[Congressional Record Volume 163, Number 194 (Wednesday, November 29, 2017)]
[House]
[Pages H9498-H9512]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
MINNESOTA'S ECONOMIC RIGHTS IN THE SUPERIOR NATIONAL FOREST ACT
Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 631, I call up
the bill (H.R. 3905) to require congressional approval of any mineral
withdrawal or monument designation involving the National Forest System
lands in the State of Minnesota, to provide for the renewal of certain
mineral leases in such lands, and for other purposes, and ask for its
immediate consideration in the House.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 631, an
amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the text of Rules
Committee Print 115-41 is adopted, and the bill, as amended, is
considered read.
The text of the bill, as amended, is as follows:
H.R. 3905
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Minnesota's Economic Rights
in the Superior National Forest Act''.
SEC. 2. CONDITION ON MINERAL WITHDRAWAL OF NATIONAL FOREST
SYSTEM LANDS IN MINNESOTA.
Minerals within the National Forest System lands in the
State of Minnesota shall not be subject to withdrawal from
disposition under United States mineral and geothermal
leasing law unless the withdrawal is specifically approved by
an Act of Congress enacted after the date of the enactment of
this Act.
SEC. 3. CONDITION ON MONUMENT DESIGNATION ON NATIONAL FOREST
SYSTEM LANDS IN MINNESOTA.
Section 320301 of title 54, United States Code, is amended
by adding at the end the following new subsection:
``(e) Limitation on Extension or Establishment of a
National Monument in Minnesota.--No extension or
establishment of national monuments on National Forest System
lands in the State of Minnesota may be undertaken except by
express authorization of Congress.''.
[[Page H9499]]
SEC. 4. CLARIFYING THE NATURE OF MINERAL RIGHTS ON FOREST
SYSTEM LANDS IN MINNESOTA.
(a) Mineral Leases Issued Within Forest System Lands in
Minnesota.--
(1) In general.--All mineral leases issued within the
exterior boundaries of National Forest System lands in the
State of Minnesota under the authority of the Act of June 30,
1950 (16 U.S.C. 508b), or section 402 of Reorganization Plan
No. 3 of 1946 (5 U.S.C. App.), are indeterminate preference
right leases that--
(A) shall be issued for an initial 20-year period; and
(B) as provided in paragraph (2), shall be renewable after
the period described in subparagraph (A) for 10-year renewal
periods.
(2) Requirements for renewal.--A lease shall be renewed
under paragraph (1)(B)--
(A) if the lessee has complied with the terms and
conditions of the lease during the preceding lease period;
and
(B) on the condition that, at the end of each ten-year
renewal period, such reasonable readjustment of the terms and
conditions of the lease may be prescribed by the Secretary of
the Interior, in consultation with the Secretary of
Agriculture, for the purpose of--
(i) encouraging production; or
(ii) addressing changing conditions within the lease area.
(b) Suspension of Operations.--The Secretary of the
Interior may suspend operations under a lease described in
subsection (a) when--
(1) the lease can only be operated at a loss due to market
conditions; or
(2) operations are interrupted by strikes.
(c) Permits for Use of Surface Lands.--With respect to
lands subject to a lease pursuant to subsection (a), the
Secretary of the Interior, in consultation with the Secretary
of Agriculture, may issue permits for the use of surface
lands not included in the lease for purposes connected with,
and reasonably necessary to, the exploration, development,
and use of the deposits covered by the lease.
(d) Applicability to Mineral Leases.--This section shall
apply with respect to all mineral leases described in
subsection (a), including--
(1) leases that on the date of the enactment of this
section are not in effect; and
(2) the hard rock mineral leases for the Superior National
Forest in Minnesota identified as MNES-01352 and MNES-01353.
(e) Applicability of National Environmental Policy Act of
1969.--The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42
U.S.C. 4331 et seq.) shall apply with respect to a mineral
lease described in subsection (a). In the case of the renewal
of the existing hard rock mineral leases referred to in
subsection (d)(2), the Bureau of Land Management shall
complete the pending environmental assessment no later than
30 days after the date of the enactment of this Act.
(f) Exclusion of Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness.--
Nothing in this section may be construed as permitting the
prospecting for development and utilization of mineral
resources within the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness or
Mine Protection Area.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The bill, as amended, shall be debatable for
1 hour, equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking
minority member of the Committee on Natural Resources.
After 1 hour of debate, it shall be in order to consider the further
amendment printed in House Report 115-429, if offered by the Member
designated in the report, which shall be considered read, shall be
separately debatable for the time specified in the report, equally
divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, and shall not
be subject to a demand for a division of the question.
The gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Gosar) and the gentleman from
California (Mr. Lowenthal) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona.
General Leave
Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may
have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and
to include extraneous material on H.R. 3905.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Arizona?
There was no objection.
Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
Colorado (Mr. Lamborn).
Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Speaker, I thank Chairman Gosar for his leadership
on this and other issues in the Congressional Western Caucus.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this legislation.
Mr. Speaker, mining in the Superior National Forest, where these
leases are located, has previously been authorized by Congress on
several occasions. First in 1950, and again in 1978.
With that bill--the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness Act--
Congress established a compromise in which mining was prohibited within
the 1.1 million acre Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness, but
specifically authorized in the Superior National Forest.
Likewise, U.S. Forest Service plans for these areas have identified
mining in these Superior Forest locations as a ``desired condition.''
Despite this longstanding precedent, in December of 2016, the Obama
administration abruptly canceled mining leases that have been held and
renewed for decades in northern Minnesota. Then in January, the day
before leaving office, President Obama signed off on a mineral
withdrawal for an area spanning 425,000 acres, including 95,000 acres
of State school trust fund lands.
There is a torrent of misinformation surrounding this bill, with
alarmist groups begging that we ``save the Boundary Waters.''
Mr. Speaker, the Boundary Waters were saved in 1978. The low-impact
mining arrangements that these mining leases entail do not endanger the
Boundary Waters, which is itself protected by a significant buffer as
well.
The bill reiterates--redundantly, I will add, but in order to make it
crystal clear--that mining is prohibited in the Boundary Waters and the
surrounding buffer. To say otherwise is a blatant falsehood.
A few other facts that you won't hear from alarmists but that deserve
to be said: this bill retains the full protections enshrined across the
array of environmental laws and regulations which apply to mine
leasing, permitting, and operation. The most notable in this case are
the National Environmental Policy Act--NEPA--and the Clean Water Act,
which still apply, in full.
But the fact is that this bill is not about removing environmental
protections, as some may have said.
Rather, what about when you don't actually remove any?
Rather, what initiated this situation is an arbitrary overreach by
the Obama administration at the last minute. It was looking to score
political points on its way out the door by taking the near-
unprecedented action of initiating a full mineral withdrawal. That was
undemocratic, and the huge support that this bill and mining in general
enjoys in Minnesota's Eighth Congressional District, where the Superior
Forest is located, is proof positive. But Article IV of the
Constitution vests Congress with authority over public lands, and it is
now up to us to act.
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate this chance to clear the air on some of the
misconceptions and falsehoods that have been tarnishing this bill. It
really is unfortunate that commonsense, local issues like this one are
being dragged into a national partisan brawl. Nevertheless, I hope my
colleagues are able to see through the deception, recognize the clear
benefits of mining in Minnesota, and vote ``yes'' on this important
bill.
Finally, I would like to share some comments from the Associated
General Contractors of Minnesota, who noted that ``H.R. 3905 changes no
environmental review processes, relaxes no environmental standards, and
specifically restates Congress' prohibition on any mining activity in
the BWCAW and the surrounding protective buffer.''
Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record their full letter.
Associated General Contractors
of Minnesota,
November 22, 2017.
Dear Congressman Walz: On behalf of the Associated General
Contractors of Minnesota and our over 400 member firms, I am
writing to urge your support for H.R. 3905, the ``Minnesota's
Economic Rights (MINER) in the Superior National Forest
Act,'' bipartisan legislation sponsored by Cong. Tom Emmer
(MN-6th) and cosponsored by Cong. Collin Peterson (MN-7th),
Cong. Jason Lewis (MN-2nd) and Cong. Paul Gosar (AZ-4th).
H.R. 3905 is currently on the agenda of the House Rules
Committee, on a path for House floor action in the coming
weeks.
In 1950, Congress took action to make land available for
mineral exploration and development within the Superior
National Forest (SNF) within the Iron Range region in
Northeast Minnesota. In 1978, Congress prohibited mining
within the region's Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness
(BWCAW) and an adjacent protective buffer zone, while
reaffirming that mining should be allowed and promoted in the
remaining area of the SNF.
H.R. 3905 aims to correct the injustices being thrust upon
the Iron Range by requiring congressional approval of any
mineral withdrawal or monument designation involving the
National Forest System lands in the State of Minnesota, as
well as providing for the renewal of certain mineral leases
and ensuring future leases in the area remain valid and
renewed as outlined by current law. Moreover, H.R. 3905
changes no environmental review processes, relaxes no
environmental standards, and specifically restates
[[Page H9500]]
Congress' prohibition on any mining activity in the BWCAW and
surrounding protective buffer.
H.R. 3905 would reaffirm long-standing Congressional intent
in the management and development of critical minerals in
Minnesota, eliminate bureaucratic delays in developing
environmentally-responsible mine projects proposals, and
restore the promise of future job growth and economic
opportunity to an economically distressed region of the
state.
We strongly urge your vote in support of H.R. 3905. Thank
you for your support of mining in Minnesota and the thousands
of good paying jobs that are sustained through safe and
effective management of these natural resources.
Sincerely,
Tim Worke,
CEO.
Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LOWENTHAL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, this legislation is quite simply a giveaway of mining
rights on roughly 5,000 acres of public lands right next to the
Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness in northern Minnesota to a
Chilean mining conglomerate so that it can develop a copper mine that
will, in all likelihood, leach toxic acid waste into the Boundary
Waters for decades, if not centuries, to come. In order to do this,
this bill overrides multiple laws that are in place to allow priceless
natural places to be protected and it vetoes the scientific conclusions
of the U.S. Forest Service.
Last year, the Forest Service recommended that two undeveloped 50-
year-old mining leases in Minnesota's Superior National Forest be
allowed to expire, stating that the development of a copper mine on
these leases could lead to potentially extreme contamination of the
Boundary Waters wilderness from acid mine drainage and leached
materials.
The Boundary Waters isn't just a pristine and unique wilderness, it
is also an economic engine for northern Minnesota. Over 1,000 pristine
lakes, 1,200 miles of streams, and 2,000 campsites attract more than
150,000 visitors each year to canoe, kayak, fish, bird watch, ski, and
simply explore and enjoy the natural beauty and peacefulness that is
unlike anywhere else in the United States. These visitors bring in tens
of millions of dollars annually, supporting thousands of local jobs.
{time} 1530
The ecological and economic value of the Boundary Waters led the
Forest Service to conclude: `` . . . development of a regionally
untested copper-nickel sulfide-ore mine within the same watershed as
the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness might cause serious and
irreplaceable harm to this unique, iconic, and irreplaceable wilderness
area.''
As a result, the leases were not renewed, and the Forest Service
began a study to look at whether to protect the area adjacent to the
Boundary Waters from mining for the next 20 years. This 2-year study is
open. It is a public process designed to gather scientific information
and local views on the potential impacts of copper mining, which is
immediately adjacent to the Boundary Waters, and it is supported by an
overwhelming majority--79 percent--of the voters in Minnesota.
Even this administration here in Washington has said that it intends
to allow the study to run its course before making any decisions, but
this legislation would make that study meaningless. It would reinstate
the leases and make it almost impossible for them to expire. It would
block the Forest Service from acting on its study no matter what it
found and how the people in the region feel, and it would make it
impossible for the President of the United States to protect this area
using the Antiquities Act, all so a Chilean mining company can move
forward with a dangerous mine next to one of our most pristine and
special natural places.
Mr. Chairman, our public lands belong to all Americans, not simply to
wealthy mining companies with the connections and the cash to try to
overturn decisions they don't like through legislation. The company
that we are talking about is challenging this decision to not renew
their leases in court. That is the appropriate venue for that debate,
not here in the Halls of Congress. We shouldn't rewrite the law to make
sure that they get their way.
Even if the company wins the case, we should not be tying the Federal
Government's hands to make sure that this mine gets developed, no
matter what, instead of listening to the science. That is the wrong
thing to do for any project like this, let alone one that sits right
next to a unique and delicate wilderness like the Boundary Waters.
