Congressional Record, Volume 170 Issue 74 (Tuesday, April 30, 2024)

[Congressional Record Volume 170, Number 74 (Tuesday, April 30, 2024)]
[House]
[Pages H2718-H2728]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

SUPERIOR NATIONAL FOREST RESTORATION ACT

Mr. STAUBER. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1173, I call
up the bill (H.R. 3195) to rescind Public Land Order 7917, to reinstate
mineral leases and permits in the Superior National Forest, to ensure
timely review of Mine Plans of Operations, and for other purposes, 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 1173, the
amendment in nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on
Natural Resources, printed in the bill, shall be considered as adopted,
and the bill, as amended, is considered read.
The text of the bill, as amended, is as follows:

H.R. 3195

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 ``Superior National Forest
Restoration Act''.

SEC. 2. SUPERIOR NATIONAL FOREST SYSTEM LANDS IN MINNESOTA.

(a) Rescission.--The order entitled ``Public Land Order No.
7917 for Withdrawal of Federal Lands; Cook, Lake, and Saint
Louis Counties, MN'', issued by the Bureau of Land Management
and dated January 31, 2023, is hereby rescinded.
(b) Timely Review.--The Secretary shall complete all
necessary environmental and regulatory review, including
processes subject to the National Environmental Policy Act of
1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), for all Mine Plans of
Operations within the Superior National Forest lands in the
State of Minnesota--
(1) with respect to such Mine Plans of Operations submitted
before the date of the enactment of this section, not later
than 18 months after the date of enactment of this section;
and
(2) with respect to a Mine Plan of Operations submitted or
resubmitted in the 7 year period beginning on the date of the
enactment of this section, not later than 18 months after the
date on which such Mine Plan of Operations is submitted or
resubmitted.
(c) Reissuance of Mineral Leases.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary shall issue each mineral
lease, preference right lease, and prospecting permit
canceled by the Secretary relating to lands within Superior
National Forest during the period beginning on January 31,
2021, and ending on the date of the enactment of this section
on the same terms as were in effect on the date of such
cancellations.
(2) Judicial review.--A lease or permit issued under
paragraph (1) is not subject to judicial review.
(d) Secretary Defined.--For the purposes of this section,
the term ``Secretary'' means--
(1) the Secretary of the Interior; or
(2) when used with respect to any unit of the National
Forest System, the Secretary of Agriculture.
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 or their respective
designees.
The gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Stauber) and the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Porter) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Stauber).

General Leave

Mr. STAUBER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks
and insert extraneous material on H.R. 3195.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Minnesota?
There was no objection.
Mr. STAUBER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 3195, the Superior
National Forest Restoration Act of 2024.
The district I am proud to represent, Minnesota's Eighth
Congressional District, is blessed with an abundance of mineral wealth
that would allow America to lead in the 21st century.
We are home to the Duluth Complex, one of the largest undeveloped
mineral deposits in the world, which includes an estimated 8 billion
tons of copper, nickel, cobalt, and other platinum group metals. In
fact, this deposit is the world's second largest copper deposit, with
34 percent of the United States' total reserves and the world's third
largest nickel deposit with 95 percent of United States' total
reserves.
These minerals are experiencing large upswings in demand due to their
use in battery storage, electric vehicles, and other rapidly expanding
sectors. Domestic production of these minerals is critical to our
national security and our supply chain security.
The deposits in northern Minnesota could provide enough copper for
over 70 million electric vehicles and nickel for 3.5 million battery
packs.
The Duluth Complex and its abundant resources lies under the Superior
National Forest and throughout the iron range. The Superior National
Forest is a working industrial forest where timber harvesting and
mining are desirable activities.
Regrettably, in January of 2022, the Biden administration caved to
radical antijobs, antimining activists by canceling two-decade-old
mineral leases held by Twin Metals Minnesota in the Superior National
Forest.
At the same time, the Biden administration began the withdrawal
process on nearly a quarter million acres of land in the region. The
finalized withdrawal of 225,504 acres went into effect in January of
2023 and prohibits the extraction of any mineral, including copper,
nickel, cobalt, platinum, and iron ore for the next 20 years.
Northern Minnesota, home to the historic iron range, has been mining
iron ore, a critical component in steelmaking, for over 140 years. This
is the iron ore that provided the military might to the United States
and our Allies to fight and win World War II. The iron ore mined in the
region accounts for over 80 percent of America's domestically produced
steel. Now, the Biden

[[Page H2719]]

