Chinese environmental protections like, compared
    to U.S. environmental protections?
        Dr. Thorleifson. Broadly speaking, not as rigorous. And
    that applies more broadly around the world. So, we need to
    promote high environmental labor standards. We need to have
    good information such that these discussions are informed by
    good science. We need a regulatory process that means that the
    materials we need will come from places where they are meant to
    be from, and we don't wait for price spikes and dependence on
    overseas----
        Mr. Lamborn. If we didn't import these from countries like
    China, or Democratic Republic of Congo, or places which have
    horrible environmental protections or use child labor, or
    things like that, how much of these minerals could we produce
    domestically, were the environmental regulations, and we need
    to be responsible, obviously, but available so we could do
    responsible mining?
        Dr. Thorleifson. Well, the short answer is more.
        Certainly, we have the mineral potential in this nation
    that can support domestic needs, so long as we have an
    effective regulatory process that ensures that environmental
    standards are upheld, and that we facilitate efficient business
    operations to get projects permitted.
        Mr. Lamborn. Mr. Bakk, can you give us some specific
    answers on which minerals could be produced domestically that
    we are now importing from countries like China?
        Mr. Bakk. Well, I think first we have to dismiss this
    premise that many have that somehow we can move to a renewable
    energy economy without mining. Mining is going to have to
    expand all over the globe. We will need every strategy to
    extract the metals that we need.
        Minnesota is sitting on about 95 percent of our country's
    known nickel reserves, critical to our defense industry, to our
    medical device industry, to renewable energy. It is in
    Minnesota.
        And I think the problem with the withdrawal is now we don't
    even get a chance to entertain a potential mine plan, a scoping
    document about what the potential environmental impacts might
    be, or how they might be mitigated.
        Mr. Lamborn. OK, let me interrupt, because my time is about
    up.
        Should we only care about environmental responsibility in
    the United States, or should we care about other parts of the
    world?
        Mr. Bakk. Well, everything that I have ever heard and read,
    and it includes even in Canada, is that the environmental
    regulations in the United States are much more stringent. I
    support them, but you have to have a process to go through in
    order to identify what the potential impacts are, and to the
    extent you can mitigate them. And if you can't, then a mine
    shouldn't be permitted, but people should have the opportunity
    to go through the process.
        Mr. Lamborn. Thank you.
        Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
        Mr. Stauber. Thank you.
        Mr. Duarte, you are up for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Duarte. Thank you to all the witnesses today.
        I am a legislator from California. And getting informed
    about Minnesota mining, and maps, and wetlands, and forests is
    something I have to rely on you for. I need your information to
    help make these decisions.
        So, the first thing, I saw a beautiful wetland. I saw the
    canoe, the little islands of trees, there it is. This here.
        [Slide.]
        Mr. Duarte. We are not putting a mine there, are we? No, we
    are not putting a mine anywhere really close to there. Anyone
    that wants to canoe there probably won't be able to see the
    mine from there, right? Anyone who wants to hunt, camp,
    backpack, buy bait and tackle can't see the mine from this
    location.
        In fact, this location is up in this dark green area here,
    isn't it? That is a 3 million-acre forest, the Superior Forest.
    The proposed mine is this red spot here. And we are miles from
    that. That is 10 miles, for the majority of those canoeable
    lands there.
        So, please, any of you, explain to me how the mine, located
    where that red dot is, is going to economically disrupt the
    naturalism through hundreds of thousands of million acres of
    that.
        Go ahead, Ms. Rom, you are ready to roll.
        Ms. Rom. That photo tells you, that is the Boundary Waters
    and Quetico, that area is 24 percent water.
        Mr. Duarte. OK.
        Ms. Rom. It is interconnected water, groundwater, wetlands,
    rivers, lakes, streams. All of the water is flowing north.
        Peer-reviewed scientific studies show that pollution from a
    Twin Metals mine in ordinary operation would flow into the
    Boundary Waters. People may not see it because it is pollution
    in the water. But that fresh water has very little in the way
    of base compounds or alkalines which buffer acid. The pH would
    drop, aquatic life would be severely damaged, killed. So, the
    consequences would be there, even if you can't physically
    paddle and see the mine.
        Mr. Duarte. Thank you. So, just north of this there are
    open pit mines. There is other mining going on in Canada that
    is adjacent to these same waters.
        Ms. Rom. In areas that flow away from protected areas that
    don't flow into protected areas. And that is a key distinction.
        Mr. Duarte. OK. Mr. Bakk, you have represented this area
    for quite some time. Should we study this? Do the mining
    industries, the employees of Minnesota deserve to have this
    examined, deserve for this to go through scientific review to
    see if this can be done with appropriate scientific
    environmental precautions?
        Mr. Bakk. Well, thank you. That is the problem with the
    withdrawal is we will never know because no one will ever be
    able to submit a mine plan to determine what the environmental
    impacts may or may not be. There is no process.
        Mr. Duarte. So, we have an arbitrary 20-year moratorium now
    on this mine.
        Mr. Bakk. That is correct.
        Mr. Duarte. So, whatever the cost of putting in appropriate
    environmental precautions in today, not to mention geopolitical
    risks of not having our own domestic production of these
    resources as we move our economy to the green economy, with a
    20-year moratorium we not only can't look at it today, whatever
    the economics come, whatever the geopolitical risks of having
    an insufficient supply of these critical minerals are, we can't
    look at this for 20 years. We can't begin to solve those
    problems and address Ms. Rom's and others' concerns because
    this thing has been taken off the slate for two decades.
        Mr. Bakk. That is correct. And I think what people need to
    remember is the Boundary Waters is just a part of the Superior
    National Forest. Mining is banned in the Boundary Waters, but
    the Superior National Forest Management Plan says that mining
    is a desirable use in the forest. This mine is in the forest.
    It is not in the Boundary Waters, it is not in the buffer to
    the Boundary Waters. It is part of the Superior National
    Forest, where the management plan says mining is a desired use.
        Mr. Duarte. So, right now, for three administrations now,
    well, for four, or you said seven administrations or five
    administrations prior to the Obama administration we have been
    developing plans. We have been going through these desired uses
    of the Superior National Forest. We have been getting better at
    this. Obama canceled it. The next administration reinstated it.
    The current administration has canceled it.
        So, any investor in developing the science, the technology
    to give us domestic mineral security with these types of
    minings is taken off the plate until the next administration--
    this thing is going to be ping-ponged for quite a while. We see
    the same thing with the Clean Water Act jurisdictions. It is
    just going to keep playing ping pong while we do not have any
    opportunity to use these resources to establish domestic
    mineral security.
        Mr. Bakk. Well, there has been test drilling and
    exploration going on for decades in this region. And this----
        Mr. Duarte. Well, isn't the water already contaminated
    then?
        Mr. Bakk. Not that I am aware of. And this prevents any
    kind of exploration at all, so----
        Mr. Duarte. Have our standards and technology gotten worse?
    I am sorry to interrupt. Have we gotten really bad at this in
    the last 20 years?
        Mr. Bakk. There is no pollution that has ever been reported
    anywhere. And there are thousands, and thousands, and thousands
    of drill holes for thousands of feet deep, exploring what the
    resource is, because you can't build a mine unless you can show
    the investors and the banks what is down there. Nobody will
    finance it. So, the exploration is critically important. And to
    say that we can't even explore for the next 20 years in this
    region and find out what we all own down there is really
    problematic, and problematic to the country.
        Ms. Rom. May I----
        Mr. Duarte. Thank you, sir.
        I yield back.
        Ms. Rom. May I comment, sir?
        Mr. Stauber. Thank you, Congressman Duarte.
        And I think it bodes well to repeat what the senator just
    said. There is going to be no mining in the Boundary Waters or
    the buffer zone around it. And for purely political reasons the
    leases were removed without allowing an environmental
    assessment statement.
        Mr. Gosar, you are up for 5 minutes.
        Dr. Gosar. Yes. Dr. Thorleifson, it is good to see you
    again. You state in your testimony that the proposed mine near
    the Boundary Waters would have no headframe, no smelter, no
    smokestack, no waste rock, no tailings pond nor tailings dam.
    It thus is difficult to reconcile the level of public concern
    with the project as described. Given your expertise regarding
    acid-generating sulfide minerals, why do you believe this
    project, as described, has minimal risk of water pollution?
        Dr. Thorleifson. Well, the project, as developed, would
    recover sulfide minerals in their process. It would lead to
    negligible levels of sulfides in the tailings, and the tailings
    would be constructed to ensure stability and lack of seepage.
        This needs to be rigorously reviewed and confirmed. There
    need to be precautions put into place to make sure that there
    is backup, should anything occur. So, the fulfillment of the
    regulatory process would be needed to confirm that lack of
    impact, and we would need to ensure that the mine wouldn't
    affect the first mile downstream from the mine and, therefore,
    certainly not affect the Boundary Waters miles downstream.
        So, that is why the regulatory process is in place. That is
    why the engineering is in place, to confirm that there would
    not be impact.
        Dr. Gosar. I am going to compare it to my home state and
    Resolution Copper. I could make an argument that contamination
    of water in a desert environment is even more susceptible. So,
    why is it in Resolution Copper we are mandating technology that
    we are making water cleaner, cleaner, than we receive. Is that
    heresy? Is that even possible, Doctor?
        Dr. Thorleifson. Sure, it is possible. And the entire
    process needs to make good environmental sense and good
    economic sense. And I think that the industries are committed
    to that, and we need regulators to ensure that it will happen,
    and we do.
        Dr. Gosar. See, I forgot that.
        [Slide.]
        Dr. Gosar. I want to go back to this picture. The gentleman
    from California brought up water. Now, water runs down, doesn't
    it? It flows to the sea, at least the last I looked at it. So,
    if an open pit gold mine doesn't pollute, how in the hell is
    this going to pollute?
        I mean, just for the sake of sanity for me, what is more
    caustic, gold mining or a copper mine?
        Dr. Thorleifson. That depends on the configuration, and the
    environmental impact is a matter of the materials brought to
    surface and any water discharged from the mine. Elsewhere,
    waste rock from open pit mines can be a significant source of
    acid mine drainage. That is not going to happen here.
        So, I admire people who are rigorous in ensuring that
    precautions are in place. I admire people who are completely
    committed to protecting the Boundary Waters. And we, as a
    professional community, need to work with the companies, with
    the regulators, with the sources of science to make sure that
    there will not be any impact on the Boundary Waters.
        Dr. Gosar. Well, and I am glad you brought that up, because
    it is part of our due diligence as citizens in that area, as
    well as the state, to make sure that they are doing everything
    that they have to, to do it right.
        We keep hearing this mining processes that are antiquated,
    that are not being used anymore. And this other side will never
    tell us about where they want to mine. That is never the
    option.
        So, when I went up there, I was thoroughly engaged. It was
    wonderful. I think it is something that we can chew gum and
    walk at the same time.
        Is there a new technology out there, by the way, Dr.
    Thorleifson, on access to all the minerals within the ore in,
    like, a smelting process?
        Dr. Thorleifson. Would you please repeat the question?
        Dr. Gosar. Yes. Are you aware of a new technique that is
    very green, that actually pulverizes the ore and extracts
    everything after ionization in which you get everything out of
    the ore and you are left with a silica substrate?
        Dr. Thorleifson. Yes, there is a lot of new technology, and
    we have learned a lot of lessons. We used to use smelting. We
    don't do that. We now have hydrometallurgy, we have many
    processes, and we are adding processes. You can even use the
    tailings to capture carbon dioxide from air. So, technology is
    rapidly advancing and we can do this in a way that will avoid
    the impacts that are feared and ensure good jobs and metals for
    the nation.
        Dr. Gosar. Let me make one last statement. You are telling
    me this is peer-reviewed science that you are talking about?
    This actually exists? We are actually utilizing this type of
    technology, not this antiquated thing that we are being told
    about?
        Dr. Thorleifson. Absolutely. Regarding the methods,
    absolutely.
        Dr. Gosar. I thought I was living in the 1950s. Thank you.
        Mr. Stauber. Thank you, Representative Gosar.
    Representative Tiffany from the great state of Wisconsin, you
    are up for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Tiffany. Well, Senator Bakk, you may have lit the next
    border war between Wisconsin and Minnesota today with your
    claim that the snowmobile was invented in Minnesota, and we
    will set that aside here.
        Ms. Rom, the study you referenced in your opening remarks,
    was that peer-reviewed?
        Ms. Rom. Are you talking about the hydrology study? It was.
    It was peer-reviewed and published.
        Mr. Tiffany. OK. And it has been published?
        Ms. Rom. Yes.
        Mr. Tiffany. And can you share that with us?
        Ms. Rom. I would be happy to.
        Mr. Tiffany. In scientific journals, it was published?
        Ms. Rom. Yes.
        Mr. Tiffany. OK. That would be terrific.
        Is your goal to end mining?
        Ms. Rom. I beg your pardon?
        Mr. Tiffany. Is your goal to end mining?
        Ms. Rom. Of course not, no.
        Mr. Tiffany. So, where should we mine?
        Ms. Rom. Well, first of all, I think it is important to
    recognize that the amount of nickel and cobalt that would come
    from a Twin Metals mine is insignificant in terms of reaching
    our goals with green energy.
        Mr. Tiffany. What do you define as insignificant?
        Ms. Rom. We need to mine in places that are not
    extraordinarily valuable and vulnerable, which is what this
    place is.
        Mr. Tiffany. Where are those places that are not valuable
    and are not vulnerable?
        Ms. Rom. There are places all around the world and in the
    United States that qualify for that.
        Mr. Tiffany. Name one for me.
        Ms. Rom. For which type of mining?
        Mr. Tiffany. You name it.
        Ms. Rom. Well, we have taconite mining in northeastern
    Minnesota that has been there since the 1950s.
        Mr. Tiffany. Are there any places that we can mine that are
    new places around the United States of America?