This bill is a blatant attempt to reward an individual foreign
company at the expense of the American people and the American
landscape, and I urge my colleagues to reject this legislation.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
Minnesota (Mr. Emmer), the originator of this bill.
Mr. EMMER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding me this
time.
Mr. Speaker, today's debate on H.R. 3905, Minnesota's Economic Rights
in the Superior National Forest Act, also known as the MINER Act, is
not just important to the great State of Minnesota. This legislation is
critically important to the United States.
The MINER Act will reverse the misguided, last-minute actions of the
Obama administration to stop any exploration of one of the most
valuable precious metal deposits in the world.
The MINER Act will ensure that the people of Minnesota have the
opportunity for jobs and economic prosperity that would come if the
deposit can ever be mined in an environmentally safe and responsible
manner.
The MINER Act will renew the Federal Government's commitment and
promise to the citizens of Minnesota. When the Superior National Forest
was created in 1909 and, later, when the Boundary Waters Canoe Area was
established in 1978, there was an express agreement between the Federal
Government and the State of Minnesota that mining and logging could
continue in the Superior National Forest. In fact, according to the
most recent Superior National Forest land use management plan, mining
and logging are considered a desired condition in the forest.
This is about more than just the 10,000-plus jobs which are now at
risk because of the lameduck actions of the Obama administration. This
is about billions of dollars in revenue for Minnesota's economy and
billions more in potential education funding for Minnesota's schools
that are now on the line. This is about strategically important metals
and minerals which are used by Americans every day. This is about
undoing a last-ditch effort to further a political agenda at the
expense of the livelihoods that Minnesotans have relied on for
generations.
The MINER Act, again, is about protecting Minnesota's right to
explore and, if environmentally appropriate, mine valuable and
important precious metals, precious metals that are not only necessary
to our everyday technology, but which are critically important to our
Nation's national defense.
There are some who would like to deny Minnesota the right to explore
and potentially mine these precious metals. They argue that any mining
activity could negatively impact our beloved Boundary Waters Canoe
Area. This concern, however, ignores the fact that, if a mine is ever
proposed, and to date there has been no mine proposed, if one is ever
proposed in the Superior National Forest, it would have to satisfy all
current local, State, and Federal environmental review and permitting
requirements before it could ever be approved to proceed.
We can and we will protect the Boundary Waters. I have no doubt that
we can find a way to preserve Minnesota's pristine landscape without
permanently destroying any future job creation or economic development
in Minnesota. By passing the MINER Act, we protect thousands of jobs
and billions of dollars in revenue and education funding while leaving
an extensive process intact to protect and preserve the environment and
our State.
In conclusion, I encourage all my colleagues to support the MINER Act
because we know someday someone might find a way to mine these
important precious metals in a safe and environmentally responsible
way, and if that happens, Minnesota deserves the opportunity and the
jobs and economic prosperity that will ensue.
[[Page H9501]]
Mr. LOWENTHAL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 8 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Minnesota (Ms. McCollum).
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to this
destructive bill.
This bill undermines bedrock environmental and public land management
laws in order to create a perpetual lease for a foreign-owned toxic
mine. This mine will be on the doorstep of one of our country's last
truly wild places, the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness.
The Boundary Waters contains 1.1 million acres of unspoiled woodlands
and more than 1,000 pristine lakes. The water wilderness is beloved by
adventurers, canoers, sportsmen, and sportswomen from all across the
United States and around the world.
To safeguard this natural treasure, Congress has prohibited logging,
mining, and even the use of most motorized vehicles on this Federal
land. It has made the Boundary Waters a haven for birds and other
wildlife and the most visited wilderness area in the United States of
America.
These visitors, over 250,000 annually, have helped the economy and
created jobs in northern Minnesota, but the bill we are debating today
puts this all at risk. It paves the way for a massive sulfide-ore
copper mine just a few miles from the Boundary Waters Wilderness.
Sulfide-ore mining is the most toxic industry in the United States.
Sulfide mines pollute waterways with acid drainage, which contain
arsenic, lead, and mercury. This type of mining is particularly risky
in the vast, interconnected watershed that flows throughout the
Boundary Waters into Voyageurs National Park and across the border into
the Canadian provincial park.
The supporters of H.R. 3905 claim that the bill still protects the
Boundary Waters because the mines will be located outside the
wilderness area. Mr. Speaker, this is simply not the case. Let me show
you where the mining would take place here.
This is the site of the proposed mine on the edge of the wilderness
area. The river that you see flows through the Boundary Waters. The
area contains popular Forest Service campgrounds and entry points to
the wilderness. It is a base for scouting and veterans' outdoor
recreation trips. Some of the Superior National Forest's most popular
fishing lakes and hunting grounds are in this area. They are home to
hundreds of people and businesses.
If this bill passes, it will create an industrial wasteland. This
bill poses an unacceptable risk of irreparable damage to a pristine
wilderness.
A 2012 study of American sulfide-ore mines found that all mines have
leaked, and 92 percent of them had experienced failures that negatively
affected the local water quality. Even state-of-the-art sulfide-ore
copper mines consistently pollute their surrounding environments.
For example, in August 2014, a copper mine in British Columbia
released a toxic slurry--10 billion liters of wastewater and 5 billion
liters of tailings--that created a polluted dystopia of dead trees and
contaminated salmon spawning areas.
Because of the risks involved with these mines, the Forest Service
has begun a 2-year environmental review that will determine if the
Boundary Waters is an appropriate place for dangerous sulfide-ore
copper mining or if a 20-year withdrawal of mining rights in the
watershed is appropriate.
This review is the process that Congress established, under the
Federal Land Policy and Management Act, for considering mineral
withdrawal. The review is supported by Minnesota's Governor, tribal
governments, and 79 percent of all Minnesotans. It also has been
supported by both the current and the former administration.
Just this morning, again, I spoke with the chief of the U.S. Forest
Service and thanked him for the administration's commitment to allow
the study to go forward.
But the bill we are considering today stops this established
scientific review process from going forward. Instead, it creates a
loophole for the benefit of a foreign mining interest. It automatically
reinstates two expired and denied leasings dating back to 1966, before
modern environmental laws like the Clean Water Act. It allows permanent
mining leases on national forestland, our Nation's public land,
removing scientific safeguards, environmental considerations, and
public input from the renewal process. It exempts Federal forests in
Minnesota from the protections of the landmark Antiquities Act. It sets
a dangerous precedent and will have consequences all across our
country.
There is simply no justification for Congress to rewrite the rules
for our Federal forests in Minnesota, and that is exactly what this
piece of legislation does. In short, this proposal is a giveaway of
public resources to private interests. One of our Nation's last wild
places becomes collateral damage.
Good people of both parties all across Minnesota and throughout this
country know the importance of protecting this pristine wilderness, and
that is why so many of them have submitted letters to Congress in
opposition to H.R. 3905.
Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record these letters of opposition from
Minnesota's Governor, Mark Dayton; three Tribal nations: Fond du Lac,
Grand Portage, and White Earth Bands of the Minnesota Chippewa; the
Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership, the National Wildlife
Federation, and other sporting groups; the Girl Scouts of Minnesota and
Wisconsin; Veterans for the Boundary Waters; and a coalition of dozens
of national organizations that advocate for clean water and public
lands and conservation.
State of Minnesota,
Office of Governor Mark Dayton,
Saint Paul, MN, November 27, 2017.
Hon. Paul Ryan,
Speaker of the House, House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Speaker Ryan: I write in strong opposition to H.R.
3905, which I understand has passed out of Committee and is
being reviewed by House Majority Leadership for a floor vote.
I implore you not to schedule a vote on this bill without a
full vetting of the serious risks to the Boundary Waters
Canoe Area Wilderness from adjacent copper-nickel mining, the
status of the two-year federal study currently underway, and
the wishes of the majority of Minnesotans, who oppose copper-
nickel mining in the immediate vicinity of the Boundary
Waters.
H.R. 3905 is a bill, ``To require congressional approval of
any mineral withdrawal or monument designation involving the
National Forest System lands in the State of Minnesota, to
provide for the renewal of certain mineral leases in such
lands, and for other purposes.'' H.R. 3905 was introduced in
response to the desires of a foreign mining company to use
Congress to circumvent the deliberations of the U.S.
Departments of Interior and Agriculture and their agencies,
the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the U.S. Forest
Service (USFS), to determine whether copper-nickel mining can
be conducted safely in this ecologically sensitive part of
Minnesota.
The Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness (BCWAW) is
America's most popular national Wilderness Area, drawing
visitors from all over the world to Northeastern Minnesota to
fish, hunt, and experience its interconnected pristine lakes,
rivers and streams. Additionally, the BWCAW contributes
enormously to Minnesota's social and economic wellbeing.
In January, 2017, the BLM and the USFS began a
comprehensive two-year study to determine whether copper-
nickel mining, with its toxic by-product, sulfide ore, is
appropriate within the watershed and immediate vicinity of
the BWCA. Specifically, this environmental review will
determine whether the Superior National Forest lands next to
the BWCAW should be removed from the federal mining program
to protect the Wilderness from pollution and other
environmental degradation caused by the resulting sulfide
ore. The study considers a wide variety of factors, including
scientific evidence, public input, economic considerations,
ecological characteristics, and recreational value, among
others.
I respectfully ask that you allow the completion of this
important review process. Over 126,000 Americans have
submitted public comments as part of it. Many attended three
public meetings conducted earlier this year by the BLM and
USFS. Moving H.R. 3905 forward at this time would disregard
the input of all Americans, who have participated in the
process, as well as the views of the 79 percent of
Minnesotans, who favor the two-year pause and environmental
review of potential impacts to the BWCAW.
The BWCAW is crucially important to our state, and I
believe strongly that future federal and state decisions
about its future should be made only after the most careful
and objective scientific review. I urge you to reject the
attempts by a foreign mining corporation to short-circuit the
review process underway, and to affirm the importance of a
careful, objective analysis under the existing federal legal
framework.
Continuing this review process is the best way to allow for
well-informed federal and state decisions, which will affect
many future generations of Americans. Industry should not
dictate the stewardship of taxpayer-owned public lands, nor
use Congress
[[Page H9502]]
to short-circuit sound decision-making--especially regarding
pristine Wilderness Areas like the BWCAW.
Sincerely,
Mark Dayton,
Governor.
____
Fond du Lac Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Reservation
Business Committee,
Cloquet, MN, August 3, 2017.
Re Subcommittee's July 27, 2017 Hearing on Congressman
Emmer's Draft Bill
Hon. Rob Bishop,
Chairman, House Committee on Natural Resources, Washington,
DC.
Hon. Raul Grijalva,
Ranking Member, House Committee on Natural Resources,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Paul Gosar,
Chairman, House Committee on Natural Resources, Subcommittee
on Energy and Mineral Resources, Washington, DC.
Hon. Alan Lowenthal,
Ranking Member, House Committee on Natural Resources,
Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources, Washington,
DC.
Dear Chairmen Bishop and Gosar and Ranking Members Grijalva
and Lowenthal: I write on behalf of the Fond du Lac Band of
Lake Superior Chippewa to express our profound concerns
about, and strong objections to, the draft bill offered by
Congressman Emmer that was the subject of the hearing on July
27 before the Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources.
This draft bill would retroactively grant to a foreign-owned
mining company--one that has a history of environmental
violations in its home country--a perpetual lease of federal
mineral rights. It would further eliminate an ongoing
administrative process that is essential to the proper
evaluation of any future development of federal minerals
within this exceptional part of the Superior National Forest
lands. We urge you not to support this measure.
The Fond du Lac Band is a federally recognized Indian
tribe. We hold a Reservation just south of Superior National
Forest which was established for us by Treaty with the United
States on September 30, 1854, 10 Stat. 1109. The 1854 Treaty
further reserved to us the rights to hunt, fish and gather on
lands outside our Reservation. These lands extend into the
Arrowhead region of Minnesota, and encompass the lands within
much of Superior National Forest and the Boundary Waters
Canoe Area Wilderness (BWCAW), including the lands that are
affected by this draft bill.