administration even wants to restrict iron ore mining in northern
Minnesota. They have gone too far, Mr. Chair.
These two actions taken by the Biden administration are in immediate
opposition to its stated campaign goals to increase domestic mining to
meet rising global mineral demand. They are disregarding years of
environmental review, a pending mine plan of operation, and an
abundance of support from union workers, local residents, schools,
builders, and miners.
In doing this, President Biden has made his real position on mining
known. He would rather rely on foreign adversaries like Communist China
instead of union workers who stand ready to deliver Minnesota's mineral
wealth under the strongest environmental and labor standards in the
world.
This is morally irresponsible, as China is the world's top polluter
and relies on child slave labor in their mines in the Democratic
Republic of the Congo. That is a fact. They use child slave labor.
Imagine the national security crisis we would face should China
suddenly decide to withhold these resources.
If the Biden administration's actions are allowed to stand, their
direct opposition to the domestic mining industry will not only make
our Nation less safe, but it will also cripple a sector that provides
incredible economic benefit to northern Minnesota.
The national importance of the Duluth Complex is only matched by its
significance to our local community. Twin Metals signed a project labor
agreement with the local Iron Range Building and Construction Trades
association, guaranteeing local union jobs during the mine's
construction. The economic benefits would be felt throughout our State
as mineral development provides funding to every single school district
in Minnesota through the permanent school trust fund.
The Superior National Forest Restoration Act would revitalize an
essential pillar of northern Minnesota's economy, provide for the
production of critical minerals, secure our supply chain, strengthen
our national security, and bolster the entire domestic mining industry.
Mr. Speaker, I urge all my colleagues to join me in support of H.R.
3195, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. PORTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, welcome back to the show, unlimited drilling and
extinction of wildlife brought to you by the GOP, a subsidiary of Big
Oil.
This week's target: The Boundary Waters in northeastern Minnesota, a
pristine wilderness that is, in fact, the most visited designated
wilderness area in our country. It is the most visited for a good
reason. Its beautiful landscapes, crystal clear waters, and abundant
wildlife make it a haven for outdoor recreation.
The Boundary Waters support a thriving outdoor recreation economy
with hundreds of thousands of annual visitors and tens of thousands of
jobs across northeastern Minnesota. In fact, the Boundary Waters is so
popular that an overwhelming majority of Minnesota voters oppose
building new mines near this federally protected wilderness.
This region and its resources, our resources, have been under threat
for years and are being threatened again today.
In 1966, the Bureau of Land Management issued two mineral leases
covering 5,000 acres of the Superior National Forest just outside of
the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness. There was never mining on
either lease, never mining, yet they were renewed in 1989 and again in
2004.
In 2012, Twin Metals Minnesota, a wholly owned subsidiary of a
Chilean mining company, requested another extension of those two
expired leases on Forest Service land in the Boundary Waters watershed
to build a sulfide-ore copper mine.
In 2016, after an extensive environmental review process, which
included public input and scientific analysis, the Forest Service
concluded sulfide-ore copper mining, which is significantly different
from the taconite mining that the region is used to, could result in
``extreme'' and ``serious and irreparable harm'' in the watershed of
this wilderness area.
The watershed there flows north, meaning it would flow past the mine
and into our protected wilderness. The Forest Service found that any
spills, leaks, or pollution would be all but impossible to contain,
putting the entire ecosystem and watershed at risk.
This should have been the answer: ``No'' to this sulfide-ore copper
mine because that is what the scientists say, that is what the
community wants, and that is what the law means, that a wilderness area
is protected from severe harm. However, foreign companies wanting to
mine and the politicians who answer to them were too enticed.

{time} 1300

As soon as President Trump came into office, his administration
ignored the science and community input and reinstated Twin Metals'
leases.
The Department of the Interior solicitor under the current
administration found that President Trump improperly renewed those
leases. Thankfully, after another thorough review and rounds of
community input and Tribal consultation, the Biden administration
finalized 20-year protections for 225,000 acres around the wilderness
area, making that area ineligible for mining, but this bill seeks to
undo all of that.
This bill would mandate the withdrawal be overturned and the leases
be reinstated with no judicial review allowed. This means that it will
not matter if the water and air become poisoned and the surrounding
Tribes and communities become severely ill. No one will be able to take
those concerns to a judge and ask that they revisit the decision to
mine the Boundary Waters.
Mr. Speaker, you will hear today that Americans have to choose
between mining for minerals to secure our clean energy future over
protecting the health of our families and vulnerable ecosystems. That
is simply not the case.
We all understand the need for mining as part of our clean energy
future, but America is already a top producer of copper and is already
invested in a circular economy with our trusted trading partners for
cobalt and nickel.
If we are going to build a sustainable, enduring, modern mining
industry, then we have to do that while respecting sound science and
community input, including Tribal consultation.
Mr. Speaker, I deeply respect the workers who mine and their families
and the way that that tradition has contributed to the backbone of
industrial America, but they live and work in locations where mining is
appropriate and where there is minimal to no harm to the environment or
human health. Unfortunately, this bill disregards all of that and seeks
to destroy now and deal with the ramifications not later but not at
all.
Mr. Speaker, I oppose this legislation, and I reserve the balance of
my time.
Mr. STAUBER. Mr. Speaker, I will just share with you that Congressman
James Oberstar, a Democrat for 36 years for Minnesota's Eighth
Congressional District, supports mining and timber harvesting. In fact,
in 1978, when the wilderness legislation was enacted, he didn't
originally support it, but he said if you are going to do it, then do
not take away our opportunity to mine outside the Boundary Waters Canoe
Area Wilderness and outside the buffer zone. He was right then because
he knew that we would be here today.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr.
Gimenez), my good friend.
Mr. GIMENEZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of my friend
Representative Stauber's bill, H.R. 3195, the Superior National Forest
Restoration Act.
Throughout this Congress, the work of the Select Committee on the
Strategic Competition Between the United States and the Chinese
Communist Party has shown what many of us already believed: that the
threat of Communist China looms larger than ever before, casting a
shadow over our Nation's security and prosperity.
As an exile who was forced to leave my native Cuba after the
Communist takeover, I understand this threat firsthand. That is why I
am urging my colleagues to join me in supporting H.R. 3195, which would
reverse the Biden administration's plan to cut off Minnesota's mineral
deposits containing 88 percent of America's cobalt and 95 percent of
America's nickel.