        Ms. Rom. Well, actually, taconite mining is expanding in
    northeastern Minnesota. The Walz administration just
    recommended new state leases to expand the Hibbing taconite
    facility. So, it is expanding in northeastern Minnesota.
        I am really not that familiar with mining around the rest
    of the country, but we have taconite in Minnesota, and it is
    broadly supported by the people of Minnesota.
        Mr. Tiffany. Yes, so we can taconite mine, but not the
    other stuff.
        Ms. Rom. Well, we have no other kind of mining in Minnesota
    right now.
        Mr. Tiffany. Do you agree with the conversion to wind and
    solar for our energy sources?
        Ms. Rom. I am sorry, I have bad hearing, so please repeat
    your question.
        Mr. Tiffany. Do you agree with the conversion to wind and
    solar to produce energy here?
        Ms. Rom. I do, and I believe we can get there without
    destroying special places on our planet.
        Mr. Tiffany. So, how are we going to have the minerals if
    we don't mine them here?
        Ms. Rom. We have to mine. We have to both recycle--right
    now in Minnesota we only recycle 23 percent of our e-waste. And
    we have to, in the right places under the right conditions,
    mine for more metals. I agree with that.
        Mr. Tiffany. So, where is the right place to get that
    copper, lithium, and all those? Where is the right place in
    America to mine those?
        Ms. Rom. In places that are not uniquely vulnerable, such
    as the headwaters of the Boundary Waters, and extraordinarily
    valuable.
        Mr. Tiffany. Where is that place that is not as valuable
    as----
        Ms. Rom. I would look for dry environments. Part of the
    problem of northeastern Minnesota, especially in the watershed
    of the Boundary Waters is that it is extraordinarily wet.
        Mr. Tiffany. So, Resolution Copper, as the Ranking Member
    will tell you, that mining should not go there in a dry area in
    Arizona. That is the question. Where are we going to do this?
        Are you familiar with the Eagle Mine in northern Michigan?
        Ms. Rom. Yes, and that mine is currently polluting, and
    that is not a good example of mining in the northern tier.
        Mr. Tiffany. Have you been there?
        Ms. Rom. No, but I have read the reports on its violations
    of----
        Mr. Tiffany. Would you like to do a tour? Would you like to
    do a tour of the Eagle Mine?
        Ms. Rom. Sure.
        Mr. Tiffany. Because I would be happy to take you there.
    Did you know the Eagle Mine is built underneath a river?
        Ms. Rom. I know it is near the Salmon Trout River.
        Mr. Tiffany. So, you are saying it is polluting?
        Ms. Rom. That is what the official government records
    demonstrate.
        Mr. Tiffany. Would you produce those official government
    records for us?
        Ms. Rom. I would be happy to do that.
        Mr. Tiffany. That would be terrific because the people that
    I talk to in the Upper Peninsula, which are our neighbors, they
    say that this is modern 21st century mining, and we do not
    pollute.
        Ms. Rom. So, it is a very small mine.
        Mr. Tiffany. Are they lying to us, Ms. Rom?
        Ms. Rom. It is a very small mine. Part of the problem we
    have, and which I have been trying to explain today, is that,
    for example, Minnesota's standards for what you can do to, say,
    example, water quality and discharge----
        Mr. Tiffany. Ms. Rom, I only have 40 seconds left, and I
    have a couple of other questions.
        Ms. Rom. OK, I am sorry.
        Mr. Tiffany. Are tourism and industry mutually exclusive?
        Ms. Rom. No, we have high-quality small-batch manufacturing
    in my hometown, and we are very proud of that.
        Mr. Tiffany. So, your neighbor in Ely testified last week
    when I was in northern Minnesota that we can do both. We can
    mine, and Mr. Baltich, he said, ``We can mine and we can have
    tourism, and we have been doing it for decades.''
        Ms. Rom. Well, we have taconite mines.
        Mr. Tiffany. Is he wrong?
        Ms. Rom. Well, I don't know what he was talking about in
    terms of mining, but we do have taconite mining. That is a
    fact. And we also have a robust outdoor rec business that
    employs about 22,000 people, $1.5 billion in annual revenue.
    That is a big part of our community.
        Mr. Tiffany. Mr. Baltich says he does better with his
    tourism business over the decades when industry is doing well
    also. Is he wrong?
        Ms. Rom. I don't know, really, his business model. I really
    don't.
        Mr. Tiffany. We can mine everywhere except in my back yard.
    That is the message we get. Not in my back yard.
        I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Stauber. Thank you, Mr. Tiffany.
        And just for the record, the mine ban that was put on by
    the Biden administration does include taconite.
        Mr. Collins, you are up for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Collins. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I want to thank
    you for having us on that trip. I am going to take just a
    couple of minutes to rant. I may have a question, and maybe I
    don't.
        When I look at things, I look at it from a business person
    standpoint. I look at what the problem is and what the solution
    may be to fix that. And I am going to just tell you all what I
    saw from a good old Georgia southern boy that went to
    Minnesota. I saw a small town up there that was being
    destroyed. I saw second, third, fourth-generation people up
    there that were very proud of what they do, but they were also
    extremely concerned that what they do best is being destroyed.
        And they also made a very valid point that they cannot make
    it on tourism alone, that tourism and mining go hand in hand.
        I also saw mining companies up there and talked to them,
    and they informed us that the goalposts kept moving. Every time
    they would get a permit or get some portion of the EPA review
    finished, they were either getting sued by environmentalists or
    the goalposts were being moved so that they had to continue to
    review what they were trying to get permitted. Endless
    litigation.
        I also saw mines up there and talked to one person that
    said that mining on state land was a whole lot easier to get
    permitted for the same thing, just a difference in Federal and
    state lands.
        I also heard that that area is sitting on the largest
    deposit in the world for nickel and copper, the largest
    deposit. As a matter of fact, the miners in this area set the
    global standards on how to mine.
        You can't make this stuff up. It just doesn't make common
    sense, what I am sitting here reading.
        The other thing that I didn't see was a single Democrat on
    that trip who also had the opportunity to go up there and see
    firsthand. This is our job. What is going on? And to see those
    people and face them eye to eye, and understand what they are
    going through, and what they feel, and get their opinions on
    mining.
        So, Mr. Chairman, the problem that I saw is we have an
    Administration that is focused on demanding that we go green,
    an overreach, overarching Federal Government that wants to keep
    Americans out of work, use China, OK with that, use child
    labor, and destroy a town up there.
        We need to get the Federal Government off their backs is
    what we need to do, and the solution to that is H.R. 1,
    Lowering Energy Costs Act. We need to get that passed. We need
    to get that passed and let those folks go back to work.
        Mr. Chura, did I hit the nail on the head?
        Mr. Chura. I agree with your comments here today. And I
    also want to say that those that oppose mining don't have a
    monopoly on the love for the Boundary Waters and protecting the
    Boundary Waters. Those that are working in the mines, those
    that work and live around there and support mining equally love
    and respect the Boundary Waters, and want to see it protected.
        The United States is the No. 1 consumer of critical
    minerals, and I feel strongly that we have an obligation and a
    responsibility to procure those here domestically to serve our
    needs.
        Mr. Collins. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to yield
    to Mr. Westerman.
        Mr. Westerman. I thank the gentleman from Georgia.
        And Mr. Thorleifson, on any kind of storage facility
    tailings operation, would there be an NPDS permit on that, like
    a stormwater discharge permit?
        Dr. Thorleifson. Well, these things are thoroughly
    regulated from multiple perspectives----
        Mr. Westerman. So, there would be extreme monitoring,
    discharge permits, extraordinary engineering measures put in
    place?
        Dr. Thorleifson. Certainly.
        Mr. Westerman. So, it is not just some willy-nilly push
    stuff off on the side and let it leach out and drain into the
    water system.
        Dr. Thorleifson. I can assure you.
        Mr. Westerman. Ms. Rom, if I just came in and listened to
    your testimony or maybe sat down and visited with you, I would
    get the impression that, if there is 1 ounce of copper mined in
    this area, then the Boundary Waters Canoe Area is toast. Is
    that your position?
        Ms. Rom. I am sorry, I have poor hearing.
        Mr. Westerman. It might be the Southern. Is it your
    position that if there is any copper or nickel or cobalt mined
    in Superior National Forest, that the Boundary Waters Canoe
    Area is over as we know it today? Can mining and the Boundary
    Waters not co-exist?
        Ms. Rom. I am still not sure I heard your question, but the
    area that is covered by the mineral withdrawal is the watershed
    of the Boundary Waters which is a portion of the Superior----
        Mr. Westerman. You didn't understand my question. Is it
    possible to mine and still have the beautiful recreation area
    at the same time, or do you think it is an either-or situation?
    Because you present the case that it is either mining or it is
    tourism, but the two can't co-exist.
        Ms. Rom. Yes. And we have a much larger economy than
    tourism, just so you know.
        Copper mining in this place with this tiny, minuscule
    amount of metals in a water-rich environment----
        Mr. Westerman. Wait, hold on a second.
        Ms. Rom [continuing]. Is risky.
        Mr. Westerman. No, it is my time. Hold on a second.
        Ms. Rom. OK.
        Mr. Westerman. You said a tiny, minuscule amount, and Mr.
    Collins just stated that it is the largest deposit in the
    world. Are you aware that the World Bank says that we have to
    mine more copper in the next 25 years than we have mined in the
    history of the world, and there is no way to meet those demands
    simply by recycling?
        Ms. Rom. Sure, but there is a little bit of apples and
    oranges going on. Some people are talking about the
    Midcontinent Rift and the Duluth Complex, which is vast, and
    the metals content in that vast area. The withdrawal area is a
    small portion of that. And a Twin Metals mine would produce, at
    most, 1.5 percent of the U.S. current demand as of 2019 in
    cobalt.
        So, it is insignificant in terms of U.S. independence. We
    would damage the Boundary Waters and still have to import
    cobalt.
        Mr. Westerman. Dr. Thorleifson, do you agree with that?
        Dr. Thorleifson. Well, I find the numbers to be somewhat
    higher: 5 percent in some cases, 10 percent in some cases. And
    a healthy supply relies on multiple mines, and these mines are
    in a position to produce 5 percent, 10 percent of supply. And
    if we need to clarify that, let's do that, Becky.
        Ms. Rom. Yes, and I think you are talking again about the
    bigger ore body, not the mine site.
        Mr. Westerman. I yield back to----
        Mr. Collins. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Sorry for going over.
        Mr. Stauber. Senator Bakk, with just a little time
    remaining, do you want to follow up on the Chairman's question?
    Do you want to make a comment?
        Mr. Bakk. Well, the problem with the withdrawal is we can't
    even do any exploration to continue to discover what the
    resource is. But the Duluth Complex in northeastern Minnesota
    is massive. It is one of the largest complexes in the world.
        It is true, the Twin Metals part is a small piece of the
    mature deposit of the Duluth Complex. But what we need to do is
    go through the environmental review process, identify, if we
    can, a safe way to do it. And if we can't do it safely, then we
    shouldn't do it. And then others will follow, once the first
    one has been developed and we have figured out a safe way to do
    it. And northern Minnesota will make a huge contribution to
    renewable energy for not only the country, but around the
    world.
        There is a tremendous opportunity here. All I think we are
    asking is let us go through the environmental review and figure
    out if we can do this safely or not, and we are being pre-
    empted from doing that.
        Mr. Stauber. Thank you very much. And before I go into my
    closing comments, Mr. Grijalva would like a little bit of time.
        Mr. Grijalva. Thank you. I would just like to enter into
    the record the statement for the record from the Department of
    the Interior in opposition to House Resolution 34, strongly
    opposing any action to reverse the locally-driven efforts to
    protect and conserve this critically important, fragile
    landscape, and acknowledge that the resolution is
    unconstitutional, and therefore will have no effect.
        I have experience with withdrawal around the Grand Canyon.
    The Obama administration, I think we are in our 12th, 13th year
    now of that moratorium, withdrawal from mining, uranium mining,
    and also in response to the uranium contamination that the
    Navajo Nation was still struggling with and continues to
    struggle with.
        And also the foresight of that withdrawal, as we
    encountered the drought that we have in the Southwest and the
    primary source of water for six states, and 40 million people,
    and all the industry. And it is the Colorado River, then that
    watershed protection, as we are talking about here today, has
    become critical and, in hindsight, an absolutely important
    science-based decision that was made by that administration at
    that time, even though some of my colleagues on this Committee,
    my friend from Arizona, Mr. Gosar, lost his thing when this
    happened.
        The fact remains that thinking ahead, special places, and
    intended and unintended consequences should be the drive in
    this decision.
        And I go back to my point that I hope we were spared having
    to revisit this, but here we are. And I think it opens up a
    much broader discussion about vision and what I said at the
    beginning, that mining law of 1872 that continues to drive
    decision-making.
        With that, I yield back and thank you very much, sir.
        Mr. Stauber. Thank you, Ranking Member Grijalva.
        I thank all the witnesses for their valuable testimony and
    our Members for their questions today.
        The members of the Subcommittee may have some additional
    questions for the witnesses, and we will ask you to respond to
    these in writing. Under Committee Rule 3, members of the
    Committee must submit questions to the Committee Clerk by 5
    p.m. on Monday, May 15. The hearing record will be held open
    for 10 business days for these responses.
        Before we gavel out, I would like to enter the following
    into the record: a letter from the area's State Representative,
    Roger Skraba, in support of my legislation; a letter from the
    rest of the Iron Range delegation in support, including State
    Representatives Spencer Igo, Ben Davis, Roger Skraba, Justin
    Eichorn, and Senator Rob Farnsworth; a letter in support from
    the International Union of Operating Engineers Local 49; a
    letter in support from the Range Association of Municipalities
    and School; a letter in support from Advanced Energy United, a
    national clean energy trade association; a letter in support
    from Minnesota Mining; a letter in support from
    Conservationists with Common Sense; a letter in support from
    Global Minerals Engineering; a letter in support from the
    National Mining Association; and a letter to the editor in the
    Duluth News Tribune by geologist Rens Verburg discussing how
    the dry stack tailings method renders mine drainage impossible.