The BWCAW, the lands adjacent to it, as well as the lands
beyond the BWCAW's buffer zone and within the Superior
National Forest, are pristine. This region--within the Rainy
Lake Watershed--is a unique water-based ecosystem with
thousands of lakes and interconnected waterbodies. The
quality of its waters is high and those waters provide
critically important habitat for fish and wildlife, including
moose and other unique natural resources like wild rice. The
waters, wild rice, fish and game are especially important to
the Chippewa. Such natural resources have sustained our
people for centuries and are the foundation of our culture
and religion. The natural resources in this region play an
increasingly important role in our ability to feed our
families and exercise our Treaty rights, because many of the
waters southwest of this region are impaired (as designated
by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency) from mining
pollutants which have, in turn, destroyed wild rice beds and
led to fish consumption advisories.
Although northeastern Minnesota has a long history of
mining, the mining done to date in the State has been for
iron and taconite. The proposals to develop sulfide ore
mining, for copper, nickel and palladium, would be the first
of their kind in Minnesota. The history of such mines
elsewhere highlights the very serious environmental damage
that they pose from acid mine drainage--risks that Minnesota
has not yet had occasion to address or regulate. Those risks
are especially acute in water-based ecosystems like those in
the BWCAW and the Rainy Lake watershed of Minnesota. And the
proposed development of sulfide ore mines in lands
immediately south of the BWCAW poses a serious and direct
threat to the BWCAW for the very simple reason that the
waters in that region flow north--towards the BWCAW.
Because of the very substantial risks posed by sulfide-ore
mining, Minnesota Governor Dayton made a decision in March
2016 not to permit the use of state lands for mining in this
area, and subsequently the Secretaries of Interior and
Agriculture made like decisions with regard to federal lands.
In particular, these federal agencies declined to renew two
leases of federal minerals which had been made a half-century
ago to the predecessor of Twin Metals Mine, and its foreign
owner, Antofagasta Minerals. One of these leases covers land
that is directly adjacent to the BWCAW. The other is within
three miles of the BWCAW. The federal decision was based on a
determination that the leases posed an unacceptable risk to
the waters and natural resources in the BWCAW. In connection
with that decision, the Departments of Interior and
Agriculture initiated a process to evaluate whether 234,328
acres of federal lands within this ecologically unique region
should be withdrawn from mining.
The federal review process is now underway and should be
allowed to continue. Decisions on whether to allow sulfide-
ore mining, especially in this unique water-based ecosystem,
need to take into account all of the impacts of the proposed
project and should be based on objective science, economics
and the social and related impacts of such development on the
lives and livelihood of Minnesotans, including federally-
protected tribal Treaty rights.
Such analysis should also be done before any decision is
made to reinstate expired, or expiring, leases of federal
minerals in this area. The need for such an analysis is
illustrated by the expired leases for the Twin Metals Mine.
The original leases, which had a 20-year term, were made in
1966, well before enactment of laws that are essential to
protecting the environment, such as the Clean Water Act. The
original leases were also made before the federal courts
confirmed the continued rights of the Chippewa to hunt, fish
and gather in this region, and accordingly do not take into
account the impact of the mineral leases on these treaty-
protected rights. All such matters should be carefully
considered, and the on-going administrative review process is
intended to do this and should be allowed to continue.
The draft bill does not do this. Instead of allowing a
process that would permit informed decision-making, the bill
would eliminate the on-going review process. The bill would
further retroactively reinstate the Twin Metals' expired
leases, while rewriting the terms of those leases to convert
them into ``indeterminate'' leases, while further limiting
the federal government's ability to impose conditions on
these leases--giving to the company what appears to be
essentially a perpetual right to the federal minerals on
these lands. Further, the bill would do the same for all
other unidentified leases that may now exist on National
Forest Service lands within Minnesota, as well as any future
such leases.
The kind of mining that Twin Metals and Antofagasta propose
to develop is dangerous and poses a direct and substantial
threat to what has long been recognized as an exceptional and
extraordinary wilderness. Those threats should be carefully
assessed through the on-going administrative review process.
Congress should not enact laws that preclude informed
decision-making or which blindly re-write leases, but should
allow the federal agencies which have been delegated
responsibility for addressing the terms and conditions on
which federal lands may be leased, to continue to exercise
that authority under existing law. Finally, to the extent
that Twin Metals Mine contends that the federal government's
decision not to renew its leases is wrong, it has already
chosen to raise those claims in federal court, where they are
pending.
We urge Congress not to proceed with this draft bill.
Sincerely,
Kevin R. Dupuis, Sr.,
Chairman.
____
Grand Portage Reservation
Tribal Council,
Grand Portage, MN, April 29, 2016.
Hon. Tom Vilsack,
Secretary of Agriculture, U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Christina Goldfuss,
Director, Council on Environmental Quality, Washington, DC.
Hon. Sally Jewell,
Secretary of the Interior, U.S. Department of the Interior,
Washington, DC.
Dear Secretary Vilsack, Secretary Jewell, and Director
Goldfuss: The Grand Portage Band (``the Band'') is a
federally recognized Indian tribe, as one of the member bands
of the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe (``MCT''). The Band, along
with two other MCT Bands, Fond du Lac and Bois Forte, retain
hunting, fishing, and other usufructuary rights that extend
throughout the entire northeast portion of the state of
Minnesota under the 1854 Treaty of LaPointe (the ``Ceded
Territory''). In the Ceded Territory, all the Bands have a
legal interest in protecting natural resources and all
federal agencies share in the federal government's trust
responsibility to the Bands to maintain those treaty
resources.
The Band is concerned with the prospect of a series of
sulfide-ore mines being developed in the headwaters of the
Boundary Waters Canoe Area (``BWCA'') watershed. The BWCA
watershed is located on the Minnesota/Ontario border and is
entirely within the 1854 Ceded Territory. The BWCA watershed
is comprised of a vast area of pristine interconnected
waterways that have been used by the Chippewa for centuries.
Low buffering capacity of water and soil and the
interconnection of lakes and streams, make the BWCA watershed
particularly vulnerable to the impacts of mining.
Sulfide-ore mines are proposed to be built in the BWCA
watershed, immediately adjacent to the BWCA and upstream from
it. These mines would threaten to pollute pristine water and
damage the important forest habitat used by many types of
wildlife. Sulfide-ore mining has a consistent record of
devastating environmental harm, including contaminating
waters, degrading forests, and predicted, catastrophic spills
of toxic materials. There are inherent risks to sulfide-ore
mining, and it makes no sense to place what the Environmental
Protection Agency calls the nation's most toxic industry in
the BWCA watershed and within the Ceded Territory upon which
the Band relies.
Therefore, the Band is requesting that the Department of
interior and Department of Agriculture take steps to
permanently protect the Boundary Waters watershed front
[[Page H9503]]
sulfide-ore mining. Specifically, we urge you to:
1. Ensure that no leasing of federal minerals occurs within
the BWCA watershed by denying applications for new federal
mineral leases and federal mineral lease renewals.
2. Withdraw the federally owned minerals within the BWCA
watershed from the federal mineral leasing program.
3. Take any additional measures necessary to protect the
BWCA watershed from the threat of sulfide-ore mining.
We urge you to ensure that the full extent of the risks
posed by large-scale sulfide-ore mining in the BWCA
headwaters are thoroughly considered in order to determine
the best course for the future of the watershed and the
tribal communities who rely on its clean water and intact
forested habitats to exercise usufructuary rights.
Sincerely,
Norman W. Deschampe,
Chairman.
____
White Earth Reservation
Tribal Council,
White Earth, MN, May 23, 2016.
Hon. Tom Vilsack,
Secretary of Agriculture, U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Christina Goldfuss,
Director, Council on Environmental Quality,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Sally Jewell,
Secretary of the Interior, U.S. Department of the Interior,
Washington, DC.
Dear Secretary Vilsack, Secretary Jewell, and Director
Goldfuss: The Grand Portage Band (``the Band'') is a
federally recognized Indian tribe, as one of the member bands
of the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe (``MCT''). The Band, along
with two other MCT Bands, Fond duLac and Bois Forte, retain
hunting, fishing, and other usufructuary rights that extend
throughout the entire northeast portion of the state of
Minnesota under the 1854 Treaty of LaPointe. In the Ceded
Territory, all the Bands have a legal interest in protecting
natural resources and all federal agencies share in the
federal government's trust responsibility to the Bands to
maintain those treaty resources.
The Band is concerned with the prospect of a series of
sulfide-ore mines being developed in the headwaters of the
Boundary Waters Canoe Area (``BWCA'') watershed. The BWCA
watershed is located on the Minnesota/Ontario border and is
entirely within the 1854 Ceded Territory. The BWCA watershed
is comprised of a vast area of pristine interconnected
waterways that have been used by the Chippewa for centuries.
Low buffering capacity of water and soil and the
interconnection of lakes and streams, make the BWCA watershed
particularly vulnerable to the impacts of mining.
Sulfide-ore mines are proposed to be built in the BWCA
watershed, immediately adjacent to the BWCA and upstream from
it. These mines would threaten to pollute pristine water and
damage the important forest habitat used by many types of
wildlife. Sulfide-ore mining has a consistent record of
devastating environmental harm, including contaminating
waters, degrading forests, and unpredicted, catastrophic
spills of toxic materials.
There are inherent risks to sulfide-ore mining. and it
makes no sense to place what the Environmental Protection
Agency calls the nation's most toxic industry in the BWCA
watershed and within the Ceded Territory upon which the Band
relies.
Therefore, White Earth is requesting that the Department of
Interior and Department of Agriculture take steps to
permanently protect the Boundary Waters watershed from
sulfide-ore mining. Specifically, we urge you to:
1. Ensure that no leasing of federal minerals occurs within
the BWCA watershed by denying applications for new federal
mineral leases and federal mineral lease renewals.
2. Withdraw the federally owned minerals within the BWCA
watershed from the federal mineral leasing program.
3. Take any additional measures necessary to protect the
BWCA watershed from the threat of sulfide-ore mining.
We urge you to ensure that the full extent of the risks
posed by large-scale sulfide-ore mining in the BWCA
headwaters are thoroughly considered in order to determine
the best course for the future of the watershed and the
tribal communities who rely on its clean water and intact
forested habitats to exercise usufructuary rights.
Sincerely,
Steven ``Punky'' Clark,
Vice-Chairman.
____
Sportsmen for the
Boundary Waters,
Ely, MN, November 28, 2017.
Dear Representative: On behalf of our millions of members
and supporters, we urge you to OPPOSE H.R. 3905, the so-
called ``Minnesota's Economic Rights in the Superior National
Forest Act'' when it is considered on the House floor.
Simply put, H.R. 3905 is a bill to allow sulfide-ore mining
at the edge of the Boundary Water Canoe Area Wilderness
(BWCAW), directly threatening one of America's most
accessible and most-visited wilderness areas. At 1.1 million
acres in size, the BWCAW is the largest wilderness east of
the Rockies and north of the Everglades. This interconnected
system of lakes, rivers, and streams provides unparalleled
opportunities for solitude, recreation, hunting and fishing.
The connections between Northern Minnesota's national
forests, Boundary Water Canoe Area Wilderness, Voyageurs
National Park, and Quetico Provincial Park makes this entire
trans boundary area extremely susceptible to the threat of
pollution from sulfide-ore mining, one of the most toxic
industries in America, according to the EPA.
H.R. 3905 would require congressional approval of any
mineral withdrawal or monument designation involving National
Forest System lands in the State of Minnesota and would
provide for the perpetual renewal of federal mineral leases
in Minnesota, including two that were denied by the Forest
Service and the Bureau of Land Management. The bill
undermines the Antiquities Act, National Environmental Policy
Act, Federal Land Policy and Management Act, Boundary Waters
Wilderness Act, and other laws regulating mineral leasing in
Minnesota's national forests.
Contrary to the bill's title, H.R. 3905 would do more harm
than good for the economy of Northern Minnesota. Economic
analysis by Key-Log Economics LLC shows that sulfide-ore
mining on Superior National Forest lands in the watershed of
the Boundary Waters could lead to the loss of nearly 5,000
jobs in tourism, 5,000 to 22,000 jobs in the rest of the
economy, a $1.6 billion loss in annual income, and a $500
million reduction in private property values.
Specifically, we urge opposition to this bill because it
would:
Renew two expired and undeveloped mineral leases on
Superior National Forest lands next to the Boundary Waters
and along lakes and rivers that flow directly into the
Wilderness, advancing a foreign mining company's interests at
the expense of beloved American public lands.