[[Page H2720]]

Right now, Congo accounts for 75 percent of the world's cobalt
supply. These mines are CCP-owned, Chinese Communist Party-owned, and
massive perpetrators of illegal child labor. These minerals are then
shipped to Communist China for refining.
President Biden is putting America at risk by failing to combat
Communist China's subversive tactics, including undermining America's
defense industrial base.
We must obliterate the CCP's monopoly over rare earth minerals
critical to the development of batteries and 21st century technology.
H.R. 3195 is an amazing step in reasserting America's industrial
might. We work more efficiently, guarantee fairer wages, and extract
these minerals cleaner than any other nation in the world.
What the Biden administration is doing makes absolutely no sense. We
cannot afford to turn a blind eye to the CCP's cynical vision and their
relentless pursuit of dominance in the global arena.
H.R. 3195 is the epitome of Made in America, and I urge its passage
on the House floor.
Ms. PORTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the
gentlewoman from Minnesota (Ms. McCollum).
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, you probably don't know this, but
Minnesota stands and represents the land of sky blue waters, so I rise
to oppose this unnecessary and harmful piece of legislation.
Before I talk about the legislation directly, I want to take a minute
to loop back to the discussion that is taking place on the floor about
national security.
Mr. Speaker, I am the ranking member and former chair of the Defense
Appropriations Subcommittee, and I take a back seat to no one in making
sure that our industrial base and this Nation have the minerals and
capability to reshore and to make things happen here at home so that we
have an efficient supply chain. This piece of legislation doesn't do
that.
One of the things that I want to clear up is this misnomer about how
mining this copper through Antofagasta, which is a foreign-owned
Chilean company, means somehow this copper magically all stays right
here in the United States. It doesn't, Mr. Speaker. In fact, when this
ore is mined, Antofagasta has most of its contracts shipping their
mined copper to China for smelting, and then it is sold on the open
market.
This is not circular where these particular minerals are going to be
mined in Minnesota, let alone smelted in Minnesota or here in the
United States. They will be sold on the open market.
The other thing this bill does is it talks about restoring the
Superior National Forest. I served with Congressman Oberstar. I knew
him well. I would say to you, Mr. Speaker, that at the time Congressman
Oberstar was talking about mining and forestry, we were talking about
iron ore mining. I support iron ore mining in Minnesota.
In fact, when I have introduced pieces of legislation to protect the
Boundary Waters, in my legislation, I made sure that we do nothing to
harm iron ore mining because that is the backbone, that is something
that is mined and the steel is produced here in the United States and
does go, if we want to talk about defense, back to our industrial base
here.
Mr. Oberstar is not here to discuss copper sulfide-ore mining or
these particular leases and what we know now about Antofagasta's mining
record.
This piece of legislation would revoke key protections for a
watershed that contains some of the purest and freshest water in the
Nation and, in fact, in the world. This is water that when you are in a
canoe, Mr. Speaker, you can dip your hand into it and drink from it and
not worry about anything happening to you. It is that pure.
In fact, the Superior National Forest contains 20 percent of all the
freshwater in the entire region in the U.S. National Forest System.
Being from Minnesota and having served on the committee that has the
bill before us today, the Natural Resources Committee, I often hear
colleagues joke that they want our water. Why? Wars will be fought over
water. Water is a precious resource.
What this bill does is reinstates two mineral leases for which the
Forest Service denied their consent because these mines pose an
unacceptable risk to this precious preserve of clean water that we
enjoy as a wilderness for not only today but will be there for future
generations.
This bill would also rescind a mineral withdrawal that the Biden
administration finalized last year, which prohibited mining for 20
years in the watershed of the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness. It
is not permanent. It is 20 years. Maybe technology does change, but
right now, these mines fail. They will fail to protect the waters.
The Federal action that was supported by a robust environmental
assessment had 19 accompanying resource reports. When the Trump
administration undid what the Obama administration had done in
protecting this water, I was chair of the Interior, Environment, and
Related Agencies Subcommittee.
Mr. Speaker, they said they were going to do and promised they would
do a study. I asked for the study repeatedly. When I finally did get
the study, which was never completed, Mr. Speaker, every single page
was redacted. Every single page was blank.
I have enough of a security clearance, being on the Defense
Subcommittee, that they could have shown me. I could have gone in the
SCIF to read it. It was blank because it was a bogus study.
This bill ignores documented scientific consensus that is proven now.
This bill to support a mineral withdrawal would overturn all the public
input, the overwhelming public input, in protecting this unique
watershed.
To make matters worse, it also strips away the judicial review, as
Representative Porter mentioned, in favor of pro-mining policies,
further silencing the voices of those who want this watershed protected
by stripping away their rights to challenge these actions in court.
For these reasons alone, we should not support this bill.
I want to make sure that instead of undermining a 20-year mineral
withdrawal, this amendment that I will offer later in the form of an
MTR would protect the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness. It would
ensure that public lands and waters, not only the BWCA, but the
Voyageurs National Park, will never be polluted by toxic drainage from
sulfide-ore mining.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to include in the Record the
text of the amendment that I will be offering.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Guest). Is there objection to the
request of the gentlewoman from Minnesota?
There was no objection.
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I hope my colleagues will support and join
me in my amendment that was not allowed in committee, but as an MTR, I
will offer it to substitute the language of the Boundary Waters
Wilderness Protection and Pollution Prevention Act.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the Representative for yielding me the time.
Mr. STAUBER. Mr. Speaker, just to underscore this, when the Under
Secretaries of Defense and Energy were asked what it would do to the
United States if China stops selling us their critical minerals today,
they said that it would be devastating and dangerous.
We cannot allow China to continue to dominate the critical minerals
space when we have this opportunity right here.
By the way, Mr. Speaker, I live, work, and play in northern
Minnesota. As I said, this is the district that I am privileged to
represent. I know clean water. Do you know why, Mr. Speaker? It is
because the cleanest water is in the heart of mining country in the
great State of Minnesota.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Minnesota
(Mrs. Fischbach), my good friend.
Mrs. FISCHBACH. Mr. Speaker, let us be very clear about what this
bill actually does. This bill does not reduce any environmental
protections. It simply tells the Secretary of the Interior to do her
job and complete the necessary environmental and regulatory reviews.
Apparently, President Biden and congressional Democrats are so
opposed to mining here in America that they won't even allow a company
to prove that they can mine in an environmentally safe way.

[[Page H2721]]

By opposing this bill, Democrats are allowing mines with unregulated
labor practices and environmental standards to control the critical
minerals market.