        [The information follows:]

                       Minnesota House of Representatives

                                                       May 10, 2023

    Hon. Pete Stauber, Chairman
    Hon. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Ranking Member
    House Natural Resources Committee
    Energy and Mineral Resources Subcommittee
    1324 Longworth House Office Building
    Washington, DC 20515

        Dear Committee Members:

        I write to you today to express my strong support for both House
    Concurrent Resolution 34 and proposed legislation that would undo the
    Biden Administration's unilateral decision to cancel mineral leases on
    Minnesota's Iron Range and to rescind the Department of the Interior's
    Public Land Order No. 7917 which effectively blocks development of
    mining operations across 225,504 acres of land in Northeast Minnesota
    for the next 20 years.
        If these orders remain in effect, the communities, families,
    schools, businesses, and entire region I am so honored to represent in
    the Minnesota House of Representatives will be devastated.
        Mining is part of our past and in order for our communities to
    reach their full potential, it needs to be a part of our future as
    well. Minnesota's Iron Range has been safely mining for more than 130
    years.
        Here in Minnesota, we have the best workforce in the world with
    some of the highest environmental standards. The copper, nickel,
    cobalt, lithium, and many other precious materials needed to produce
    modern technologies are beneath our feet here in Northeastern
    Minnesota. There is no need for the Biden Administration to tie one
    hand behind America's back and force us to rely on foreign nations for
    these materials when we can safely mine them right here on the Iron
    Range.
        Failing to act means that my communities will lose out on billions
    in private investments, thousands of good-paying union jobs, and
    billions in tax revenues that support our schools.
        Again, because of the far-reaching implications the Biden
    Administration's actions have on the communities and region I
    represent, I ask you to support both House Concurrent Resolution 34 and
    the legislation before you today. We cannot afford to wait any longer.