Void the December 2016 record of decision by the Forest
Service withholding its consent to two mineral lease renewal
requests in the Superior National Forest due to the
unacceptable risks to this watershed, which according to the
Forest Service holds 20 percent of the National Forest
System's fresh water supply.
Undermine the National Environmental Policy Act by limiting
review of these two mineral leases to a 30-day environmental
assessment. Contrary to the bill language, there is no
`pending EA.' However, this section would override the
ongoing two-year Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)
initiated by the Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management
to carefully consider the potential impacts of sulfide-ore
mining on the Boundary Waters watershed. The ongoing EIS is
strongly supported by Minnesota's Governor Dayton and by the
citizens of Minnesota. More than 79% of Minnesota voters
support the study, while more than 126,000 citizens submitted
comments during the scoping phase.
Amend the 1906 Antiquities Act by mandating Congressional
approval for any national monument designations in
Minnesota's national forests. The Antiquities Act is a
bipartisan conservation law, which has been used by
Presidents of both parties, to protect irreplaceable federal
lands from potential threats. Monument designation under the
Antiquities Act have provided protections for areas including
the Grand Canyon, Acadia, Zion, Muir Woods, and Olympic
National Parks. Quite simply, this attack on the Antiquities
Act is an attack against our national parks and monuments.
Amend the 1976 Federal Land Policy and Management Act
(FLPMA) by mandating Congressional approval for mineral
withdrawals in Minnesota's national forests. Additionally,
FLPMA intentionally left intact the presidential power to
protect public lands as monuments.
Bar the Forest Service from complying with its legal
obligations under the 1978 Boundary Waters Wilderness Act. In
this Act Congress requires the Forest Service to maintain the
high-water quality of the Boundary Waters and a Mining
Protection Area within the Superior National Forest. The
Forest Service concluded that sulfide-ore mining near the
Boundary Waters would be ``contrary to Congress'
determination that it is necessary to `protect the special
qualities of the [BWCAW] as a natural forest-lakeland
wilderness ecosystem of major esthetic, scientific,
recreational and educational value to the Nation.' ''
Make all mineral leases on Minnesota's national forests
essentially perpetual. The `perpetual' nature of these leases
is material change in long-standing mineral leasing law and
policy. The bill would also override the two laws (1946 and
1950) on mineral leasing in Minnesota's national forests that
require Forest Service consent to any mining.
Ignore the request of the International Joint Commission
that environmental review of impacts on trans boundary water
quality and cumulative effects be studied and the requests of
four tribal entities (the area is Ceded Territory).
Thank you for considering our concerns. In order to
adequately protect iconic places like the Boundary Waters,
Voyageurs National Park, and all of Minnesota's public lands,
and bedrock environmental laws like the Antiquities Act and
the National Environmental Policy Act, we urge you to OPPOSE
H.R. 3905.
Sincerely,
Backcountry Hunters & Anglers.
National Wildlife Federation.
Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership.
Fly Fishers
[[Page H9504]]
International.
Minnesota Division, Izaak Walton League of America.
American Fly Fishing Trade Association.
Pope and Young Club.
Keepitpublic.org.
____
Girl Scouts of Minnesota and Wisconsin Lakes and Pines,
November 26, 2017.
Dear Member of Congress, I am writing to request you vote
no on H.R. 3905, which is a bill that would stop a 2-year
Forest Service study of environmental, economic, and social
risks to the Boundary Waters from sulfide-ore copper mining
on Superior National Forest lands in the headwaters of the
Boundary Waters Canoe Area.
For over fifty years, Northern Lakes Canoe Base has offered
wilderness canoe trips in the Boundary Waters Canoe Area
Wilderness (BWCAW). I guided Girl Scout canoe trips for five
years and have directed our wilderness program for 7 years
and am writing this letter to describe the strengths of this
program to you and to underscore the fact that this one-of-a-
kind program cannot exist anywhere other than the Boundary
Waters.
Girls who come on our canoe trips may have had basic
camping and canoeing experiences, but few have experience in
wilderness travel. We typically serve 150-200 girls a summer.
In general, girls travel in wilderness areas less than
boys. Even in 2017, girls are taught to think that the
outdoors is no place for a girl because it is hard work,
dirty, and going to the mall is just much easier. We teach
teenage girls, in a girl-only environment, that their
individual strength and the power of teamwork is far greater
than they ever imagined. They also learn that hard work and
dirt is part of the fun on a Boundary Waters canoe trip, and
they leave with an appreciation for the beauty of wilderness
and an understanding of the challenges they now know they can
overcome. Girl Scout wilderness canoe trips bring out the
best in teenage girls; we see how creative, hardworking, and
kind they can be to each other. It doesn't take much
imagination to believe that these traits will follow them
back to their everyday life.
We are a high quality, affordable program and pride
ourselves on our thriftiness. We use our canoes for 20+
seasons and packs and paddles summer after summer. We do this
so we can serve girls from all economic backgrounds,
including local iron range and Native American communities.
For years we have received feedback from participants
crediting their Boundary Waters experience for continued,
life-long growth. Our program cannot exist somewhere other
than the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness. No other
place on earth offers the perfect combination of
accessibility and high adventure that the BWCAW offers. Many
of our participants drive to Ely from Chicago, Milwaukee, and
Minneapolis. Many others fly to Minneapolis and then rent a
car to get to Ely. Unlike many other wilderness areas which
may be high on a mountain range or only accessible by high-
clearance vehicles, it is easy for a mom or dad to drive a
van full of girls to the Boundary Waters, send them on a
trip, and then pick them up a week later.
The Boundary Waters is also unique in that, unlike many
other wilderness areas, visitors don't require any previous
experience or training to have a safe, adventurous trip.
Anyone seeking adventure and challenge belongs on a canoe
trip, not just body builders and endurance athletes. We have
even seen that a Girl Scout canoe trip sometimes inspires
girls who may be uninterested in athletics or leadership to
seek out their own creative ways to be active and healthy,
leading to improved confidence and greater aspirations.
Again, it doesn't take much imagination to conclude that
girls who experience wilderness travel will go on to make the
world a better place.
Girl Scouts canoe trip participants always remark that the
solitude they find in the Boundary Waters is unlike any they
have found elsewhere, whether at their own Girl Scout
resident camp or a state or national park. The quiet
environment of a protected wilderness area gives them an
opportunity to reflect on their life in a way that they could
not in a non-wilderness setting. Girl Scouts end their canoe
trip with a swagger to their step, ready to take on any
challenge that comes their way.
Thank you for doing your part to preserve the Boundary
Waters Canoe Area Wilderness by voting no on H.R. 3905. It
means a lot to all of us in Ely whose programs and businesses
are focused around wilderness travel.
Sincerely,
Ann McNally,
Northern Lakes Canoe Base
Summer Program Director/Guide.
____
November 28, 2017.
Dear Representative: Representative Tom Emmer's bill, H.R.
3905, is a dangerous piece of legislation that endangers the
public land we as veterans fought to protect. This bill would
allow a foreign mining conglomerate, Antofagasta, to build
dangerous copper-nickel mines in the headwaters of America's
most visited Wilderness Area, the Boundary Waters Canoe Area
Wilderness in Northeastern Minnesota. On behalf of Veterans
for the Boundary Waters, I urge you to vote no on H.R. 3905.
The Boundary Waters is a place of healing for many veterans
suffering from trauma or having difficulty readjusting to
life at home. The peace found in this Wilderness is
priceless, and if destroyed, we will be robbing future
veterans of their chance to heal. One specific camp, Voyageur
Outward Bound School (VOBS), provides vets-only trips to help
veterans readjust to life at home through Wilderness
experiences. This program has been incredibly successful.
Unfortunately, VOBS is located on the same lake as the
proposed mines and, if passed, H.R. 3905 would cause this
camp to shut down, eliminating hundreds of American jobs by
moving to Canada, and eliminating and the opportunity for
veterans to take advantage of these incredibly beneficial
programs.
If passed, H.R. 3905 would have severe negative
consequences for veterans in Minnesota and across the
country. The Boundary Waters and Voyageurs National Park are
public lands that are meant to be protected for veterans and
their families to enjoy. H.R. 3905 would endanger these
public lands and prohibit future generations of veterans from
experiencing these national treasures. We have an obligation
to honor our nation's veterans by protecting the same public
lands they fought for.
Again, please VOTE NO on H.R. 3905.
Sincerely,
Erik Packard, Staff Sergeant U.S. Army and Army Reserve
1996-2004, 2006-2013; Joe Banavige, US Army Officer, Desert
Storm 1st Armored Division; Craig Shaver, US Marine Corps
Infantry, Operation Enduring Freedom; Sergio Manacero, 1st
Combat Engineer Batallion, 1st Marine Division.
____
November 6, 2017.
Re: H.R. 3905.
Member of the U.S. House Natural Resources Committee, House
of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Member of the U.S. House Natural Resources Committee:
The undersigned coalitions, organizations, and businesses
represent approximately 18 million sportsmen and sportswomen,
282 businesses, and the broad spectrum of users of the
Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness from across America. We
stand united in strong opposition to H.R. 3905.
H.R. 3905 would require congressional approval of any
mineral withdrawal or monument designation involving National
Forest System lands in the State of Minnesota and would
provide for the renewal of two federal mineral leases that
were denied by the Forest Service and the Bureau of Land
Management. Specifically, the bill would:
Renew two mineral leases on Superior National Forest lands
next to the Boundary Waters and along lakes and rivers that
flow directly into the Wilderness. The now-expired mineral
leases have never been developed into a mine.
Void the 18-page record of decision by the Forest Service
withholding its consent to two mineral lease renewal
requests. Peer-reviewed science documents that sulfide-ore
copper mining on these lease areas would pollute the Boundary
Waters. An overwhelming majority of the public supports this
decision and by more than two to one, opposes copper mining
near the Boundary Waters (2017 Fabrizio Ward poll).
Undermine the National Environmental Policy Act by limiting
review of these two mineral leases to a 30-day environmental
assessment. Contrary to the bill language, there is no
`pending EA.' The expired mineral leases have never undergone
environmental review. Scientific evidence documents the
potential for negative environmental harm to a national
wilderness area (Boundary Waters) and a national park
(Voyageurs National Park) if mining were allowed on these
lease areas, and NEPA requires unrestricted environmental
review.
Make all mineral leases on Minnesota's national forests
essentially perpetual. The `perpetual' nature of these leases
is material change in long-standing mineral leasing law and
policy.
Over-ride the two laws (1946 and 1950) on mineral leasing
in Minnesota's national forests that require Forest Service
consent to any mining.
Amend the 1906 Antiquities Act by mandating Congressional
approval for any national monument designations in
Minnesota's national forests.
Amend the 1976 Federal Land Policy and Management Act by
mandating Congressional approval for mineral withdrawals in
Minnesota's national forests
Bar the Forest Service from complying with its legal
obligations under the 1978 Boundary Waters Wilderness Act.
Ignore the request of the International Joint Commission
that environmental review of impacts on transboundary water
quality and cumulative effects be studied and the requests of
four tribal entities (the area is Ceded Territory).
The Boundary Waters is the most-accessible and most-visited
Wilderness area in the nation. It draws 155,000 visitors
every year and provides unparalleled backcountry
opportunities. At 1.1 million acres in size, it is the
largest Wilderness east of the Rockies and north of the
Everglades. The vast network of lakes, rivers, and streams
that gives the Boundary Waters its name is the basis of our
strong canoe culture. The Boundary Waters includes 1,200
miles of canoe and kayak routes and 2,000 designated
campsites, and is home to some of the finest backcountry
angling and hunting in the nation. Sportsmen and women ply
the clean waters and healthy forests of the Wilderness in
pursuit of walleye, bass, pike, trout, bear, deer, grouse,
and wild rice.
[[Page H9505]]
The scientific evidence of harm to the Boundary Waters from
sulfide-ore copper mining in the watershed is strong.
Hydrologists say that pollution is inevitable--it is not `if'
but `when.' Hardrock mining is the most toxic industry in
America, according to the EPA. The acid mine drainage
associated with this type of mining harms water, aquatic and
terrestrial species, forests, and soils, and poses a serious
risk to human health. Scientific and economic studies show
that sulfide-ore copper mining along lakes and streams that
flow directly into the Boundary Waters puts at risk not only
our premiere fishing, hunting, and recreation on Superior
National Forest lands, but also the strong, stable economy of
Northeastern Minnesota. Economic analysis by Key-Log
Economics LLC shows that sulfide-ore copper mining on
Superior National Forest lands in the watershed of the
Boundary Waters could lead to the loss of nearly 5,000 jobs
in tourism, 5,000 to 22,000 jobs in the rest of the economy,
a $1.6 billion loss in annual income, and a $500 million
reduction in private property values.