Republicans are for American jobs, economic security, supply chain
security, and protecting the environment by mining here in the United
States, where we have more environmental protections than anywhere else
in the world.
Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, Mr. Stauber, for his enduring work on
this important issue. I look forward to voting to reestablish mining
for vital minerals in Minnesota's Superior National Forest.
Ms. PORTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, we are hearing a lot about America and America's mineral
supplies, but what we are not hearing about is the truth about
Antofagasta, the Chilean mining company that is pursuing these leases.
In Antofagasta's mines in South America, the minerals are shipped to
China for refining and smelting and then sold on the global market.
I have seen no evidence because there is no evidence that Antofagasta
won't do the exact same thing here: extracting our publicly owned
minerals from pristine wilderness, paying no royalty for them, and then
selling them abroad, leaving Americans with all the mess and no
benefit.

{time} 1315

So much for America first.
I also want to talk about the environmental effects of this mining.
Sulfide-ore copper mining is what we are talking about--not iron
mining, not taconite iron mining--sulfide-ore copper mining. That is
what is being proposed outside of the Boundary Waters Wilderness Area,
and that sulfide-ore copper mining poses a unique threat. It is
different than taconite iron ore mining.
What happens in sulfide-ore copper mining is the ore that is
extracted contains metals that are bound together with sulfur. When
exposed to air and water, this sulfide-bearing ore discharges acid mine
drainage into the ground and surface water. The waste rocks and the
tailings from this mine would generate acid mine drainage for hundreds
of years, at least.
Just so everyone knows, these facts aren't hyperbole. This is
available information, studied and reported by scientists, with some
who have published their findings on the dangers of sulfide-ore copper
mining at universities, including the University of Minnesota.
Proponents of this mine say that their tailing facilities would be
safe from leakage. We hear that every time about every environmental
extraction proposal. However, the facts are clear here. The Forest
Service found that 100 percent of sulfide-ore copper mines in the
United States experienced pipeline spills or accidental releases.
It is a near certainty that that is what will happen, that we will
have a pipeline spill, we will have an accidental release. We will have
irreparable, severe environmental damage if this sulfide-ore copper
mine is allowed to occur on this Forest Service land. It would infect
and pollute the Boundary Waters, and we would be unable to reclaim our
beautiful, pristine wilderness.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. STAUBER. Mr. Speaker, just so my colleagues understand, in the
United States, we have the strongest environmental labor standards. Any
mine that mines in Minnesota or other States must follow those
standards.
Additionally, I will say, for Twin Metals in particular, the mine's
unique underground construction, as well as the mine's planned use of
``dry stack tailings'' means there is no potential for acid rock
drainage, and dry stack tailings was recommended for this mine plan of
operation.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr.
Tiffany).
Mr. TIFFANY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this legislation today
because we have a very simple question that lies before us: Is the 21st
century going to be an American century or a Chinese century?
We all know the history of the 20th century. As we left the 20th
century, America stood ascendant, that shining city on the hill. Now,
as we go into the 21st century, the question needs to be asked again:
Whose century will this be, because the Chinese seek hegemony. One of
the ways in which they do it is to control the minerals that are traded
around the world.
We stand here today, and this is one of the small decision points
that we are going to make. It is no different than, right across from
northern Minnesota, there is a natural gas plant that is being held up
by the Biden administration and a few small, select group of local
people to prevent a natural gas-fired plant from being built. Making
one of those small decisions, are we going to be dependent on other
countries because, if we are dependent, then we will not be that
shining city on a hill.
I think about the goals that this administration has stated. They
have talked about American manufacturing, and I hear it from both
sides. We must have American manufacturing. How are we going to have
American manufacturing if we don't produce some of the minerals and the
metals that come out of the ground? How are we going to have American
manufacturing if we don't produce some of that in America?
I hear that this administration wants to make sure that there is
union labor. There is a project labor agreement that is in place to be
able to build this mine. This is going to create union jobs, one of the
goals of this administration.
Certainly, my colleagues have talked about electrification. We want
to electrify our vehicle fleet as well as getting rid of natural gas,
natural gas-fired stoves. How are we going to get there if we don't
have the minerals that produce those devices that are going to be able
to provide that? Remember, in every Toyota Prius, there is 60 pounds of
copper. How are we going to electrify the vehicle fleet without
producing minerals right here in America?
I think back to January 20, 2021, and the very first action that this
administration took saying that they are going to shut down Keystone
XL, and making it very clear we are going to be energy dependent once
again. What immediately happened to the price of oil? It went from $60
a barrel. Within a couple of months, it was up to $100 a barrel,
enriching the despot Vladimir Putin, who has used it to wage war in
eastern Europe.
That is what happens when we do not utilize our natural resources,
whether it is our forest resources, our mineral resources, or our oil
and natural gas resources. We end up being dependent on other
countries.
I hear consistently from the other side that the minority is all for
mining, but then I pose the question to my colleagues: Where? Where do
minority Members support new mines? It is easy to say: Well, a mine has
been there for a hundred years and to be able to support it and the
union jobs that oftentimes come with it, but where do Democratic
Members support new mining in America?
The opposing side's witness could not answer that question at our
hearing, and I still haven't heard an answer from the minority yet.
Where do my colleagues support mining in America if Democrats support
mining?
Twin Metals has gone through an exhaustive process, and they have
been proving that they can do this. Let them finish the process here of
the rigorous environmental permitting that we have, not just at
the Federal level, but at the State level because, living in
Minnesota's neighboring State, Wisconsin, I know how rigorous the State
of Minnesota's mining regulations are.

We have a choice before us today. Are we going to allow dirty mining
around the world to be able to provide our natural resources in
America, or are we going to respect the health of people, which we have
the best health standards of anyone in the world? We have the best
safety standards. Go to Congo and see the safety standards that are
there with 8-year-olds mining in Congo.
We have the highest and best environmental standards. If we want
workers to be safe, if we want them to be healthy, if we want to have
the highest environmental standards, then we will support American
mining.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. STAUBER. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the
gentleman from Wisconsin.
Mr. TIFFANY. Mr. Speaker, I will just close with this: In 1960, John
F.