                Sincerely,

                                                  Roger Skraba,
                                                  State Representative
                                                      House District 3A

                                     ______

                       Minnesota House of Representatives

                                                        May 9, 2023

    Hon. Pete Stauber, Chairman
    Hon. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Ranking Member
    House Natural Resources Committee
    Energy and Mineral Resources Subcommittee
    1324 Longworth House Office Building
    Washington, DC 20515

        Dear Committee Members:

        As members of Minnesota's Iron Range Delegation, our collective
    legislative districts represent Minnesota's Iron Range where safe
    mining has supported our communities for more than 130 years.
        In January 2022, the Biden Administration unilaterally canceled two
    decades-old mineral leases on Mi1U1esota's Iron Range. One year later,
    the Department of the Interior issued Public Land Order No. 7917 which
    effectively blocked development of mining operations across 225,504
    acres of land in Northeast Minnesota for the next 20 years.
        These actions will cause generational harm to our communities if
    they are allowed to remain in effect. That is why we are writing to you
    today to express our bipartisan support for both House Concurrent
    Resolution 34 and the Superior National Forest Restoration Act that
    would undo the mineral withdrawal and reinstate these longstanding
    mining leases.
        If you fail to act, the Iron Range will lose thousands of good-
    paying union jobs, billions of dollars in future investments for the
    people of Northeast Minnesota, and billions of dollars in tax revenues
    that support students through Minnesota's School Trust Lands.
        The Iron Range is home to one the richest mineral deposits in the
    world and could be a crucial domestic supplier of copper, nickel,
    cobalt, lithium, and many of the precious materials needed for our
    modern world. These metals and minerals are needed for electric vehicle
    battery production, renewable energy projects, smartphones, defense
    systems, and many other modern technologies.
        Blocking the mining of these minerals in Minnesota runs in direct
    contradiction to the Biden Administration's stated goal of increasing
    domestic mineral production and would further America's dependence on
    foreign nations while leaving us vulnerable to disruptions to global
    supply chains.
        Given the far-reaching implications the Biden Administration's
    actions have on the communities we represent and the importance of
    establishing robust domestic mineral production to build the economy of
    tomorrow, we urge you to support both aforementioned items that are
    before the committee today.

                Sincerely,

            Rep. Spencer Igo              Rep. Ben Davis
            Asst. Minority Leader,
            District 7A                   District 6A

            Rep. Roger Skraba             Sen. Justin Eichorn
            District 3A                   Asst. Minority Leader, District 6

            Sen. Robert Farnsworth
            District 7

                                     ______

                   INTERNATIONAL UNION OF OPERATING ENGINEERS

                                    Local 49

                                                       May 10, 2023

    Hon. Pete Stauber, Chairman
    House Natural Resources Committee
    Energy and Mineral Resources Subcommittee
    1324 Longworth House Office Building
    Washington, DC 20515

    Re: House Concurrent Resolution 34

        Dear Chairman Stauber:

        The International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 49 (Local 49)
    strongly supports House Concurrent Resolution 34. Local 49 agrees with
    this legislation's aim to rescind PLO 7917, because from the start we
    have disagreed with a withdrawal of lands and mineral rights in
    northeast Minnesota from future leasing and potential development. As a
    construction labor union comprised of over 14,500 heavy equipment
    operators, mechanics and stationary engineers working in Minnesota,
    North Dakota, and South Dakota. Many of our members live in this region
    and would likely play a major part in the construction and maintenance
    of the potential projects this withdrawal has impeded.
        We support this resolution because it corrects the mistakes of PLO
    7917's withdrawal of lands. This withdrawal process did not consider
    any of the science or data from the Twin Metals Minnesota mine
    proposal, a collection of over 10 years of hydro-geological and
    environmental studies, engineering, community engagement and design,
    nor would it consider the specific information pertaining to any other
    project proposed to be sited on the withdrawn lands for the next 20
    years. The only way to properly determine whether mining can be done
    safely is by thoroughly examining the facts behind a specific mine
    plan, such as the one from Twin Metals that has been available for
    review since the company submitted it in 2019. The current land
    withdrawal under PLO 7917 supposes a level of risk for a project that
    is based on generic and out of date mining practices. This process
    completely disregards innovations in mining process and technology and
    increases to environmental safeguards proposed by applicants that can
    mitigate these risks.
        By rescinding the 20-year withdrawal of land this resolution will
    allow potential projects to prove, through a specific mine plan, that
    they can safely and legally build their project. If these projects are
    again allowed to move forward, those that can fulfill Minnesota's
    rigorous environmental and labor standards will have a substantial
    positive socioeconomic impact on northern Minnesota. These proposed
    projects have the potential to create thousands of jobs and billions of
    dollars in future investment. Our members have a long history building
    and maintaining mines to meet the stringent standards that are applied
    to Minnesota mining projects. Our members have a lot at stake to ensure
    these standards are met, as many of these projects reside in the
    communities where they live.
        Rescinding this withdrawal will also reopen the potential of
    accessing a significant domestic source of critical minerals needed to
    combat the climate crisis with technologies like electric vehicles,
    wind turbines, solar panels, and energy storage. Climate change is the
    most imminent and concerning threat to Minnesota's wilderness areas,
    and mining is crucial in supporting the technologies we need to
    mitigate the negative effects of the climate crisis. The blanket
    withdrawal of these lands from exploration and development of Federally
    owned minerals to protect and preserve its natural resources is only
    serving to accomplish the opposite outcome. These minerals are critical
    to our ability to combat the severity of climate change effects on all
    our natural environments, including the Rainy River watershed. This
    withdrawal serves only to stall our nation's efforts to combat climate
    change.
        Additionally, mining these minerals in the United States, and
    reducing our dependence on foreign sources of these materials, is vital
    for shoring up our supply chains and bolstering our national security
    efforts. The Biden Administration's supply chain assessment released in
    February 2022 found that ``over-reliance on foreign sources and
    adversarial nations for critical minerals and materials posed national
    and economic security threats.'' Along with these security concerns
    sourcing minerals locally eliminates the immense costs, both monetary
    and environmental, of transporting vast amounts of raw materials across
    the globe. Taking the critical minerals available in northeast
    Minnesota off the table for development with a blanket withdrawal
    completely contradicts our nation's long-term priorities.
        We urge the adoption of House Concurrent Resolution 34 to correct
    what we feel was a mistake caused by the withdrawal of lands and
    mineral rights in northeast Minnesota from future leasing and potential
    development.

        Thank you for your time and consideration.

                Sincerely,

                                               Jason A. George,
                                  Business Manager--Financial Secretary

                                     ______

             Range Association of Municipalities and Schools (RAMS)

                                                        May 9, 2023

    Hon. Pete Stauber, Chairman
    Hon. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Ranking Member
    House Natural Resources Committee
    Energy and Mineral Resources Subcommittee
    1324 Longworth House Office Building
    Washington, DC 20515

        Dear Congressman Stauber and Congresswoman Ocasio-Cortez:

        The Range Association of Municipalities and Schools (RAMS) is an
    advocacy organization formed in 1939 that has been representing the
    best interests of communities and public schools that reside within the
    boundaries of an area known as the Taconite Assistance Area of
    northeastern Minnesota. This area includes the Rainy River Watershed as
    well as all active Taconite mines in Minnesota that produce over 80
    percent of the domestic iron ore in our nation. The Iron Range has been
    mining for 139 years without any significant environmental disasters
    and we believe that we are the best environmental stewards of our own
    ``back yard''.
        Congressman Stauber's proposed legislation titled Superior National
    Forest Restoration Act is a bold action that will rightfully restore
    our region by removing a 20-year ban on mineral exploration while also
    releasing over 225,000 acres for access once again. Reinstatement of
    federal leases that were wrongfully removed is another important
    provision of the legislation. Most important is the prohibition of
    judicial review of those leases, as frivolous, time consuming and
    expensive litigation has been the primary means of anti-development
    crusaders for the past two decades as they insist that precious mineral
    extraction will obliviate the entire region.
        The RAMS Board of Directors consists of twenty-two publicly elected
    officials from township supervisors, city councils and school board
    directors. These public officials understand the importance of our
    mining industry, our timber industry as well as our tourist industry.
    From our perspective, they all do better when they all are working at
    full capacity. The opportunity in northeastern Minnesota to capitalize
    on the rich precious mineral deposits found in the Duluth Complex is
    one that we must pursue if we are to meet our carbon free goals in 2040
    as established by our Minnesota legislature. All the precious metals
    needed for the green economy, the EV auto revolution, the solar and
    wind energy transition, are in the Duluth Complex. As local community
    leaders we would never support an industry that cannot meet or exceed
    all established environmental standards, because THIS IS WHERE WE LIVE,
    WORK, and PLAY. We are not going to ignore any industry that does not
    meet OUR STANDARDS for safe working conditions, livable working wages
    and maintaining a clean environment.
        RAMS speaking on behalf of the 78,000 residents of our region,
    strongly supports the efforts of Congressman Stauber with his proposed
    legislation as well as the utilization of House Concurrent Resolution
    34 that will allow for the nullification of Public Land Order #7917. As
    evident in the hearings when Secretary Haaland testified to not knowing
    that there were ``critical minerals'' located in the withdrawal area,
    this needs to be overturned so that a complete review of the Mine Plan
    of Operation submitted by Twin Metals is examined and vetted via the
    NEPA process as prescribed by law.
        RAMS has a motto; ``ONE RANGE--ONE VOICE'' and we are speaking
    loudly and proudly in our support for the Superior National Forest
    Restoration Act as proposed by Congressman Stauber and we ask all
    elected officials to hear our voice, hear our message and vote in
    support of following the right of due process in this matter.