H.R. 3905, an ill-advised effort to advance a foreign
mining company's interests at the expense of beloved public
lands, would gut long-standing and powerful national
conservation laws and undermine recent decisions by the
Department of Interior and Department of Agriculture to take
a two-year pause in mining-related activity to analyze the
risks of sulfide-ore copper mining in the watershed of the
Boundary Waters.
Agriculture Secretary Perdue and Interior Secretary Zinke
support the ongoing Forest Service two-year study. H.R. 3905
would remove authority for them and their agencies to make
appropriate and reasonable decisions to manage the Superior
National Forest and the Boundary Waters.
The ongoing two-year Forest Service study was initiated by
the Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management after
careful consideration of the potential impacts of sulfide-ore
copper mining in the Boundary Waters watershed. It is
strongly supported by Minnesota's Governor Dayton and by the
citizens of Minnesota. More than 79% of Minnesota voters
support the study. More than 126,000 citizens submitted
comments during the scoping phase and more than 3,000 people
participated in three Forest Service listening sessions and,
by a margin of nearly two-to-one, testified in support of
protecting the Boundary Waters.
Sincerely,
Sportsmen for the Boundary Waters, By Jason Zabokrtsky,
Chair, Representing 15 hunting and fishing organizations;
Boundary Waters Business Coalition, By Steve Piragis, Chair,
Representing 282 businesses from Minnesota and throughout
America; Campaign to Save the Boundary Waters; By Becky Rom,
Chair; Representing 26 conservation organizations; Veterans
for the Boundary Waters; By Erik Packard, Chair, Representing
military veterans; Girl Scouts and Boy Scouts for the
Boundary Waters, By Ann McNally, Chair.
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to join them
and to join me in opposing this bill, and I thank the gentleman from
California for the time.
{time} 1545
Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. LaMalfa).
Mr. LaMALFA. Mr. Speaker, as a Californian who lives in a very rural
part of the State that is economically in huge pain, when I see an
opportunity for people in rural America to prosper, to do well, I see,
in H.R. 3905, again, this opportunity for the people in Minnesota.
The MINER Act, introduced by the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr.
Emmer), will put it on the right track toward being able to extract the
minerals that are needed for production of taking raw materials and
making them into finished products here in the United States.
This bill addresses a 230,000-acre mineral withdrawal from Superior
National Forest in Minnesota, which, really, it is about jobs and
economic growth, while also maintaining clear standards for all
projects across the Nation.
Indeed, this is a very narrow bill. It explores the possibilities,
which is only a small step. Indeed, if mining was to occur, there is a
litany of permits, years of process required to take that following
step.
Indeed, the arbitrary decision, the day before President Obama left
office, halted a $400 million project, jeopardized 17,000 American
jobs, cut $3 billion from K-12 schools, and slashed $2.5 billion
annually from local governments and the State.
These types of effects I feel in my own district where our industries
have been taken away. Any time there is a proposal to do anything like
that, whether it is timber harvest, mining, or whatever, you then hear
about how the whole zone is pristine and unique, never been touched.
These operations can happen environmentally correctly, environmentally
soundly, and that is the standard for which we have in this country, is
that we will do things correctly now, and we will put them back when we
are done.
Though a 20-year moratorium was imposed on the area, similar plans
for mining have previously been approved by Congress twice. Mining
operations across the country already commit to a strict environmental
review process to ensure the public safety and the protection of
natural resources, as we all expect. You mine an area under the strict
guidelines, and you reclaim it.
In most cases, mining companies must also put up bonds to pay for
cleanup, sometimes for billions of dollars before a single shovel is
ever turned. In this case, we are talking about exploration of the area
to see what the potential is.
This bill does not overturn existing Federal, State, or local
environmental reviews. Instead, it ensures all projects are held to
clear, consistent requirements, not arbitrary political decisions.
Allowing politicians to prohibit one project or another, based solely
on a whim, goes against American ideals of fairness and equal
opportunity.
These minerals are essential to our economy. To those claiming that
mining will damage the environment, I would ask you this: Where would
you prefer that these minerals come from? Do you want the mining to
occur here in America, under these kinds of strict guidelines, bring
American jobs to the front; or do we want to do it elsewhere in the
world, places like China and others that have little respect for the
environmental process or review or operations that are sustainable?
I think we should have it here. Where would you have us get our
minerals? Where would you have us get the rare earth materials that are
needed for production of new technologies?
H.R. 3905 protects Minnesota's economy, schools, and State budget; it
protects the rule of law; and it protects the domestic access to these
important materials and minerals we need to have our economy get
stronger--a very narrow scope; it is sound legislation and sound
policy.
Mr. Speaker, I urge swift passage of this important legislation.
Mr. LOWENTHAL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Minnesota (Mr. Paulsen).
Mr. PAULSEN. Mr. Speaker, I want to speak in opposition to this
legislation, and here is why: it threatens Minnesota's Boundary Waters
Canoe Area; it stops the scientific environmental review that is going
on right now; it weakens the Antiquities Act; and it singles out
Minnesota's national forests as not being allowed the same
environmental protections that national forests in every other State
receive.
Now, northern Minnesota has a rich history of taconite mining. But
the mine that is being proposed on the doorstep of the Boundary Waters,
America's most-visited wilderness, is a massive copper-sulfide mine,
something we have no history of in Minnesota. It would threaten some of
the cleanest and most pristine water and lakes in the country.
Today, there is a 2-year review going on of the mining leases to
analyze the risks of copper-sulfide mining in the watershed of the
Boundary Waters. It is based on science. It is supported by Secretary
Perdue. It is supported by Secretary Zinke. And I should note that
Secretary Zinke is supporting a similar review of a proposed mine in
Montana that borders Yellowstone National Park.
But this bill halts that scientific review and automatically grants
the leases for the mine. If this becomes law, Minnesota's land and
water would be singled out as not worthy of the exact same
environmental review and protections that exist in every other State in
the country.
It carves out a special exemption for Minnesota from the Antiquities
Act, which has been used on a bipartisan basis by 16 Presidents as a
conservation tool to protect America's history for future generations.
And why should the land and history in Minnesota be less worthy of
protection?
There are the public comments from more than 100,000 people, Mr.
Speaker, that would be tossed aside.
Mr. Speaker, the Boundary Waters is Minnesota's Yellowstone. Hundreds
of thousands of people canoe and fish
[[Page H9506]]
there annually every year. It is a national treasure.
Some of the best memories of my life have taken place in the Boundary
Waters as I grew up or, now, with my daughters. We owe it to future
generations to understand the impact that copper-sulfide mining poses
to the Boundary Waters Canoe Area; and that is why I am voting ``no''
on a bill that undermines science and puts Minnesota's water at risk.
Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
Arkansas (Mr. Westerman).
Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Arizona (Mr.
Gosar), my friend and colleague, for yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 3905, the Minnesota's
Economic Rights in the Superior National Forest Act, or the MINER Act.
This act does not remove or reduce the permitting requirements should a
future project ultimately be developed in the Superior National Forest.
But nearly a year after President Obama's departure from the White
House, I stand before this body to speak in favor of a bill that would
rectify an injustice placed upon Minnesotans by the previous
administration.
As we have heard throughout this debate, on President Obama's last
day in office, the previous administration pulled such a politically
motivated stunt that appears more as a thumb-in-the-eye of hardworking
Minnesotans than sound policy.
Without a second thought, and one stroke of his pen, President Obama
proposed withdrawing over 200,000 acres from future mineral exploration
while, simultaneously, rejecting a renewal application for a hard rock
mining operation that had been renewed in 1989 and 2004, without
controversy.
This decision endangered thousands of jobs. These are good-paying
jobs that are significantly higher than the median average wage in
Minnesota and the United States. Additionally, that decision could
devastate the State's permanent school trust fund that will support
nearly 900,000 K-12 students statewide if the withdrawal application
and canceled leases are not rejected. At a time when it is vital that
our teachers and students are given the resources they require, it
would be foolish to allow this to take place.
Some may ask why a Member from Arkansas would care about this
decision. It is close to 1,000 miles away from my district to the
Superior National Forest. The answer though is twofold, and it is
simple.
The first, it restores Federal land management oversight back to
where it belongs, the United States Congress. H.R. 3905 will prevent
executive order overreach by requiring congressional approval of all
mineral or monument withdrawals within National Forest System lands in
Minnesota and reverses the unwarranted action taken under the Obama
administration to unilaterally block responsible mineral development in
the Superior National Forest.
Secondly, as someone who represents communities, counties, and
schools that depend on the safe, responsible harvest and mining of our
natural resources, I understand the real devastation that will take
place, not only in Minnesota, but possibly in my district and other
areas across the country if H.R. 3905 is not passed.
Mr. Speaker, for the protection of our constitutional system of
checks and balances, and preservation of rural economies, I believe
that it is vital that we pass this piece of legislation. I encourage my
colleagues to vote in favor of H.R. 3905.
Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter from 53 bipartisan
Minnesota State legislators, a letter from Jobs for Minnesotans, and a
letter from the Minnesota Pipe Trades Association.
November 27, 2017.
Congressman Tom Emmer,
Washington, DC.
Dear Congressman Emmer: As elected leaders of the Minnesota
Legislature, we are writing in strong support of H.R. 3905.
This legislation supports jobs, economic development and
industry in Northeast Minnesota, and will reverse an onerous,
overreaching and politically-motivated decision by the Obama
Administration that withdrew nearly 240,000 acres of federal
lands and minerals from potential development. H.R. 3905 will
halt these last-minute land withdrawals, reinstate leases
affected by that decision including the Twin Metals' lease,
and require congressional approval for any future withdrawal
actions.
The decision by the Obama Administration last January put
jobs and nearly $2.5 billion of our state's economy at risk.
Furthermore, it risked the depression of the precious metals,
technology, infrastructure and manufacturing industries in
our state, and the economic well-being of Northeast
Minnesota--a region where mining has been an economic anchor
since the late nineteenth century. And that's not to mention
the estimated four billion ton deposit of copper, nickel, and
other strategic minerals located within the Duluth Complex
which could generate as much as $3 billion in royalty
revenues for the state's Permanent School Trust Fund--
resources that would support education for nearly 900,000 K-
12 students across the state.
H.R. 3905 also reaffirms our shared commitment to the
protection of our environment and support of a thorough and
proper environmental review process for the mineral leases,
as well as upholds our state's commitment to restricting
mineral development in the Boundary Waters Canoe Area
Wilderness and Mine Protection Area.
The expansion of the precious metals mining industry offers
generations of Minnesotans thousands of good-paying jobs,
billions of dollars in investment in industry, and billions
of dollars in revenue for Minnesota schools. Moreover, it
provides an incredible opportunity to further establish our
nation's economic and energy independence from foreign
nations. The decision to remove vast amounts of federal land
from potential development and blocking the Twin Metals'
federal mineral lease renewal was short-sighted and damaging.
H.R. 3905 has our bipartisan support, and it is our sincere
hope that it will become law for the well-being of our state
and its citizens.
Sincerely,
Rep. Kurt Daudt, Speaker of the House; Rep. Joyce Peppin,
Majority Leader Leader; Rep. Dan Fabian, Environment
Committee Chair, House District 1A; Sen. Bill Ingebrigtesen,
Environment Committee Chair, Senate District 8; Rep. Pat
Garofalo, Jobs and Energy Committee Chair, House District
58B; Sen. Jerry Newton, Senate District 37, Legislative
School Trust Commission; Rep. Julie Sandstede, House District
6A, Legislative School Trust Commission; Sen. Paul Gazelka,
Majority Leader; Sen. Tom Bakk, Senate District 3; Rep. Chris
Swedzinski, Mining and Outdoor Recreation Chair, House
District 16A; Sen. David Tomassoni, Environment Committee
Ranking Member, Senate District 6; Rep. Rob Ecklund,
Assistant Minority Leader, House District 3A; Rep. Sandy
Layman, House District 5B, Legislative School Trust
Commission; Rep. Dale Lueck, House District 10B, Legislative
School Trust Commission; Sen. John Hoffman, Senate District
36, Legislative School Trust Commission.