[[Page H2722]]

Kennedy went to my district in Hurley, Wisconsin, to the Montreal Mine,
thousands of feet down into that mine.
He said to those miners: You did as much to win World War II as I did
on PT-109.
Are we going to have a 21st century that is an American century or a
Chinese century?
Ms. PORTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I just heard that Republicans now support a clean energy
transition. I hope we can clip that because that is wonderful,
wonderful news.
Let me be the first to welcome the majority to the clean energy
transition club, where we are going to support investments for States,
municipalities, and Tribal governments to purchase clean energy
technology, like solar panels, electric vehicle charging
infrastructure, wind turbines, all of which, until today apparently, my
colleagues on the other side of the aisle opposed.
As the newest members of the clean energy transition club, let me
give my colleagues on the other side of the aisle a brief lesson on
where the U.S. stands with mineral production and trade, which is
needed for the construction of clean energy technology, as my
colleagues have correctly pointed out.
First, the United States is among the top five producers of copper in
the world and, according to the U.S. Geological Survey, has a low
disruption potential.
Second, while we do not, in the United States, have a significant
amount of nickel or cobalt, we do have close trading relationships with
our allies who do. Those allies are Canada--which is a leading supplier
of nickel--Norway, Japan, and Finland.
However, let's talk about what the Twin Metals mine would produce. If
this project by this Chilean-owned mining company was allowed to go
forward, mine, and pollute our wilderness, ship the ore and the jobs to
China, and sell it anywhere in the world, what would it complete? Even
if they were to sell all of it to us--and there is no guarantee they
would choose to sell any of it here in the United States--it would
produce about 1.5 percent of cobalt, about 2.3 percent of copper, about
3.6 percent of nickel, according to 2019 annual consumption, the most
recent figures I could find.
I emphasize there is no guarantee that the minerals produced at this
proposed Twin Metals mine would wind up back here in the United States,
but we are absolutely guaranteed to end up with pollution,
contamination, and the destruction of beloved wilderness lands. That is
what is at stake here.
I also emphasize that the bill, H.R. 3195, would undo the withdrawal
of 225,000 acres in the Superior National Forest. Removing these lands
from the protection from mining would violate the will of indigenous
communities.
In this case, the Boundary Waters and Superior National Forest are
traditionally known as the Anishinaabe land. The Ojibwe, or Chippewa
people, have occupied this area since 1000 C.E.
The region's interconnected waterways have been used as critical
trade routes for thousands of years. By the 1830s, the United States
Government began forcibly removing indigenous people from their lands
in the upper Midwest. In exchange for millions of acres of land, the
government promised to pay the Ojibwe people $35,000 each year for 20
years, and the Tribes were also granted the right to hunt, fish, and
gather on those ceded lands.
In 1848, copper was discovered along the north shore of Lake
Superior. Mining companies pressured the government to open the land to
mining, which required another land cession, including what would
become the Boundary Waters Wilderness Area.
The Tribes had to sue. In 1985 and 1989, they won confirmation of the
Tribe's right to hunt, fish, and gather on those ceded lands, something
that had been previously denied.
To further protect these treaty rights, the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe
supported the administration's withdrawal, and they support my
colleague Representative McCollum's bill to permanently protect this
region from mining.
Because of their support for permanent protections, the Tribe has
faced boycotts from mining-aligned interest groups, who have boycotted
their casinos, event venues, and restaurants. That is a ridiculous and
cruel response to a Tribe that is simply trying to protect its
ancestral lands and waters from toxic pollution.
To add insult to injury, this bill restricts judicial review of the
reinstatement of leases, a blatant attack on treaty rights. The U.S.
Government deciding on permits without allowing the Tribes to address
their concerns in court is an egregious overreach of legislation in
general, but also of particular concern to Tribal governments, who
would be directly affected but unable to address their concerns in the
only legal means that they currently have.
Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter from the Minnesota
Chippewa Tribe in support of permanent protection of their Boundary
Waters.
The Minnesota Chippewa Tribe,
January 31, 2020.
Hon. Raul Grijalva,
Longworth House Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Betty McCollum,
Rayburn House Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Alan Lowenthal,
Cannon House Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Representatives Grijalva, McCollum, and Lowenthal: The
Minnesota Chippewa Tribe is a federally recognized Indian
tribe that is comprised of the following six Bands' Bois
Forte; Fond du Lac; Grand Portage; Leech Lake; Mille Lacs;
and White Earth. The Minnesota Chippewa Tribe has
approximately 41,000 members. The duly elected governing body
of the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe is the Tribal Executive
Committee which is comprised of the Chairpersons and
Secretary/Treasurers from the six constituent Bands.
The United States has government-to-government
relationships with both the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe and each
of the six Bands of the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe. Three MCT
Bands, Fond Du Lac. Grand Portage and Bois Forte, retain
hunting, fishing, and other usufructuarv rights that extend
throughout the entire northeast portion of the state of
Minnesota under the 1854 Treaty of LaPointe (the ``Ceded
Territory''). In the Ceded Territory, all the Bands have a
legal interest in protecting natural resources and all
federal agencies share in the federal government's trust
responsibility to the Bands to maintain those treaty
resources.
The Minnesota Chippewa Tribe is concerned with the prospect
of a series of sulfide-ore mines being developed in the
headwaters of the Boundary Waters Canoe Area (``BWCA'')
watershed. The BWCA watershed is located on the Minnesota/
Ontario border and is entirely within the 1854 Ceded
Territory. The BWCA watershed is comprised of a vast area of
pristine interconnected waterways that have been used by the
Chippewa for centuries. Low buffering capacity of water and
soil and the interconnection of lakes and streams, make the
BWCA watershed particularly vulnerable to the impacts of
mining.
We are very supportive of HR5598, the Boundary Waters
Wilderness Protection and Pollution Prevention Act. This bill
would permanently withdraw federal minerals from potential
leasing for sulfide-ore copper mining in the Rainy River
Headwaters, which directly drain into the BWCAW. As former US
Forest Service Chief Tom Tidwell stated, sulfide-ore copper
mining has the potential to permanently destroy the pure
waters and intact forests in the area of the proposed Twin
Metals mine. The fish in adjacent waters--Birch Lake, the
South Kawishiwi River, and downstream water bodies--are
subject to consumption advisories designated by the Minnesota
Department of Health because of mercury in their flesh.
Sulfide-ore copper mining will increase the amount of mercury
in fish, a toxin of great concern to our members who depend
on wild caught fish for their sustenance. Wild rice and
terrestrial species will also be at risk, as pollution and
habitat destruction will have wide reaching impacts.
We are currently blessed with a healthy environment, a
healthy economy, and a public resource that offers sustenance
and solace. All of this is at risk if any mining proposal in
the watershed moves forward. It is unacceptable to trade this
precious landscape and our way of life to enrich foreign
mining companies that will leave a legacy of degradation that
will last forever. We encourage you, in the strongest terms,
to move this legislation forward. We need this protection
before it is too late, and the future of this area is now in
your hands.
Sincerely,
Catherine J. Chavers,
President.