                On behalf of the RAMS Board of Directors,

                                                  Steve Giorgi,
                                                     Executive Director

                                     ______

                             ADVANCED ENERGY UNITED

    Hon. Pete Stauber, Chairman
    Hon. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Ranking Member
    House Natural Resources Committee
    Energy and Mineral Resources Subcommittee
    1324 Longworth House Office Building
    Washington, DC 20515

        Dear Committee Members:

        Advanced Energy United is a national association of businesses
    working to achieve 100% clean energy and electrified transportation in
    the United States. We represent a diverse array of companies that
    manufacture, develop, and operate clean generation, energy storage,
    electric vehicles, efficiency services, and other technologies that
    comprise the advanced energy industry.
        As an industry, we recognize the need to increase the production of
    critical minerals, including copper, nickel, lithium, and cobalt, for
    the U.S. to make the transition to 100% clean energy and electrified
    transportation at speed and scale. The U.S. should work with allies
    around the world to ramp up international production, but to build
    robust, reliable supply chains to support and sustain the expansion of
    American advanced energy manufacturing, we must also ramp up domestic
    mining and processing of these resources. The Iron Range is home to
    some of America's, and the world's, richest deposits of critical
    minerals, including many of those mentioned above. As such, it can
    serve as the U.S. backbone of a clean energy revolution, just as the
    Range has done for prior eras in American industrial history.
        At Advanced Energy United, we understand and support the need to
    maintain rigorous environmental protections as the U.S. expands
    production of critical minerals. Indeed, we would advocate that
    policies that increase domestic production should be paired with smart
    reuse and recycling policy, reducing the need for additional extraction
    over the long term. In our estimation, approval of House Concurrent
    Resolution 34 does not undercut state or federal environmental
    regulations that projects must meet.
        Such projects should likewise benefit the communities in which they
    are located throughout the process of development and operation. It is
    our understanding that potential mining and processing projects in this
    area will produce substantial community benefits in the form of
    extensive economic investment and job growth for decades to come, and,
    as such, enjoy significant support.
        For all of these reasons, Advanced Energy United supports House
    Concurrent Resolution 34. We welcome any additional questions the
    Members may have.

                Sincerely,

                                              Harrison Godfrey,
                                                      Managing Director

                                     ______

                                MiningMinnesota

                                                       May 11, 2023

    Hon. Pete Stauber, Chairman
    Hon. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Ranking Member
    House Natural Resources Committee
    Energy and Mineral Resources Subcommittee
    1324 Longworth House Office Building
    Washington, DC 20515

        Congressman Stauber and Congresswoman Ocasio-Cortez:

        As the Executive Director of MiningMinnesota, I am writing to share
    our organization's support for both House Concurrent Resolution 34 and
    the draft legislation ``Superior National Forest Restoration Act.''
        MiningMinnesota is committed to promoting respectful, constructive
    conversations about sustainable and responsible mining of nonferrous
    metals in our state. Our organization works with local citizens,
    businesses, and other organizations to cultivate healthy dialogue
    surrounding mining, particularly needed as Minnesota and our nation
    move forward with energy goals that necessitate greater amounts of
    metals to power our world than are currently produced.
        Our members are deeply concerned that the critical discussions we
    need to be having as a country about the ethical sourcing of materials
    to support the energy transition are being stopped short by sweeping
    actions such as the federal minerals withdrawal. The complex
    conversations must continue regarding those resources and these pieces
    of legislation support that mission.

                Respectfully,

                                                   Julie Lucas,
                                                     Executive Director

                                     ______

                   Conservationists with Common Sense (CWCS)

    Hon. Pete Stauber, Chairman
    Hon. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Ranking Member
    House Natural Resources Committee
    Energy and Mineral Resources Subcommittee
    1324 Longworth House Office Building
    Washington, DC 20515

        Chairman Stauber and Ranking Member Ocasio-Cortez:

        We write to you today in opposition to Interior Secretary Haaland's
    withdrawal of 225,504 acres of the Superior National Forest in northern
    Minnesota. This action would ban mining of minerals for 20 years in the
    Duluth Complex which has abundant deposits of copper, nickel, cobalt,
    taconite, and other PGE group metals.
        My husband and I live on Fall Lake which is partly in the Boundary
    Waters. As such, Fall Lake is part of the Rainy River Watershed. Water
    flows from Birch Lake to White Iron Lake to Garden Lake and then comes
    to Fall Lake over Kawishiwi Falls and right to our shoreline. From Fall
    Lake, it flows into Newton Lake and Basswood Lake as it heads further
    north through the Boundary Waters.
        The Rainy River Watershed also receives water from Dunka Pit near
    Birch Lake, a higher sulfide mine pit that has been monitored since
    1977. Yet there has been no impact on Birch Lake or the Boundary Waters
    in all these years since.
        Exploration of copper/nickel in the Ely area has been ongoing since
    the 1940s and 1950s. We remember well the discussion of INCO's mining
    plans in the 1960s and 1970s, but no mining was started. The timing
    wasn't right, and neither was the technology to mine it safely.
        We need to acknowledge the environmental movement of the 1970s that
    led to the passage of the Clean Water and Clean Air Acts. We are
    thankful that the copper/nickel projects proposed in the 1960s never
    moved forward. Mining technology has advanced over the past 50 years.
    We now have strict mining regulations to assure mining can be done
    safely regarding our environment.
        We thank Congressman Pete Stauber for bringing the Subcommittee on
    Energy and Mineral Resources field hearing to the Iron Range. While
    several Republican members attended, it is shameful Congresswoman
    Ocasio-Cortez, nor any other Democrat member of the subcommittee,
    didn't bothered to join their Republican colleagues. They could have
    learned how important mining and our environment are to all of us.
        We thank Congressman Stauber for introducing House Concurrent
    Resolution 34 to follow Section 204(c) of the Federal Land Policy and
    Management Act of 1976 and nullify the withdrawal.
        We support the Superior National Forest Restoration Act, which
    would reinstate Twin Metals' federal leases and allow the environmental
    permitting process to move forward for Twin Metals and stop frivolous
    lawsuits. Other states obtained their permit to mine in less than ten
    years. The political football of restricting and banning companies from
    moving mining projects forward must end.
        The Twin Metals project can and should move forward, just like
    Eagle Mine in Upper Michigan. Eagle Mine is an underground copper mine
    ten miles from Lake Superior, the largest freshwater lake in the world!
    They have been in operation for nearly ten years with no impact on Lake
    Superior. We can thank modern mining technology.
        Our Minnesota Senators Klobuchar and Smith, and Governor Walz must
    acknowledge we need the minerals, and we can mine these minerals safer
    than countries that have little environmental regulations or safety
    regulations.
        Minnesota is rich in God-given mineral resources and the past fifty
    years has given us technology to mine them safely.

                Sincerely,

                                                Doug McReady &

                                                  Nancy McReady
                                                         CWCS President

                                     ______

                          GLOBAL MINERALS ENGINEERING

                                                       May 10, 2023

    Andrew Morley
    Energy and Natural Resources Policy Director
    Hon. Pete Stauber, Chairman
    House Natural Resources Committee
    Energy and Mineral Resources Subcommittee

    Re: Comments in Support of House Concurrent Resolution 34 and Rep.
            Stauber's Bill, the ``Superior National Forest Restoration
            Act''

        Dear Mr. Morley:

        Global Minerals Engineering fully supports HCR 34, which uses the
    provision enshrined in Section 204(c) of the Federal Lands Policy and
    Management Act, that allows the House and Senate to disapprove of
    mineral withdrawals over 5,000 acres. We also fully support the
    ``Superior National Forest Restoration Act.''
        Global Minerals Engineering previously submitted comments on the
    Rainy River Watershed Mineral Withdrawal Application on January 18,
    2022, and August 10, 2022. Herein I reiterate and elaborate on several
    points, testifying to the dangers to the U.S. economy, national
    security, and green energy goals that will result with the ban on
    leasing and development of strategic critical minerals in the Rainy
    River Watershed on federal land.
        We were appalled by the reckless mineral withdrawal of 225,504
    acres of the Superior National Forest within the Rainy River Watershed
    by the Secretary of the Interior. We have a world-class environmental
    review and permitting process in place in the United States and in
    Minnesota. Mineral exploration and mining taking place outside the
    Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness (BWCAW) should be evaluated
    individually based on established State and Federal environmental
    review processes and regulatory tools. No broad, arbitrary restrictions
    on mining should be placed on any part of the Rainy River watershed
    that is outside the BWCAW and the long-established Mining Protection
    Area.
        The mineral withdrawal is situated within the Duluth Complex
    mineral deposits in northeastern Minnesota, home to some of the largest
    copper, nickel, and cobalt resources in the world, along with platinum,
    palladium, titanium, vanadium, and gold. Within these undeveloped
    resources lies the world's 3rd largest nickel resource (95% of the U.S.
    resource), the world's 2nd largest copper resource (34% of the U.S.
    resource), 88% of the U.S. cobalt resource, and 75% of the U.S.
    platinum group metals (PGMs) resource. In addition, the underlying
    bedrock of the Rainy River Watershed contains rare earth elements and
    lithium potential. Minnesota is poised to become a global leader in
    supplying these metals essential to our way of life, critical to our
    nation's defense and economic security, and necessary to build green
    energy technology, including electric vehicles. Minnesota is lucky to
    have this mineral resource available. Only Russia and South Africa have
    similar bedrock containing these Cu-Ni-PGMs metal resources.
        Currently, the U.S. is highly reliant on imports of many mineral
    commodities whose production is concentrated in a few countries,
    including Africa, Russia, and China, where environmental and safety
    standards are substandard to those in place in the U.S., resulting in
    the most severe environmental damage to the planet and the worst
    violations of human rights. The demand for electric vehicles will
    trigger a global shortage of copper, nickel, and cobalt and we cannot
    be asking Russia and China for more nickel and cobalt.
        The federal administration ordered the Department of Defense to
    consider five metals as essential to national security under the
    Defense Production Act because of their importance to battery
    technology. These are nickel, cobalt, manganese, lithium, and graphite,
    all of which are found in Minnesota. A 2021 White House supply chain
    review recommended the federal government invest in a domestic nickel
    refinery. This mineral withdrawal is inconsistent with these
    initiatives. The delay in exploration and mining in the Rainy River
    Watershed is costing us greatly. Without Minnesota minerals, we will
    only become more dependent on foreign nations with nefarious goals.
        We need to look to our future. The U.S. needs a reliable domestic
    supply chain to support itself with these critical minerals. Currently
    producing over 85% of the U.S. iron ore, Minnesota has a rich and safe
    history of mining on the Mesabi Iron Range for over 130 years, while
    having some of the cleanest air and water in the nation. Non-ferrous
    mining in Minnesota will continue those same high standards of
    environmental protection and worker safety. Minnesota is ready to
    launch into another 130 years of safely mining non-ferrous critical
    minerals.
        Included in the withdrawal area is the Twin Metals Minnesota
    resource area and some of the auxiliary lands necessary to the
    development of that resource. In 2019, Twin Metals submitted a Mine
    Plan of Operations to the U.S. BLM and a Scoping Environmental
    Assessment Worksheet data submittal to the Minnesota Department of
    Natural Resources. Submission of these documents began a multi-year
    review process that included collection of additional baseline data,
    impact analysis, and multiple opportunities for public input. None of
    the extensive environmental data submitted by Twin Metals, some of
    which had been collected for over 10 years, was included in the
    Environmental Assessment conducted by the USFS. Twin Metals leases
    should be re-instated, and they deserve the opportunity to continue the
    environmental review process.
        Underground mining, as with the proposed Twin Metals Project,
    leaves a very small surface footprint. The mines anticipated in the
    Rainy River watershed along the Duluth Gabbro contact within 10 miles
    of the BWCA will likely be underground mines, because the depth of the
    ore is in the range of 1200 to 3000 feet below the surface. Most
    surface mines in Minnesota do not go below 450 feet. Water from an
    underground mine 1200 feet below the water table is not going to cause
    pollution. Any water that is pumped from an underground mine is treated
    and recycled.
        Minnesota underground mining is often erroneously compared to the
    environmental legacy issues from pre-environmental regulation mining in
    the mountains of Colorado, Utah, and Idaho. In those examples, the
    underground mines were far above the water table. Those historical
    mines were at high elevations and the waters flowing downhill from
    those mines eventually reached the lower mountain valley rivers (water
    table) and streams. These underground mining comparisons are not based
    on facts. A panel of mining and geological engineering experts could
    help decision makers better understand this issue.
        As examples, Minnesota had over 70 underground mine operations,
    between 1884 and 1967. These underground mines include the Pioneer,
    Chandler, Zenith, Sibley, and Savoy mines in Ely, MN. These mines were
    operated from 1888 to 1967. These mines closed before the 1980
    Minnesota Reclamation Rules went into effect. These particular mines
    are also in the Rainy River Watershed very close to the BWCAW. Is the
    water from these underground mines polluting Ely?
        Minnesota has a State Park at the Soudan Mine and offers
    underground tours to the public. Because of the tours, the mine is
    pumped and any water that leaves this mine is treated before it is
    recycled. Why is this OK?
        Legacy mine pits that have filled with water on the Mesabi Iron
    Range are the public drinking water sources for many communities, such
    as Chisholm, Virginia, Biwabik, Aurora, and Hoyt Lakes. People don't
    drink unclean water.
        The Kawishiwi and South Kawishiwi Rivers flow naturally into the
    BWCAW. These rivers flow over the mineral rich exposed Duluth Complex
    gabbro bedrock, boulders, and sediments. This natural erosion includes
    Copper, Nickel, PGM's and Sulfate that is picked up by water currents
    and deposited downstream into many of BWCAW lakes. How does the
    Secretary of the Interior propose to stop this?

        The BLM responded to my comment in the Scoping Comment Disposition
    of the EA that ``It is relevant to look at other mining operations when
    assessing risk. The analysis in the Environmental Assessment and
    resource reports looks at modern engineering mining designs. See also
    case studies report.'' Representative Betty McCollum has repeatedly
    stated that 93% of copper, nickel mines fail. She says there is no safe
    mine operating anywhere. But the USFS EA Case Studies Report itself
    reveals something much different:

            The EA Case Studies Report reviews 20 case studies of worldwide
            mining projects with similar characteristics to those that may
            be proposed within the Rainy River Watershed withdrawal area.
            It summarizes that 16 out of 20 case studies had noncompliance
            actions, however the number, type and severity varied widely.

            Upon review, the report shows that 1 out of the 20 case studies
            had any significant, environmental-related issues in recent
            history (Mount Polley, Canada). And of the 10 case studies most
            similar geographically to the Rainy River Watershed, NONE have
            had any environmental violations, outside of a few minor
            remediated issues. So, the Case Studies Report, while giving a
            vague and misleading summary, contains ample evidence that
            mining can be done in environments like the Rainy River
            Watershed without major environmental impacts.

        When mineral owners lose their long-term mineral leases with
    exploration and mining companies as a result of this withdrawal, it is
    essentially a ``taking'' by the Federal government (see the ``Takings
    Clause'' of the 5th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution). While this
    withdrawal is aimed at federal lands, State and private lands are mixed
    together (like a checkerboard or mosaic) with the withdrawal lands.
    This makes mining in this manner impractical, uneconomic, and wasteful
    of the resource.
        While the mineral withdrawal does not prohibit activity on private
    and State lands and minerals, mining operations require a contiguous
    area of land. No developers will contend with a patchwork of ownership
    wherein they are unable to operate on several of the parcels. It will
    not be possible to develop these state and private minerals, and this
    will result in the loss of billions of royalty revenue dollars to
    private and State mineral lease holders. This also robs the State of
    Minnesota of billions of dollars in investment. That money will instead
    be invested elsewhere, profiting other countries, such as China.
        The lands within the BWCAW and the bordering Mining Protection Area
    are already mining exclusion areas. The environmental protections for
    the BWCA have long been studied and deemed adequate by the
    environmental community, Federal, State and local government agencies,
    and the mineral exploration and non-ferrous mining industry. The
    ``roadless area'' boundary established in 1948 already considered the
    nonferrous minerals previously found along the Spruce Road. In the U.S.
    Congress, this area was exempted out in the 1978 BWCA Wilderness Act by
    compromise, because of the valuable mineralization found along the
    ``Duluth Gabbro'' contact.
        A sincere Thank You to Representative Stauber and his team for
    working diligently to undo an obviously politically motivated and
    disastrous withdrawal of strategic mineral resources in Minnesota.

                Sincerely,

                                                 David Meineke,
                                                        President & CEO
                                     ______

                            Statement for the Record
                          National Mining Association
                             on H. Con. Res. 34 and
            H.R. 3195, ``Superior National Forest Restoration Act''

        The National Mining Association (NMA) supports the concurrent
    resolution expressing disapproval of the Department of the Interior's
    (DOI) January 26, 2023, withdrawal of more than 225,000 acres (88 FR
    6308) of highly mineralized lands in Northern Minnesota and the
    Superior National Forest Restoration Act being considered at today's
    Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources hearing. Ensuring access
    to our federal lands for responsible mineral exploration and
    development is critical to supplying 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 containing 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 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 ensure we need not choose between mining and environmental
    protection.

        Today's legislation 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 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 sterilize
    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 erasing significant revenues to Minnesota's rural
    communities that come from these projects in the form of taxes and
    royalties that support schools and regional development projects.

        Currently, less than half of the mineral needs of U.S.
    manufacturing are met by domestically mined minerals. Today's
    legislation will help change this alarming trajectory by ensuring
    access to our nation's vast mineral endowment.

        The NMA urges 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.

                                     ______

    Local View: Acid rock drainage a nonissue with Twin Metals mine

    Duluth News Tribune, January 14, 2022 by Rens Verburg

    https://www.duluthnewstribune.com/opinion/columns/local-view-acid-rock-
    drainage-a-nonissue-with-twin-metals-mine

                                     *****

    If you read media coverage about copper-nickel mining, it's likely
    you've seen references to one of its concerns: the potential for acid
    rock drainage. This is something the mining industry takes very
    seriously. Yet, understanding it requires a deeper dive than the
    oversimplified assumptions we too often read about.

    If acid rock drainage concerns you, I urge you to read on. As an expert
    on this topic, I believe it's critical to better understand this issue
    and how it may or may not apply to local mining projects.

    So, how is acid rock drainage created? Some rock naturally contains
    sulfide minerals. Sulfides are made up of sulfur bound to another
    metal, such as iron, copper, or nickel. When oxidation of sulfide
    minerals occurs naturally or from mining, water that comes in contact
    with the rock may then contain higher levels of acidity. If not managed
    properly, this water can affect natural waters, resulting in
    potentially negative impacts.

    Mining-related acid rock drainage may occur when improper or
    insufficient mitigation measures are in place for two materials: waste
    rock and tailings. Waste rock is any low-grade or undesirable rock
    removed during operations. Tailings are the leftover ground materials
    after the minerals of economic interest have been physically separated
    and removed from the ore.

    In open-pit mining, several tons of waste rock are typically removed
    for every ton of ore. This waste rock is placed in piles, often around
    the open pit, and may contain elevated sulfide minerals, which could
    cause acid rock drainage if not managed properly. However, modern open-
    pit mines employ environmentally protective management plans for waste
    rock and are strictly regulated by U.S. government agencies.

    With underground mining, such as the proposed Twin Metals Minnesota
    copper-nickel-cobalt project, tunnels are created to strategically
    target the ore deep underground. The underground mining method does not
    require excavation and movement of equally large amounts of waste rock,
    and no surface waste rock piles are needed. Therefore, the risk of acid
    rock drainage from surface facilities is zero.