Rep. Brian Daniels, House District 24B; Rep. Brian Johnson,
House District 32A; Rep. Rod Hamilton, House District 22B;
Rep. Sondra Erickson, House District 15A; Rep. Bob Gunther,
House District; Rep. Steve Drazkowski, House District 21B;
Sen. Justin Eichorn, Senate District 5, Legislative School
Trust Commission; Rep. Jim Nash, House District 47A; Rep.
Jason Rarick, House District 11B; Rep. Mary Franson, House
District 8B; Rep. Jon Koznick, House District 58A; Rep. Paul
Torkelson, House District 16B; Rep. Tony Albright, House
District 55B; Rep. Bob Dettmer, House District 39A; Rep. Josh
Heintzeman, House District 10A; Rep. Kathy Lohmer, House
District 39B; Rep. Linda Runbeck, House District 38A; Rep.
Bob Loonan, House District 55A; Rep. Glenn Gruenhagen, House
District 18B; Rep. John Poston, House District 9A; Rep. Cal
Bahr, House District 31B.
Rep. Cindy Pugh, House District 33B; Rep. Roz Peterson,
House District 56B; Rep. Barb Haley, House District 21A; Rep.
Deb Kiel, House District 1B; Rep. Matt Dean, House District
38B; Rep. Dean Urdahl, House District 18A; Rep. Tama Theis,
House District 14A; Rep. Steve Green, House District 2B; Rep.
Matt Bliss, House District; Rep. Mike Sundin, House District
11A; Rep. Dave Baker, House District 17B; Sen. Mary
Kiffmeyer, Senate District 30; Sen. Jerry Relph, Senate
District 14; Rep. Tim Miller, House District 17A; Rep. Mary
Kunesh-Podein, House District 41B, Legislative School Trust
Commission; Sen. Mark Johnson, Senate District 1; Sen. Paul
Utke 2, Senate District.
____
Jobs for Minnesotans,
Nov. 22, 2017.
Re In Support of MINER Act.
Hon. Erik Paulsen,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Congressman Paulsen: I'm writing on behalf of
legislation described below but wanted to let you know I had
submitted a request to meet in person, as I plan to be in
Washington the week after Thanksgiving. I hope you have time
to meet with me. Thank you for considering.
On behalf of the coalition Jobs for Minnesotans, which
represents business, labor and communities across the state,
I am writing in strong support of H.R. 3905, the Minnesota's
Economic Rights in the Superior National Forest Act, known as
the MINER Act. This bipartisan legislation sponsored by
Congressman Tom Emmer (MN-6th) and co-sponsored by
Congressmen Collin Peterson (MN-7th), Jason Lewis (MN-2nd)
and Paul Gosar (AZ-4th) seeks to ensure the proper
consideration of future job growth and economic opportunity
in northeastern Minnesota by requiring congressional approval
[[Page H9507]]
of any mineral withdrawal or monument designation involving
the National Forest System lands in the state. It also
provides for the renewal of certain mineral leases and
ensuring that future leases in northeastern Minnesota remain
valid and renewed as outlined by current law. H.R. 3905 is
currently before the House Rules Committee and is expected to
reach the House floor in coming weeks.
H.R. 3905 leaves intact existing environmental review
processes and standards and restates Congress' prohibition of
any mining activity in the Boundary Waters Canoe Area
Wilderness (BWCAW) and surrounding protective buffer. As
such, it reaffirms long-standing Congressional intent in
management and development of critical minerals in Minnesota
and cuts bureaucratic delays in assessing responsible mine
project proposals.
Unfortunately, federal agency actions in December 2016
jeopardized the economic future of the region by canceling
valid, long-standing federal mineral leases and withdrawing
235,000 acres of federal land in the region from future
mining development. This was contrary to the previous
directives by Congress in 1950 and again in 1978. In 1950
Congress made land available for mineral exploration and
development within the Superior National Forest (SNF) within
the Iron Range region. In 1978, while Congress prohibited
mining within the BWCAW and an adjacent protective buffer
zone, it also reaffirmed that mining should be allowed and
promoted in the remaining area of the SNF.
The agency actions in 2016 would block the potential
creation of thousands of jobs, billions of dollars in
economic growth, and billions more in revenues for
Minnesota's public schools through mineral development on
state school trust lands.
H.R. 3905 aims to correct these injustices, which is why we
strongly urge you to cast your vote in support of it. Thank
you very much.
Sincerely,
Nancy Norr,
Board Chair,
Jobs for Minnesotans.
____
Minnesota Pipe
Trades Association,
November 28, 2017.
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Representative: On behalf of more than 9500 men and
women working in various piping related industries throughout
the state of Minnesota, I am writing to express our support
of H.R. 3905, Minnesota's Economic Rights (MINER) in the
Superior National Forest Act.
On January 5, 2017, the previous administration proposed a
234, 328-acre federal mineral withdrawal of National Forest
System lands, for a 20-year term, within the Rainy River
Watershed in the Superior National Forest. The action
immediately placed this area off limits to development for up
to two years while the withdrawal is considered. The total
withdrawal application boundary spans 425,000 acres,
including 95,000 acres of state school trust fund lands.
With this policy in place, Minnesotans lost their mineral
rights. Unable to utilize these natural resources, 17,000
jobs are at risk and roughly $2.5 billion of economic
activity is jeopardized. Many members of the Minnesota Pipe
Trades Association are depending on these jobs.
The Minnesota Pipe Trades Association (MPTA) fully supports
the thorough regulatory process in place in the State of
Minnesota. It is our belief this process is adequate in
determining whether a project should move forward. or not.
As a result, MPTA is in support of H.R. 3905, Minnesota's
Economic Rights (MINER) in the Superior National Forest Act,
and urge the immediate passage of this bi-partisan
legislation.
Sincerely,
David M. Ybarra II,
President,
Minnesota Pipe Trades Association.
Mr. LOWENTHAL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
Minnesota (Mr. Ellison).
Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Speaker, one of the things that I am most proud of
is being from Minnesota. What a beautiful State that we have. People
joke about how cold it is in the wintertime, but let me tell you,
Minnesota is awesome all year round.
One of the things that we are so proud of is the Boundary Waters. Mr.
Speaker, look at this picture. This is no glossed-up photo. This is
what it looks like. It is awesome.
Back before I was in Congress, I was able to bring young people to
the Boundary Waters who were court-involved. Mr. Speaker, one day a
judge asked me: Hey, Ellison, come up here. You want to take some kids
to the Boundary Waters?
I said: Fine. I kept doing it for 5 years straight because I loved
the place.
Yet this bill will perhaps damage all that, all that beauty, that gem
of our State, which not only is a beautiful place that needs to be
preserved for people, but also is a job-generator. A lot of people earn
good livings because of the Boundary Waters, and if we just do this,
pass this bill, what it will do is jeopardize their livelihood and our
crown jewel of our State.
This bill will grant a mining company the right to build sulfide-ore
copper mines along rivers and lakes that flow directly into the
Boundary Waters. Sulfide-ore copper mining has never been done without
polluting water, and thousands of communities and wildlife will be at
risk.
When you mine sulfide ore, water and air interact to create sulfuric
acid. One leak or spill would contaminate substantial portions of the
Boundary Waters, decimating wildlife and habitat, and destroying the
livelihoods of so many Minnesota workers.
The Boundary Waters, the waters of the Boundary Waters, are
especially vulnerable to acid mine drainage because they lack a
buffering capacity.
This bill is a bad idea, and I urge Members to vote ``no.'' This bill
will undermine core environmental laws, including the Antiquities Act,
the Federal Land Policy and Management Act, and the National
Environmental Policy Act.
The Antiquities Act is a bipartisan conservation law to protect
irreplaceable Federal lands, including in the Grand Canyon, Acadia
Forest, Zion, Muir Woods in California, and the Olympic National Parks.
If they undermine the Antiquities Act, what else is in danger? Well, I
would say every national treasure of the United States.
This attack on the Antiquities Act is an attack against our national
parks and monuments, making this not only a Minnesota issue, but a
national issue.
This bill would permanently lock in all mineral leases on Minnesota's
national forests by overriding two laws on mineral leasing in
Minnesota's national forests that require Forest Service consent to any
mining. They don't want to go around the regular process. They want to
use Congress to short-circuit that process.
If you have never been to the Boundary Waters, as I said, I urge you
to go there. If you vote ``no'' on this bill, you will not just be
protecting the Boundary Waters for yourself and people around all over
the United States, you will be protecting it for your grandchildren.
Much is said here about children and grandchildren. Think about the
Boundary Waters when you think about the legacy that we are leaving our
grandchildren and how H.R. 3905 would destroy and jeopardize that
legacy.
Economic analysis by Key-Log Economics shows that sulfide-ore mining
on the Superior National Forest lands and the watershed of the Boundary
Waters could lead to a loss of 5,000 jobs in tourism, 5,000 to 20,000
jobs in the rest of the economy.
{time} 1600
As people tout this bill as a job creator, it is a job destroyer. I
would tell you that, if you are an outfitter or you are a wilderness
guide or you are a forest ranger, your job is just as important as
anybody else's. What this bill is saying is, no, your job is no good.
Nobody cares about it. Only the mine companies' interests are
important.
We could stand to lose $1.6 billion in annual income and $500 million
in reduction in private property values because of this piece of
legislation.
We shouldn't have to choose between a robust economy and a clean
environment. We can and must have both. Saying ``no'' to this piece of
legislation gives us a chance at both. Voting for it makes us pick one
over the other, and not just economic interests, but certain
interests--not everyone's.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. LOWENTHAL. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the
gentleman from Minnesota.
Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the
extra time.
Mr. Speaker, the Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management are
studying this issue, but the author doesn't want to wait for the study
because he knows the study is not going to help. They just want to
drive this mine straight through without doing the proper care.
More than 126,000 Americans participated in the study and asked for
protection of the Boundary Waters. Minnesota voters oppose copper
mining near the Boundary Waters by more than 2 to 1, and 79 percent
support the current study.
[[Page H9508]]
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this. This is a
bad bill. It is not good legislation, and the damage it will do is not
Republican nor is it Democratic. It is American. Vote ``no.''
Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Minnesota (Mr. Emmer), the originator of this bill.
Mr. EMMER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for the additional
time, and I recognize my esteemed colleague, the Representative from
Minnesota, for his love of the Boundary Waters that we both share.
Mr. Speaker, I want to address the Representative from California
first on the claim that H.R. 3905 solely benefits a foreign mining
company.
I think you should ask the people of our State. You should ask a
gentleman by the name of Dan Forsman, who, as a Minnesotan, has a
family heritage of benefiting by mining in our State. He was recently
ridiculed by environmentalists in The New York Times because, while he
loves the place where he lives, he also wants to make a living in the
place where he lives. There are several other companies exploring the
area.
Teck has nonferrous mineral holdings within the proposed withdrawal,
the potential development of which would be greatly impacted by the
withdrawal.
Encampment Minerals, Inc., also has a nonferrous mineral holding
within the withdrawal area and is awaiting Federal agency action on a
submitted preference right lease application.
Future expansion of the Northshore Mining taconite mine could extend
into the withdrawal area and, thus, be impacted by the withdrawal.
PolyMet has invested hundreds of millions on projects that will be
negatively impacted by the proposed mineral withdrawal, one of which we
voted on here last night.
Further, the withdrawal proposal will seriously hinder the State's
ability to seek mineral development of more than 90,000 acres of State
school trust fund lands within the withdrawal area.
Twin Metals is a Minnesota company and has been part of the
northeastern Minnesota community for 10 years. The company has invested
more than $400 million in project development activities, investing in
new facilities in the city of Ely, providing local employment
opportunities and supporting hundreds of local jobs in the
construction, consulting, and contracting sectors. By the way, they
also support all the outfitters, the wonderful businesses of tourism.
Twin Metals has also contributed more than $320,000 to local
philanthropic needs and organizations.
Mr. Speaker, I would add that nothing in this bill alters any current
environmental law or protection. The Antiquities Act, the Federal Land
Policy and Management Act, NEPA, and all the other laws still apply to
Minnesota.
At the end of the day, we are protecting the Boundary Waters, we are
protecting the Superior National Forest, and we believe both the
economy and tourism, the environment, can coexist in northern
Minnesota.