Ms. PORTER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. STAUBER. Mr. Speaker, I remind my friends on the other side of
the aisle that the United States imports 46 percent of the copper we
consume every year from foreign nations ourselves. The first step to
reshoring and securing our mineral supply chain must be to allow and
support domestic mining. H.R. 3195 does just that.

[[Page H2723]]

{time} 1330

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Wyoming (Ms.
Hageman), my good friend.
Ms. HAGEMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Superior National
Forest Restoration Act presented by my good friend and colleague, Mr.
Stauber.
Northern Minnesota has a long, proud legacy of responsible mining
that was pivotal in our Nation's victory in World War II. As we enter
into greater strategic competition with China, we are presented with a
similar challenge: We can either source American critical minerals such
as those contained in the Superior National Forest ourselves or become
even more dependent on our chief adversary for our mineral and energy
needs.
America has the most stringent environmental standards in the world,
and we are being forced to source minerals from dictators and despots
who use child labor and who are without concern for the ecological
impacts.
We have abundant resources here at home, including the abundant
Duluth Complex. Despite the environmental and economic benefits of
these minerals, the Obama and Biden administrations have consistently
worked to block exploration and development of these lands.
This bill will reinstate the mining leases for the world's largest
untapped copper-nickel deposit and help our Nation dominate the
critical mineral sector while providing hundreds of reliable, well-
paying jobs.
This is an economic issue and a national security issue. We can
either be beholden and reliant on a foreign nation that seeks to
supplant us, or we can be a global leader in the critical mineral
industry.
I support the Twin Metals project, I support this bill, and I
encourage all of my colleagues to do the same.
Ms. PORTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I will be talking about what is good for our economy. There have been
studies showing that what is best for the economy, including this area,
is to continue to protect these public lands.
Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record an abstract on a study by James
Stock and Jacob Bradt, Harvard economists, outlining the regional
economic impacts of two scenarios, the first being the now-finalized
withdrawal, and the second being if this mine is allowed to proceed.
Mr. Speaker, the link to the full study can be found here: https://
scholar.harvard.edu/files/stock/files/snf_withdrawal_stock-bradt_
updated_june_2019.pdf

Analysis of Proposed 20-Year Mineral Leasing Withdrawal in Superior
National Forest

(By James H. Stock, Department of Economics and Harvard Kennedy School,
Harvard University)

(By Jacob T. Bradt, Harvard Kennedy School, Harvard University, June
24, 2019)

Abstract

The Rainy River Watershed on the Superior National Forest
is home to the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness (BWCAW).
It also contains deposits of copper, nickel, and trace
metals, and copper-nickel mining has been proposed adjacent
to and upstream of the BWCAW. This sets up a potential
tradeoff between economic benefits from mining and concerns
about negative economic consequences of that mining on the
local recreational and amenity-based economy. Existing
studies of mining in the Superior National Forest focus on
static effects on a single industry (e.g. mining) at some
unspecified point over a medium-run horizon. We draw on these
studies and the economics literature to provide a unified
analysis of the effect of the proposed mining development on
income and employment over time. Our results suggest that the
proposed development would lead to a boom-bust cycle that is
typical of resource extraction economies, exacerbated by the
likely negative effect on the recreation industry.
Keywords: Economic impact analysis, resource extraction,
recreation economy, mining economy
Declaration of interest: None.