    As mentioned, tailings are a second potential source of acid rock
    drainage. It's important to understand that every mineral deposit's
    geology varies greatly, and a mine must tailor its mineral-processing
    methods based on these variations and the target minerals it's after.
    The processing step at a mine involves separating target minerals from
    the ore, resulting in a concentrate product that is sold. The leftover
    materials are the tailings, and, if they have a sufficient sulfide
    content, they can present acid-rock-drainage issues if unmanaged.
    Therefore, such tailings must be managed safely to ensure acid rock
    drainage does not occur.

    The geology of the Twin Metals deposit is such that the target metals,
    copper and nickel, occur in the predominant sulfide minerals in the
    deposit. This is an important qualifier, because it means that during
    processing, these minerals are recovered and report to the
    concentrates. The financial success of the mining operation depends on
    the recovery of the sulfides. As a consequence, the leftover tailings
    do not contain enough sulfide minerals to create acid, so the risk of
    acid rock drainage from this potential source is zero.

    So, acid rock drainage simply has little or no relevance to the Twin
    Metals project. Furthermore, Twin Metals has a host of innovations that
    set the project apart as a model operation, such as the environmentally
    friendly dry stack tailings method, carbon sequestration, an electric
    fleet, and a goal to become net zero.

    Each of us consumes metals every day. As such, I encourage us all to
    dig deeper into the science behind our modern mining industry that
    produces the materials on which we are dependent.

                                     ______

        Mr. Stauber. If there is no further business, without
    objection, the Committee stands adjourned.

        [Whereupon, at 11:56 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]

                [ADDITIONAL MATERIALS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD]

    Submissions for the Record by Rep. Stauber

                       Up North Jobs Petitions and Names

     Petition to U.S. Secretary of the Interior Deb Haaland and the Biden
                                     Admin

    In opposition to the U.S. Forest Services' and the BLM's plan to ban
    mining on 225,328 acres of land in the Superior National Forest for 20
    years, where mining is a permitted activity.

    302 signatures

                                     ______

                                H. Con. Res. 34
                  Support E-mails sent to Rep. Staubers office

        Dear Mr. Morley:

        I support the upcoming draft legislation that would undo the
    mineral withdrawal and reinstate the long-standing mining leases that
    were ripped away as part of the 20-year ban. It's unfair that the
    federal government can simply take away our rights and I do not support
    it at all. I do not want to be beholden to countries like China for our
    basic everyday needs. What's scarier yet is national security. Do you
    realize what could happen if we were declared war on! Please share my
    support for the removal of the mining moratorium with the powers that
    be.

                Thank you.

                Susan and Rudy Scufsa
                Winton, MN

                                      ****

        Dear Andrew:

        Please include my support the upcoming draft legislation that would
    undo the mineral withdrawal and reinstate the long-standing mining
    leases that were ripped away as part of the 20-year ban. The continued
    usurping of rights by the federal government must be stopped. Please
    share my support for the removal of the mining moratorium with all
    involved.

                Thank you.

                Mike Forsman
                Ely, MN

    On a separate note, how is the idea of the tribes being given co-
    stewardship of the 3.3 million acres of Superior National Forest
    without any public comment, notification, or legislation legal? Thanks
    again. Mike

                                      ****

        Dear Mr. Morley:

        To the benefit of our national security and our own Iron Range
    economic well-being I support HCR 34, which uses the provision
    enshrined in Section 204(c) of the Federal Lands Policy and Management
    Act, that allows the House and Senate to disapprove of mineral
    withdrawals over 5,000 acres.
        It is imperative that we get our house in order to meet possible
    future defense needs plus consumer needs in future green development
    without aiding our country's enemies. We have the minerals, plus modern
    mining technologies to cleanly mine our way into a more secure future
    for all Americans.

                Thank you.

                                      ****

        Dear Mr. Morley:

        To the benefit of our national security and our own Iron Range
    economic well-being I support HCR 34, which uses the provision
    enshrined in Section 204(c) of the Federal Lands Policy and Management
    Act, that allows the House and Senate to disapprove of mineral
    withdrawals over 5,000 acres.
        It is imperative that we get our house in order to meet possible
    future defense needs plus consumer needs in future green development
    without aiding our country's enemies. We have the minerals, plus modern
    mining technologies to cleanly mine our way into a more secure future
    for all Americans.

                Thank you.

                Bridget Marsh
                Chisholm, MN

                                      ****

        Dear Mr. Morley:

        I support the upcoming draft legislation that would undo the
    mineral withdrawal and reinstate the long-standing mining leases that
    were ripped away as part of the 20-year ban. It's unfair that the
    federal government can simply take away our rights are I do not support
    it at all. Please share my support for the removal of the mining
    moratorium with the powers that be.

                Thank you.

                Bridget Marsh
                Chisholm, MN

                                      ****

        Dear Mr. Morley:

        I want to bring to your awareness of my support for benefit of our
    national security and our own Iron Range economic well-being I support
    HCR 34, which uses the provision enshrined in Section 204(c) of the
    Federal Lands Policy and Management Act, that allows the House and
    Senate to disapprove of mineral withdrawals over 5,000 acres.
        It is imperative that we get our house in order to meet possible
    future defense needs plus consumer needs in future green development
    without aiding our country's enemies. We have the minerals, plus modern
    mining technologies to cleanly mine our way into a more secure future
    for all Americans.

                Thank you for your time.

                Ken Hegman

                                      ****

        Dear Mr. Morley:

        In light of our country's dwindling national security with respect
    to our poor supplies of important minerals plus Minnesota Iron Range
    economic stability, I support HCR 34, which uses the provision
    enshrined in Section 204(c) of the Federal Lands Policy and Management
    Act, that allows the House and Senate to disapprove of mineral
    withdrawals over 5,000 acres.
        As a nation, we need to be serious about matters such as this which
    could leave our country defenseless during emergencies. There is no
    excuse for stopping mining and mineral exploration in the United States
    only to then rely upon our enemies for much needed materials.
        It's about economic and national security. Mining has been a way of
    life in Northern Minnesota for over a century and we still have the
    cleanest water in the state and throughout the country. Stop relying on
    China or 3rd world countries that use and abuse child labor laws and
    environmental laws.

                Thank you.

                David Herring

                                      ****

        Dear Mr. Morley:

        To the benefit of our national security and our own Iron Range
    economic well-being I support HCR 34, which uses the provision
    enshrined in Section 204(c) of the Federal Lands Policy and Management
    Act, that allows the House and Senate to disapprove of mineral
    withdrawals over 5,000 acres.
        It is imperative that we get our house in order to meet possible
    future defense needs plus consumer needs in future green development
    without aiding our country's enemies. We have the minerals, plus modern
    mining technologies to cleanly mine our way into a more secure future
    for all Americans.

                Thank you.

                Katherine Sedgeman

                                      ****

        Dear Mr. Morley:

        I support the upcoming draft legislation that would undo the
    mineral withdrawal and reinstate the long-standing mining leases that
    were ripped away as part of the 20-year ban. It's unfair that the
    federal government can simply take away our rights are I do not support
    it at all. Please share my support for the removal of the mining
    moratorium with the powers that be.

                Thank you.

                Bridget Marsh
                Chisholm, MN

                                      ****

        Dear Mr. Morley:

        I completely support HCR 34, which uses the provision enshrined in
    Section 204(c) of the Federal Lands Policy and Management Act, that
    allows the House and Senate to disapprove of mineral withdrawals over
    5000 acres.
        Please consider how far mining has come, especially with regards to
    safety and the environment. The nation as a whole needs these minerals,
    and the people of the Iron Range of MN have been mining for over 150
    years and know how to mine cleanly and safely. We don't need to rely on
    our enemies for our much needed minerals. Let's mine here and let's
    mine now.

                Thank you.

                Elizabeth Eloranta
                Tower, MN

                                      ****

        Dear Mr. Morley:

        I support the upcoming legislation that would undo the mineral
    withdrawal and reinstate the long-standing mining leases that were
    ripped away as part of the 20-year ban. For national security, and Iron
    Range economic stability through minerals diversity, Congressman
    Stauber is on the right track.

                Joe Baltich
                Ely, MN

                                      ****

        Dear Mr. Morley:

        I live in Ely, MN and strongly support mineral exploration and
    extraction (mining) in our region, including the Superior National
    forest. Mining has been going on in our region for over 100 years and
    we have some of the cleanest water & air of any region in our Nation!
        Modern mining & reclamation methods are far superior to the past
    along with strict environmental regulations that would assure adherence
    to the highest standards. The proposed Twin Metals mine is deep under
    ground, well below the water table. A large percentage of tailings
    would be returned back underground for fill, the remaining would be dry
    stacked away from the Mine entrance. Again, this a superior method as
    opposed to tailing ponds that can leach.
        The independence & prosperity of our Nation is enhanced when we
    mine & extract our own energy and mineral sources. Our region is in
    great need of high paying jobs for working families; the Twin Metals
    and other mining operations would be a great economic boom for our
    region! This coupled with the fact that our environmental & labor
    regulations are better than any other place in the World, makes mining
    in Northeast Minnesota a tremendous asset to the USA and the World!
        I strongly support HCR 34 and oppose the 20 year mining moratorium
    imposed by the Biden administration and urge an immediate reversal.

                Sincerely,

                Mark Blanchfield
                Ely, MN

                                      ****

        Dear Mr. Morley:

        I support the upcoming draft legislation that would undo the
    mineral withdrawal and reinstate the long-standing mining leases that
    were ripped away as part of the 20-year ban. It's unfair that the
    federal government can simply take away our rights! And support China
    as a result! Please share my support for the removal of the mining
    moratorium with the powers that be.

                Thank you.

                Linda J. Graeter, PhD

                                      ****

        I oppose the 20 year mining ban.