Mr. LOWENTHAL. Mr. Speaker, how much time do I have remaining?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California has 9\1/2\
minutes remaining.
Mr. LOWENTHAL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, we have heard a lot about jobs. Jobs, this is going to
be great job creator, this mine. I just want to highlight, though, some
of the very inaccurate numbers that have been tossed around today.
The sponsor of the bill earlier today said that 10,000 jobs would be
created. The majority's legislative analysis says that the bill will
create 17,000 jobs, but that is not correct. That is not correct. Even
the company behind the project doesn't claim that many jobs.
In their May 2017 fact sheet, and this is the fact sheet for Twin
Metals of Minnesota, they report that once operational, they will
directly employ 650 people and ``will create an estimated 1,300 spinoff
jobs in other industries.'' That is 1,950 jobs. That is good, but that
is a long way and a far cry from 10,000 or 17,000 jobs.
Let's also look at the down side. An economic study of the tourism
industry in the region has shown that putting in a copper mine could
result in the loss of nearly 5,000 direct jobs and up to 22,000
indirect jobs.
That is a terrible tradeoff, and that means that this mine is
potentially a net job destroyer, not a creator.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to protect jobs and to oppose H.R.
3905.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to make sure that my friends on the other
side are aware of a simple fact, and that fact is very important in
this debate: water flows downhill.
They make a big deal about the fact that no mining would take place
in the Boundary Waters, but how happy would you be if someone dumped
millions of gallons of toxic waste just uphill from your home and said
not to worry because they didn't dump anything in your house?
These leases that we are talking about are right on the border of the
Boundary Waters wilderness area. Take a look at this map. These red
parts are the leases we are talking about. There is no gap. There is no
buffer. Any acid mine waste from these leases will flow right into the
Boundary Waters. There is no protection in this bill for the Boundary
Waters. There is only terrible risk.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I want to remind everybody I am wearing a copper tie,
and that is because I come from Arizona. We are known as the 5 Cs: for
the cotton, for the climate, for the cattle, for the citrus, and for
copper. It is a critical mineral.
We have seen these displays here in the well this morning, diverting
the public's attention about what truly is actually here.
This is actually a cite to explain to people exactly the clear
definition. Let's look at this.
What you see in red and yellow, just like a light that you see red,
stop; yellow, caution; green, go, the red is the Boundary Waters. The
red is the Boundary Waters: no mining, no mining whatsoever. The yellow
is a buffer.
By the way, the only place in the United States in which a monument
is surrounded by a buffer: no, don't proceed.
They confused you with that map. This is where we are talking about,
down in here, in the green area. It is not the Boundary Waters. The
pictures you saw that were in the well so eloquently shown to us were
of the Boundary Waters, not where the mining is going to take place.
Let's dispel the rumors. Let's get back down to facts.
Red, no mining; yellow, no mining; green, okay. But that is following
rules. That is following all rules.
Once again, just to remind folks back home that are watching, the red
is the Boundary Waters. There is no mining in the Boundary Waters. The
pictures you saw in the well are of the Boundary Waters. No mining
occurs in the Boundary Waters.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LOWENTHAL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to highlight the overwhelming local
opposition to a copper-sulfide mine right next to the Boundary Waters.
A poll done earlier this year found that 59 percent of Minnesotans
oppose copper-sulfide mining near the Boundary Waters. Seventy-nine
percent support the existing 2-year study that the Forest Service is
doing on this type of mining. Included in that 79 percent, 67 percent
of Republicans support the existing 2-year study that the Forest
Service is doing. We are not talking about a bunch of antimining
activists. This is not them.
The same poll found that, overall, Minnesotans support copper-sulfide
mining in the State 43 percent to 33 percent. The people in the State
of Minnesota know that there are right places to have these kinds of
mines and there are wrong places to have these kinds of mines. The
Boundary Waters are the wrong place. The people of Minnesota know it,
the Forest Service knows it, and I hope that the Congress realizes it
and knows it, too.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, the charge is Minnesotans strongly oppose mining near
the
[[Page H9509]]
Boundary Waters, so let's go back, remind everybody back at home about
the red. We are not talking about the red or the yellow in the previous
document. Let's go through what we see.
Minnesota's Democratic Governor was for mining in the area before he
was against it. Several polls over the years consistently show strong
support for copper-nickel mining in general and for allowing companies
to explore and propose projects.
In November of 2016, a poll of 400 registered voters in the Eighth
Congressional District found, among other results, by greater than a 3
to 1 margin, survey respondents support environmentally responsible
mining in the region.
By greater than 2-to-1 margins, respondents support the building of a
new copper-nickel mine and believe copper-nickel mining can be done in
an environmentally responsible way. They demand that. More than 60
percent support an underground copper-nickel project, the Twin Metals
mine.
In October 2013, a poll of more than 600 registered Minnesota voters
statewide found, among other results, a majority of voters, 56 percent,
favor expanding Minnesota's mining industry.
A plurality of voters, 48 percent, support expanding the nickel-
copper mining industry in the State.
All mayors, State legislators, the county commissioners that
represent the Iron Range region, and the area proposed for the
withdrawal are pro-mining advocates. Fifty-three bipartisan State
legislators, including leadership of both parties, have endorsed the
bill and support the passage.
Why is that?
These aren't just your average jobs. They don't pay service wages of
$20,000. These are $100,000 plus and, additionally, have benefits.
Those are jobs that Americans sink their teeth into. That is what built
America.
Stay tuned. I am going to show you some other photos of how they
really look at mining.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LOWENTHAL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
Minnesota (Ms. McCollum).
{time} 1615
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman. Mr. Speaker, I
brought this poster to the floor earlier. I bring it again up here.
This is the proposed area in which the Twin Metals mine has been
looking at doing the sulfide-copper ore mining, which, as I pointed
out, 92 percent of the mines have polluted water quality. All of them
have had leakage or seepage. This is the Boundary Waters Canoe Area up
here. We keep hearing about how it is just adjacent.
Mr. Speaker, this is an underground corridor, and this is an
underground corridor. This is a deposit. This is where all of the
mining activity would take place.
Mr. Speaker, I don't see how open water creates a physical boundary
to stop pollution. The pollution will go up north of the Laurentian
Divide, and it will seep and go into the Boundary Waters Canoe Area,
1,000 lakes, rivers, and streams. This is mining adjacent to a
wilderness that will become forever polluted if this mine is to be
built.
Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
This bill alters no current environmental laws or protections. Mining
companies will still have to comply with the Clean Water Act, Clean Air
Act, NEPA, and all State and Federal laws.
In fact, the local communities--everybody wants clean water. These
people actually live in the area. These local communities actually want
mining in Minnesota. It results in cleaner water. This is actually a
viewpoint of an actual mine site. This is a long time ago. This is a
pit. What ends up happening is, they are very proud, because Minnesota
is proud of their water.
This picture is before, and this is after. Can you imagine local
municipalities and towns lining up for this water? This is the cleanest
water in Minnesota. This is how they will actually reclaim the water.
This isn't me. These are the people from the area who gave us these
photos. And if you want to see an in-depth video, go to YouTube and
look up the video that the people back in this region put together.
This actually shows you, this is clean water. This is where you have
pristine fisheries. They line up for this water.
There are no environmental hazards. Minnesota's mining industry has
been proud of what they have actually built. Once again, before and
after, it is an inconceivable difference.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LOWENTHAL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume, and I would like the chairman to answer a question. That pit
that the gentleman just showed us, is that a taconite pit or is that a
sulfide pit in Minnesota?
Mr. GOSAR. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. LOWENTHAL. I yield to the gentleman from Arizona.
Mr. GOSAR. That is a taconite pit.
Mr. LOWENTHAL. We are not talking about taconite. We are talking
about sulfide.
Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman is talking about this whole
aspect, the gentleman is right, but it is about all mining. This isn't
just about copper mining. This is about taconite and all other mining.
Mr. LOWENTHAL. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I would like to talk
about that because of what type of mine this is. As has been pointed
out, northern Minnesota has had a long history of mining, but the mine
that we are talking about here is not like any other mine in the State.
This is a copper-sulfide mine. These types of mines are notorious for
generating acid mine drainage.
As the Forest Service puts it: These mines are known worldwide for
producing acid mine drainage that requires continuous management and
perpetual water treatment.
Even in the absence of a major spill, having this acidic waste
chronically leaking into the environment will create a problem that
will last for generations and may never be fixed.
A study of 14 similar copper mines found that all but one had
significant water quality impacts due to failures of the water
collection and treatment systems from keeping the contamination from
seeping out.
As was pointed out by the opposition, the majority, most of these
mines are in dry areas of the American Southwest where there is far
less water that needs to be treated than in a very wet environment like
northern Minnesota.
The Forest Service also describes the specific threat that the
Boundary Waters are under. They point out that there is ``a direct flow
of water from these leases to the Boundary Waters, and that there is a
high likelihood of acid mine drainage from these ores, and that the
drainage from the mine is likely to be highly acidic.''
Mr. Speaker, once the problem starts, it is nearly impossible to make
it stop. This is a perfect storm for destroying the Boundary Waters,
and it is not worth the risk.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question of the
gentleman from California. Can the gentleman give me an example of a
mine that he actually supports?
Mr. LOWENTHAL. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. GOSAR. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. LOWENTHAL. Mr. Speaker, I am here to say that there are many
mines in the State of Minnesota that I do support, that are
ecologically--that are protected, but this is a different mine. We are
only talking about one type of mine.
Mr. GOSAR. Reclaiming my time, once again, the gentleman can't
identify a single mine that is permissible to the opposition.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LOWENTHAL. Mr. Speaker, how much time do I have remaining?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California has 1 minute
remaining.
Mr. LOWENTHAL. Mr. Speaker, I think that we have made a very strong
case that economically this does not make sense. It could potentially
destroy the tourist industry. What makes Minnesota unique is the
wilderness areas, the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness. There is a
tremendous risk because there has never been this type of mining in
Minnesota before.
As was pointed out by the Forest Service, there is a very high risk
of
[[Page H9510]]
acidic discharge, and that the mine will drain into the Boundary
Waters. This is the wrong project at this time, and I urge a ``no''
vote.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
We have heard some other charges that H.R. 3905 changes five Federal
laws for Minnesota's national forests. This bill alters no current
environmental laws or protections. The Federal Land Policy and
Management Act, NEPA, and all other environmental laws still apply to
Minnesota.
Let's go through this history. In 1950, Congress took action to make
land available for mineral exploration and development within the
Superior National Forest. Congress did. Then again, in 1978, Congress
passed the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness Act, a compromise that
prohibited mining within the 1.1 million acre Boundary Waters; once
again, the red area and the yellow. No mining.
But again, it specifically authorized mining in the Superior National
Forest, the green. Once again, red, no; yellow, no; green, go. But that
is fulfilling all current legislative and environmental laws.
The General Mining Act of 1872 that we heard about earlier governs
most mining on Federal lands. However, in this case, it does not. It is
the Weeks Act that controls projects in this area because they are
located on acquired National Forest mineral leases on these lands.
There are no indefinite agreements. They typically retain a
nondiscretionary right--nondiscretionary right, once again--to renew
every 20 years. The two leases for the mineral deposit in question
began in 1966, were renewed in 1989, and again in 2004, without
controversy.
The MINER Act halts last-minute political mineral withdrawals by
requiring congressional approval. Once again, the magical words are
``congressional approval.'' The return to federalism--amazing--renews
those two mining leases that were denied for political reasons under
the same terms they were renewed twice previously and ensures any
future mining projects will have to satisfy all existing environmental
permitting requirements, including NEPA.
These people demand that they do it in a righteous way. There is no
digging right now. These are proposed. The Minnesotans whom I came up
to visit, they happily shared their history and their area with me.
They want it done right because they have to live with the
consequences; not somebody who comes from Twin Cities once in a blue
moon.
Once again, let's go back. This is the Boundary Waters. This is what
you have heard misrepresented all the way around. There is no mining
going on in the Boundary Waters. There is no mining going on in the
buffer area. Once again, no other buffer exists around a national
monument except this. This is hallowed ground. Green, go.
Now, it is also very unfortunate that we hear rumors going around
from Members of Congress that the Department of the Interior actually
is against this. That rumor is far from the truth. We just received an
email from the Secretary of the Interior that they are not opposed to
this bill.
