[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]