                Ms. Jane M. Hosking
                Duluth, MN

                                     ______

    Submissions for the Record by Rep. Grijalva
                            Statement for the Record
                        U.S. Department of the Interior
                               on H. Con. Res. 34
                                  May 11, 2023

        Thank you for the opportunity to provide this Statement for the
    Record on H. Con. Res. 34, Expressing disapproval of the withdrawal by
    the Secretary of the Interior of approximately 225,504 acres of
    National Forest System lands in Cook, Lake, and Saint Louis Counties,
    Minnesota, from disposition under the United States mineral and
    geothermal leasing laws, subject to valid existing rights.

        The resolution seeks to terminate Public Land Order (PLO) 7917,
    withdrawing certain National Forest System lands from operation of the
    mineral and geothermal leasing laws under section 204(c) of the Federal
    Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA). PLO 7917 is necessary to
    protect the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness, the surrounding
    watershed, wildlife, Tribal and treaty rights, and robust recreation
    economy of northern Minnesota. The Department of the Interior (DOI)
    strongly opposes any action to reverse the locally driven efforts to
    protect and conserve this critically important and fragile landscape.
    Furthermore, the resolution cannot terminate the withdrawal established
    by PLO 7917, as the resolution relies upon an unconstitutional
    provision in section 204(c) of FLPMA. The resolution can therefore have
    no effect on the validity of the PLO.
    Background

        The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) manages approximately 245
    million surface acres, located primarily in 12 western states, as well
    as 30 percent of the nation's onshore mineral resources across 700
    million subsurface acres, overlain by properties managed by other
    Federal agencies, such as the Department of Defense and the United
    States Forest Service, as well as state and private lands. Section 204
    of FLPMA authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to make, modify,
    extend, or revoke most withdrawals on Federal lands, including
    withdrawals from the operation of mineral leasing and mining laws.
    Under FLPMA, the surface managing agency may apply to the Secretary of
    the Interior for a withdrawal.

        On September 29, 2021, the Forest Service submitted a withdrawal
    application to the BLM requesting that the Secretary of the Interior
    withdraw approximately 225,504 acres of Forest Service-managed lands in
    the Superior National Forest from disposition under the mineral and
    geothermal leasing laws for a 20-year period, subject to valid existing
    rights. The BLM published a notice in the Federal Register on October
    21, 2021, announcing its receipt of the Forest Service's application,
    initiating a two-year segregation of the lands from disposal under the
    mineral and geothermal leasing laws, commencing a 90-day comment
    period, and announcing that the agencies would hold public meetings
    regarding the withdrawal application.

        Secretary Haaland signed PLO 7917 on January 26, 2023, withdrawing
    approximately 225,504 acres from disposition under the U.S. mineral and
    geothermal leasing laws for a period of 20 years, subject to valid
    existing rights. This action was the culmination of extensive
    evaluation by Federal partners and robust public involvement regarding
    the potential impacts of mining on the important natural and cultural
    resources of the Rainy River watershed.

        The purpose of the withdrawal is to protect and preserve natural
    and cultural resources in the Rainy River watershed, including the
    Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness, the Boundary Waters Canoe Area
    Mining Protection Area, and the 1854 Ceded Territory, in a holistic
    manner from the known and potential adverse environmental impacts
    arising from mineral exploration and development. The Boundary Waters
    Canoe Area Wilderness and the surrounding watershed are a spectacular
    network of rivers, lakes, and forests that comprise the most heavily
    visited wilderness area in the United States. More than 150,000
    visitors from around the world are drawn annually to the 1.1-million-
    acre Boundary Waters. The area contains over 1,100 lakes interspersed
    with islands and surrounded by forests that extend nearly 150 miles
    along the border with Canada. The Boundary Waters boasts more than
    1,200 miles of canoe routes, 12 hiking trails, and 2,000 designated
    campsites, and it contributes up to $17.4 million annually to the more
    than $540 million recreation and tourism economies in Cook, Lake, and
    St. Louis Counties.
    H. Con. Res. 34

        H. Con. Res. 34 seeks to invalidate the withdrawal established by
    PLO 7917 under the legislative disapproval provision of section 204(c)
    of FLPMA, which provides that a withdrawal over 5,000 acres shall
    terminate and become ineffective if Congress adopts a concurrent
    resolution stating that it does not approve of the withdrawal. This
    provision contains additional procedures for Congressional approval and
    does not require the resolution to be presented to the President for
    approval following passage by Congress.
    Analysis

        The Department strongly opposes H. Con. Res. 34 and any efforts to
    roll back the protections of this sensitive and irreplaceable area from
    the adverse impacts of new mineral and geothermal exploration and
    development. The 20-year withdrawal, which was made in accordance with
    the authority in section 204 of FLPMA, is critically needed to protect
    and preserve the fragile and vital social and natural resources,
    ecological integrity, and wilderness values in the Rainy River
    watershed and the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness. The withdrawal
    builds upon years of locally led conservation efforts to protect the
    landscape, watershed, and the outdoor recreation economy they support.
    A detailed description of the rationale underlying the recommendation
    and decision to withdraw the lands is contained in the BLM's decision
    memorandum for the withdrawal, which was signed by Secretary Haaland on
    January 26, 2023.

        As noted above, H. Con. Res. 34 relies on the legislative
    disapproval provision in section 204(c) of FLPMA. That provision is
    unconstitutional under long-standing Supreme Court caselaw holding that
    Congress cannot invalidate a decision of the Executive Branch absent
    presentment to the President. (INS v. Chadha, 462 U.S. 919 (1983)). In
    Chadha, the Supreme Court held that a provision that allows Congress to
    take action that is ``essentially legislative in purpose and effect''
    without approval by the President violates the presentment requirements
    of Article I of the United States Constitution. The Court explained
    that once Congress delegates authority to the executive branch,
    Congress must abide by that delegation until it is legislatively
    altered or revoked in accordance with the bicameral and presentment
    requirements of the Constitution. The United States Court of Appeals
    for the Ninth Circuit has directly applied the Supreme Court's decision
    to Section 204(c) of FLPMA and concluded that the legislative
    disapproval provision that H. Con. Res. 34 relies on is
    unconstitutional (National Mining Association v. Zinke, 877 F.3d 845
    (9th Cir. 2017)).

        For this reason, any resolutions passed pursuant to that authority
    would have no effect on withdrawals that are validly established by the
    Secretary of the Interior. Even if approved, the resolution would not
    terminate PLO 7917, and the approximately 225,504 acres of National
    Forest System lands in Cook, Lake, and Saint Louis Counties, Minnesota,
    that are subject to PLO 7917 would remain withdrawn from disposition
    under the United States mineral and geothermal leasing laws, subject to
    valid existing rights.
    Conclusion

        Thank you for the opportunity to provide this statement for the
    record.

                                     ______

    Submissions for the Record by Rep. Ocasio-Cortez

    Minnesota Power looks to ratepayers to recover mine and mill losses

    Verso and Keetac closures equated to losing all residential business at
    once.

    Star Tribune, November 10, 2020 by Brooks Johnson

    https://www.startribune.com/minnesota-power-looks-to-ratepayers-to-
    recover-mine-and-mill-losses/573027571/

                                     *****

    DULUTH--With two major industrial customers offline most of this year,
    Minnesota Power will likely be asking state regulators to approve a
    rate increase to cover its lost revenue next year--even as its parent
    company Monday reported a 30% third-quarter profit jump to $40.7
    million driven largely by a recent rate increase.

    The Duluth-based utility has filed a petition with the state Public
    Utilities Commission asking to track missed revenue from the
    indefinitely closed Verso paper mill in Duluth and the Keewatin
    Taconite plant that closed this spring and will reopen in mid-December.

    ``The loss of these two customers to Minnesota Power has been the
    equivalent of losing its entire residential customer class in the
    course of a few months,'' the company wrote in its filing. Combined,
    the mill and the mine were projected to comprise about 12% of total
    electricity sales this year, or about $30 million annually. ``In order
    to account for that revenue deficiency, Minnesota Power will likely
    need to file a general rate case as early as March 1, 2021.''

    Though it has about 145,000 customers across a wide swath of
    northeastern and central Minnesota, 74% of Minnesota Power's
    electricity sales are to a handful of taconite mines and paper mills.
    Several mines were temporarily shut down this spring and summer, but by
    the end of the year all Iron Range operations will be operating again
    after a rebound in global steel markets.

    During a call with investors Monday morning, leaders of parent company
    Allete Inc. outlined the request to track and recover the losses.

    ``Minnesota Power proposed to defer any lost revenues to its next
    general rate case or other proceeding . . . and anticipates filing a
    general rate case in November 2021,'' said Chief Accounting Officer
    Steve Morris.

    The average monthly residential bill rose $3.53 earlier this year as
    part of a rate increase settlement reached this spring.

    Parent company Allete recorded a 2% increase in revenue to $293.9
    million compared to the third quarter of 2019.

    Despite strong earnings gains in the quarter, the company said it
    expects earnings per share to be down $0.15 through the end of the year
    due to the pandemic.

    ``We contemplated the potential of a second wave of the COVID-19
    pandemic. This risk appears now to be a reality,'' Allete CEO Bethany
    Owen said. ``The incoming President-Elect is assembling a coalition . .
    . for how we turn this second wave around. We believe there is hope and
    really strong progress.''

    On a strong day for the stock market following promising news for a
    possible coronavirus vaccine, Allete's stock price shot up nearly 7.6%
    Monday to close at $57.87. After starting the year trading above $83
    per share, Allete's share price briefly rose above $60 for the first
    time since March on Monday.

                                     ______

    Visuals Shown During the Hearing by Rep. Fulcher

                       U.S. Net Import Reliance from USGS
    [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                         .epsChina Copper Supply Chain
    [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    Visual Shown During the Hearing by Rep. Westerman

               The Role of Nonfuel Mineral Commodities in the USA
    [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    Visuals Shown During the Hearing by Rep. Duarte

                  Map of Forest Watershed and Mineral Deposit
    [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                        .epsBoundary Waters Aerial Photo
    [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    Visual Shown During the Hearing by Rep. Gosar

                        Canadian Map of Boundary Waters
    [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                   [all]