I include in the Record a list of over 150 groups, individuals, and
community leaders who now want to be on record as supporting the lawful
aspects of returning this back to the folks in Minnesota for mining.
Endorsements of H.R. 3905
53 bipartisan state legislators (including leadership of
both parties); AFL-CIO International Association of Bridge,
Structural, Ornamental, and Reinforcing Iron Workers Local
Union 512; Agribusiness & Water Council of Arizona; ALLETE;
American Exploration & Mining Association; Americans for
Limited Government; Apache County (Arizona); Apache Sun Golf
Club; APEX; Arizona Association of Conservation Districts;
Arizona Cattle Feeders Association; Arizona Golf Association;
Arizona Pork Council; Arizona Liberty; Arizona State Rep. Bob
Thorpe; Associated General Contractors of Minnesota; AZ BASS
Nation; AZ Deer Association; The Bass Federation; Better in
our Back Yard; Cactus and Pine Golf Superintendents
Association supports H.R. 3905; City of Ely.
Colorado Mining Association; Competitive Enterprise
Institute; Concerned Citizens for America (Arizona);
Conservatives for Property Rights; Dena Cordova Jack,
Executive Vice President, Mountain States Lumber and Building
Material Dealers Association; Global Minerals Engineering
LLC; Golden Vertex Corporation; Grand Rapids Area Chamber of
Commerce; Hibbing Area Chamber of Commerce; International
Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local Union 31;
International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 49; The
Jamar Company; Jefferson County Commissioner Donald Rosier,
P.E.; Jobs for Minnesotans; Laborers District Council of MN &
ND; Laborers International Union of North America; Laurentian
Chamber of Commerce; Minnesota Building and Construction
Trades Council; Minnesota Chamber of Commerce;
MiningMinnesota; Minnesota Pipe Trades Association.
Minnesota Power; Minnesota State Rep. Josh Heintzeman;
Montana Mining Association; National Mining Association;
National Stone, Sand & Gravel Association; New Mexico Cattle
Growers' Association; New Mexico Federal Lands Council; New
Mexico Wool Growers, Inc.; North America's Building Trade
Unions; Plumbers and Pipefitters Local 589; Range Association
of Municipalities and Schools; Scott W. Yates, President,
Denver Lumber Co.; Shake Rattle & Troll Outdoors; Sulphur
Springs Valley Electric Cooperative; Twin Metals Minnesota;
United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America;
Water Resource Institute; Women's Mining Coalition; Yavapai
County Cattle Growers; Yavapai County Supervisor Board
Chairman Thomas Thurman; Yuma County (AZ) Chamber of
Commerce.
Other Groups Supportive of Issues Addressed by the Bill
62 bipartisan state legislators (including leadership of
both parties); Chair of the MN Permanent School Fund
Commission; Dakota County Regional Chamber of Commerce; Dale
Lueck, Chair of the Minnesota Legislative Permanent School
Fund Commission; Duluth Chamber of Commerce; Fairmont Chamber
of Commerce; Fergus Falls Chamber of Commerce; Greater North
Dakota Chamber of Commerce; Iron Mining Association of
Minnesota; Laborers District Council of MN & ND; Lake County
Board of Commissioners; Metro North Chamber of Commerce;
Minnesota Association of School Administrators--Region 7;
Minnesota Chamber of Commerce; North Central States Regional
Council of Carpenters; Owatonna Chamber of Commerce;
Rochester Chamber of Commerce; St. Louis County Board of
Commissioners; Twin West Chamber of Commerce; Up North Jobs;
Western Mesabi Mine Planning Board; Willmar Chamber of
Commerce.
Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Speaker, how much time do I have remaining?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Arizona has 1\1/2\
minutes remaining.
Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Speaker, what transpired here was a travesty. As I
outlined, historically, Congress dictated twice in a usual fashion this
green area for go. They designed the Boundary Waters and a buffer area
for protection.
Once again, no Boundary Waters--you are being misled--no Boundary
Waters are having mining. This is as clear as it gets. What ended up
happening was in an illegal action by the President last year, or
earlier this year, he wiped this away.
This doesn't wipe away any environmental laws. What it does is, it
returns it to the way it was. The way that it should be; the way that
Congress dictated. Federalism, a return to the people in that State.
Mr. Speaker, I ask everybody to vote for this bill and support this
bill. I also ask everybody to go to a video that has been produced by
the people in this iron-ore range to see exactly how the people of that
area of Minnesota actually feel about it. It is magnificent.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate on the bill has expired.
Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Grijalva
Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Speaker, I have an amendment at the desk.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Page 2, line 19, strike ``and''.
Page 2, line 22, strike the period at the end and insert
``; and''.
Page 2, after line 22, insert the following new
subparagraph:
(C) shall have a royalty rate of not less than 16.66
percent.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 631, the
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Grijalva) and a Member opposed each will
control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona.
Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Speaker, the American people are getting ripped off
in this bill. The Chilean mining conglomerate behind this bill makes
out like a bandit.
They get two expired leases back, as well as exemptions from several
key environmental laws that could be used
[[Page H9511]]
to stop any of their dreams of massive profits from a giant copper
mine.
The American people are the ones that are getting ripped off. This
land is being given away for next to nothing. For the past 50 years,
the leaseholder has been paying rent of $1 an acre per year. Think
about that, $1 an acre per year, unchanged for 50 years. The American
people are the landlords here. They are charging the Chilean company
about $420 per month for 5,000 acres of prime land right next to the
most visited wilderness area in the country.
{time} 1630
I can only imagine how many hardworking Americans would desperately
love to be guaranteed having only to pay $420 a month for their homes
for as long as they want, particularly if their home was over 2 million
square feet, as these leases are.
But we are not talking about someone building a house here. We are
talking about a giant, destructive copper-sulfide mine that threatens
one of the greatest unspoiled natural spaces in the country, the
Boundary Waters Wilderness. Don't be fooled by the claims that the
Boundary Waters are protected in this bill. They are not even remotely
protected.
Copper-sulfide mining results in acid mine drainage, the same kind of
pollution that comes from abandoned coal mines and has destroyed
thousands of miles of streams and rivers throughout Appalachia. Acid
mine drainage from these leases would flow into the Boundary Waters
into a neighboring Canadian wilderness and into Voyageurs National
Park. This would permanently impact millions of acres of lakes, rivers,
fish and wildlife habitat, and risk the entire tourism and recreation
economy of the region.
The majority says it is all worth it because of all the money that
will flow into the State's coffers and be used for education. Give me a
break. The only education benefit from this legislation would be
children learning the chemistry of how acidic water flows out of mines,
the biology of dead fish, and the economics of a shattered tourism and
recreation industry.
But if the majority is truly concerned about the amount of money that
a destroyed wilderness can bring to the State, they should be
embarrassed by the sweetheart deals in these leases: $1 per acre per
year and a royalty of 4\1/2\ percent on production. These numbers are
absurd. These rock-bottom prices effectively subsidize a foreign
company to mine on public lands right next to an irreplaceable
wilderness.
My amendment would make sure that the company would pay a royalty
rate of just over 60 percent because that is the same rate that Senator
Murkowski has determined that companies should pay for oil that would
come from the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. If that is the cost of
destroyed wilderness in the Arctic, then it should be no cheaper to
destroy wilderness in Minnesota.
With the extra billions of dollars the State receives from the more
reasonable royalty rate, perhaps they could fund education and also
help all the owners and employees of tourism and recreation companies
that would be put out of business by a giant copper mine.
To be clear, I will not support H.R. 3905 even if this amendment is
adopted. But Members should be given the opportunity to demonstrate
that they don't believe that a foreign mining company should be allowed
to get public land and public resources at rock-bottom rates and out in
the West for free.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the taxpayers, support
my amendment, and oppose the underlying bill.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Speaker, I claim the time in opposition to the
amendment.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Arizona is recognized for
5 minutes.
Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Speaker, in July, the Subcommittee on Energy and
Mineral Resources heard all about how royalties, if ill-constructed,
serve only to disincentivize investment in self-sufficiency and
increase our reliance on imported critical minerals.
This amendment is a hallmark example of such a poorly designed
royalty. This amendment doesn't specify what the royalty will be
applied to, when in the mining process it will be assessed, and it
doesn't even have a cap, for that matter. This amendment is just a
thinly veiled means to prevent this important mining project from
getting off the ground. The author actually stated that in his
comments.
Mr. Speaker, I oppose this amendment. I ask all Members to vote
against it, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, let me just close by saying that this precedent being
set here with H.R. 3905 is a precedent that I think every Member of
Congress needs to consider.
The backdrop is a mining law of 1872 that has not been changed one
iota since then that basically provides the public resources, the
extraction of our public lands for free to any company and more
prevalent now are foreign mining companies. No return to the taxpayer
and no consequences considered on the environmental damage that these
mines have caused, the abandoned mines that haven't been cleaned up.
This is a backdrop to a deeper and more serious problem that this
Congress has to grapple with, which is the mining law of 1872, and on
this piece of legislation a precedent that establishes a template that
can be destructive for the future and cut the public and the processes
out that involve the public and safeguard the environment at the same
time.
Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote on the amendment, a ``no'' vote on
the underlying legislation, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, once again, we may want to go back to misinformation.
This does not pertain to the Mining Act of 1872. In fact, this is under
the Weeks Act, which controls projects in this area because they are
located on acquired natural forest land. Mineral leases on these lands,
though not indefinite agreements, typically retain nondiscretionary
right for renewal every 20 years.
The two leases for mineral deposits in question began in 1966, were
renewed in 1989, and again in 2004 without controversy.
I would also like to take the opportunity to go through a number of
groups that actually are against this amendment and endorse the bill.
Fifty-three bipartisan State legislators from the State of Minnesota
are for this bill: ``As elected leaders of the Minnesota Legislature,
we are writing in strong support of H.R. 3905. This legislation
supports jobs, economic development and industry in northeast
Minnesota, and will reverse an onerous, overreaching, and politically
motivated decision by the Obama administration. H.R. 3905 has
bipartisan support, and it is our sincere hope that it will become law
for the well-being of our State and its citizens.''
A second one from the Range Association of Municipalities and
Schools:
The results of the withdrawal and a potential 20-year
moratorium would have a devastating impact on the financial
support for our statewide public school system and future
generations of Iron Rangers who would be employed in any
future mining developments. It has been estimated that within
20 years of mining for precious metals, our Permanent School
Trust Fund would reap nearly $3 billion in royalties if
allowed to go forward. The Miner Act does not infringe or
restrict these very strenuous and stringent environmental
review processes, and we emphasize there will be no mining in
the Boundary Waters or the buffer zone specifically
surrounding the Boundary Waters.
Let's go to the next one from the American Exploration & Mining
Association: ``H.R. 3905 will eliminate delays, return to good
stewardship of fair process and restore the opportunity to explore
strategic metals critical to our economy and national security in one
of the richest mineral deposits in the Nation. . . . The emerging
mining industry is an investment in the future well-being of our State
and Nation; without this legislation, that future is at risk.''
Here is another one from the Competitive Enterprise Institute: ``The
bipartisan H.R. 3905 is a welcome reassertion of congressional
authority over public lands. Article 4 of the Constitution vests
Congress--not the President--with plenary power over public
[[Page H9512]]
lands. Members on both sides of the aisle should take umbrage at
President Obama's lameduck machinations to withdraw from the multiple-
use framework more than 230,000 acres of public lands in Minnesota--
with the mere stroke of a pen. By treating public lands regulation as a
means to build a Presidential legacy through midnight regulation, the
previous administration flouted the spirit of participatory and
inclusive lands-use statutes as designed by Congress. Lawmakers should
correct the course by passing the excellent H.R. 3905.''
Finally, the Associated General Contractors of Minnesota:
H.R. 3905 changes no environmental review processes,
relaxes no environmental standards, and specifically restates
Congress' prohibition on any mining activity in the Boundary
Waters and surrounding protective buffer areas. H.R. 3905
would reaffirm longstanding congressional intent that
actually espouses that this area be designated for mining and
timber sales.
Mr. Speaker, I ask everybody to vote against this amendment, and I
yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Gallagher). Pursuant to the rule, the
previous question is ordered on the bill, as amended, and on the
amendment offered by the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Grijalva).
Pursuant to clause 1(c) of rule XIX, further consideration of H.R.
3905 is postponed.
____________________