Ms. PORTER. Mr. Speaker, if mining were permitted, these economists
find that there would be an initial but temporary net growth in
employment.
But over time, any economic benefits of mining would be outweighed by
the negative impacts of mining on the existing recreational industry
and on folks moving to this area.
Under any scenario where sulfide-ore copper mining is allowed, it
leads to a boom-and-bust cycle where the local economy is left worse
off than before.
Look, these leases sat for decades and decades with no mining used.
Now, when it is economically convenient, they want to mine. That
illustrates that this is a boom-bust economy and what will be
destroyed, though, is of enduring, lasting, economic value.
By protecting this region and the land this will help preserve and
grow the 22,000 jobs and $1.4 billion in annual visitor spending,
including its small businesses, which are essential for a strong and
robust diversified economy.
The other choice, the alternative, is to allow a Chilean mining
company to pollute our land, take our minerals without paying a
royalty, ship them overseas to China, smelt them, and sell them on the
global market, including to our competitors.
What is best for our American economy is to protect the strong
recreational economy we have now in this area and continue to protect
these public lands.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. STAUBER. Mr. Speaker, the gentlewoman from California is right.
The United States does produce a lot of copper, but it uses even more.
In 2016, the United States was only 29 percent import reliant on
copper. Eight years later that number has risen to 46 percent.
This trend cannot continue. We must support our new domestic mines to
meet our own demand.
Mr. Speaker, I will also say that my colleague just referenced a
Harvard study that was not peer-reviewed.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr.
Collins).
Mr. COLLINS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I also
thank the gentleman for his commitment not just for his district, not
just for the communities in his district and the industry, but the
communities and industries across this whole country.
Mr. Speaker, we had the opportunity last year to visit his district
and hold a field hearing.
As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, there was not a single colleague
from the other side of the aisle that attended that field hearing. If
they did, they would have learned a few things.
Number one, that it is one of the largest deposits of critical
minerals in the world. That Federal land sits beside State land that
does have permits for mining the same thing, but the Federal land is
being held up.
As a matter of fact, 80 percent of all critical minerals that are
mined in this country are sent over to China to be processed because we
have shut down smelters in this country. We are down to three.
My colleagues would have also seen the look on the faces up there,
the face of people in a community that is being devastated. They are
worried not just about themselves, but for the generations that are to
come. These are people that set the standard for mining around the
world.
Mr. Speaker, this bill is one more step in overturning and untangling
this web these out-of-control Federal agencies have placed on a good
industry, a great industry in our country.
Mr. Speaker, I encourage all of my colleagues to please vote for this
bill.
Ms. PORTER. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a 2022 poll citing a
2-1 margin of Minnesotans opposing sulfide-ore copper mining on the
edge of the Boundary Waters.

[From Impact Research, May 10, 2022]

Minnesotans Support Permanent Protections for the Boundary Waters From
the Risks of Sulfide-Ore Copper Mining

(By: Zac McCrary, Luke Martin)

Minnesotans are deeply connected to the Boundary Waters
Canoe Area Wilderness and it remains a uniquely popular and
loved resource in an age of polarization. Since 2015, polling
has consistently shown that due to this deep connection,
voters in Minnesota are strongly opposed to sulfide-ore
copper mining on the edge of the Boundary Waters and in its
watershed. Voters support taconite mining and sulfide-ore
copper mining in areas of the state that don't pose a risk to
the pristine Boundary Waters. Voters readily reject mining
industry arguments that the watershed of the Boundary Waters
is specifically needed to fulfill the nation's critical

[[Page H2724]]

mineral needs. As a result, Minnesotans support several
legislative and administrative actions that would increase
protections for the Boundary Waters, including permanent
protection.
The Boundary Waters is uniquely popular and well-regarded
in Minnesota. Favorability for the Boundary Waters Canoe Area
Wilderness is near unanimous across the state with 86 percent
statewide who are favorable, including 70 percent who are
very favorable. More than 2-in-3 Minnesotans (67 percent) say
they have personally been to the Boundary Waters including 9
percent who visit every year.
By a 2-1 margin, Minnesotans oppose sulfide-ore copper
mining on the edge of the Boundary Waters (60 percent oppose
vs. 31 percent support). A strong majority of voters have
been consistently opposed to sulfide-ore copper mining in the
watershed of the Boundary Waters since pollsters began asking
this question in 2015. Even among the 31 percent who would
currently support sulfide-ore copper mining on the edge of
the Boundary Waters, their support is soft--just 12 percent
strongly support it, and nearly 2-in-3 supporters (63
percent) say their support is contingent on an environmental
analysis that finds that sulfide-ore copper mining in the
Boundary Water's watershed could be done without risk to the
Boundary Waters.
Minnesotans overwhelmingly support a broad array of
legislative and administrative actions to protect the
Boundary Waters from sulfide-ore copper mining, including
legislation to permanently protect the Boundary Waters:
Minnesotans support legislation to permanently protect the
Boundary Waters from the risks associated with sulfide-ore
copper mining by a 35-point margin (63 percent support vs 28
percent oppose). Permanent protections are also a winning
issue with undecided voters (58 percent support),
Independents who support them by a 7-point margin, and in the
new 8th Congressional District (56 percent support). After
hearing arguments from both sides of the issue, support for
permanent protections increases to 67 percent among all
likely Minnesota voters.
By a 19-point margin (45 percent support vs 26 percent
oppose), Minnesotans agree that the state should update its
nonferrous mining rules have not been updated in 30 years,
and currently allow for levels of pollution that would
contaminate the Boundary Waters. Updating the state's rules
would allow for the application of modern science to protect
the Boundary Waters.
Minnesota voters reject the false choice between mining in
the watershed of the Boundary Waters for critical minerals
needed for national security or clean energy purposes and
protecting the Boundary Waters. In testing responses to
statements about mining for critical minerals in the
watershed of the Boundary Waters for national security or a
green economy, voters agree by double-digit margins that we
don't have to choose between critical minerals and protecting
the Boundary Waters. By working with our allies such as
Canada, Norway, and Australia and increasing recycling in our
own country, we can have both critical minerals the nation
needs and preserve the legacy of the Boundary Waters.
Minnesotans are not anti-mining in general. A majority of
voters support taconite mining (61 percent) and sulfide-ore
copper mining in areas where it would not pose any danger to
the Boundary Waters or its watershed (53 percent). However,
there is overwhelming opposition to sulfide-ore copper mining
in the watershed of the Boundary Waters due to pollution and
contamination risks. Opposition to mining in the Boundary
Waters cuts through demographic, geographic, and ideological
lines, making their protection a clear political winner for
elected leaders in Minnesota.

Ms. PORTER. Mr. Speaker, I also include in the Record a letter from
the Wilderness Society in opposition to this legislation.

The Wilderness Society,

May 11, 2023.
Dear Chairman Pete Stauber, Ranking Member Ocasio-Cortez,
and Members of the House Natural Resources Energy and
Minerals Subcommittee:
On behalf of our more than one million members and
supporters, The Wilderness Society (TWS) writes to urge you
to oppose House Congressional Resolution 34 and the so-called
Superior National Forest Restoration Act. We respectfully
request that this letter be submitted to the hearing record.
TWS supports Public Land Order 7917, which in early 2023
withdrew 225,504 acres of public lands and minerals located
in the headwaters of the Boundary Waters in the Superior
National Forest from the federal mineral leasing program for
twenty years. House Congressional Resolution 34 and the
Superior National Forest Restoration Act would reverse the
goals of that Public Land Order.
The two pieces of legislation being heard by the
Subcommittee today represent a wholesale attack on both the
Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness's unique character and
ecological values, as well as an attack on executive agency
authority to protect our federal public lands and waters,
particularly under the Federal Land Policy and Management
Act.
Protecting the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness from
Copper Mining. The Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness in
the Superior National Forest of northeastern Minnesota is
made up of 1.1 million acres of interconnected lakes and
rivers and is located adjacent to and downstream of Voyageurs
National Park and Canada's Quetico Provincial Park. The
Boundary Waters not only provides habitat for wildlife, but
it is also a refuge for people from every state in the U.S.
who visit the Boundary Waters to fish, canoe, hike, recreate,
and enjoy its forests, tranquil lakes, trails, and more than
1,200 miles of canoe routes.
The Boundary Waters is core to the region's booming outdoor
recreation industry, which generates $913 million in revenue
and supports more than 17,000 local jobs annually. A 2019
economic study by Harvard Professor James H. Stock, Ph.D.,
former chair of Harvard's economics department, found that
protecting this watershed from copper mining would result in
1,500 to 4,600 additional jobs and $100 million to $900
million in additional income over a 20-year period in an
already thriving outdoor recreation-based economy.
In October 2021, the Biden administration announced they
were re-initiating the process for a 20-year mineral
withdrawal, reversing a misguided move by the former Trump
administration to prevent a withdrawal and advance the
destructive Twin Metals Mine. In early 2023, the Biden
administration issued an environmental analysis and decision
that found the impacts of sulfide-ore copper mining at the
headwaters of the Boundary Waters could harm the area's
abundant freshwater, deemed ``immaculate'' by the Minnesota
Pollution Control Agency. Secretary Debra Haaland then issued
Public Land Order 7917 withdrawing the area from new mining
leases and permits, protecting America's most visited
Wilderness area as well as Voyageurs National Park from toxic
sulfide-ore copper mining in its headwaters/
H. Con. Res. 34 and H.R. __ needlessly cancel the science-
based mineral withdrawal of the Boundary Waters, reinstate
the cancelled mineral leases, and limit scientific and
community input on the future of the Boundary Waters. The
science is clear about the pollution and destruction that
sulfide-ore copper mining on upstream land and waters would
do: that pollution would flow directly into the Boundary
Waters and into Voyageurs National Park and Canadian lands
and waters as well.
We urge your committee to reject this legislation and
instead permanently protect the Boundary Waters by passing
H.R. 5598, Rep. McCollum's Boundary Waters Wilderness
Protection and Pollution Prevention Act.
Mineral Withdrawals under the Federal Land Policy and
Management Act. The Federal Land Policy & Management Act
(FLPMA) explicitly grants the Secretary of the Interior the
authority to make large-tract withdrawals of 5,000 acres or
more of public lands from mineral extraction for up to 20
years. Republican and Democratic administrations have used
this authority approximately 90 times over more than four
decades, and Congress has never overturned one of those
withdrawals.
Both H. Con. Res. 34 and the Superior National Forest
Restoration Act seek to undermine this key provision of
FLPMA, threatening the ability of future presidential
administrations to set aside tracts of land from mineral
development. FLPMA withdrawals are used to protect a wide
range of public land resources for conservation, cultural
resource protection and even research. In fact, the Bureau of
Land Management (BLM) recently withdrew 22,684 acres of
Public Land in Nevada's Railroad Valley upon request of the
National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)'s to
preserve the area's land surface which is used to calibrate
NASA's Earth-observing satellites.
Finally, H. Con. Res. 34 relies on a provision of FLPMA
that is widely understood to be an unconstitutional
legislative veto. Section 1130 of the House of
Representatives Manual lists the provision as among several
dozen unconstitutional legislative veto provisions.
Additionally, a federal appeals court in 2017 definitively
found the unconstitutional legislative veto provision
severable from the Secretary of the Interior's withdrawal
authority, which remains fully operative.
Conclusion. TWS strongly opposes H. Con. Res. 23 and
Superior National Forest Restoration Act and we urge all
members of the Energy and Mineral Resources Subcommittee to
oppose both pieces of legislation being considered by the
Subcommittee today.
Sincerely,

Lydia Weiss,

Senior Director, Government Relations,
The Wilderness Society.
Ms. PORTER. Mr. Speaker, lastly I include testimony in opposition to
the legislation from Becky Rom, national chair of The Campaign to Save
the Boundary Waters, a coalition of businesses, conservation groups,
and outdoor recreation organizations.
Mr. Speaker, the link to Becky Rom's testimony can be found here:
Https://docs.house.gov/meetings/II/II06/20230511/115888/ HHRG-118-II06-
Wstate-RomR-20230511.pdf.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. STAUBER. Mr. Speaker, my colleague from California just mentioned
temporary jobs.
When we first started mining iron ore 145 years ago, the American
Rockefeller family thought they were going to be just temporary jobs as
well.

[[Page H2725]]

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr.
Bergman).
Mr. BERGMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend and colleague from
northern Minnesota for yielding. We share a lot of commonalities, and
one is our love of the outdoors and of our national treasures.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in favor today of H.R. 3195, the Superior
National Forest Restoration Act. For those of us in the North Woods of
Michigan, Minnesota, and Wisconsin, mining is a core part of our
history, economies, and way of life. From the long heritage of copper
country in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan to the millions of tons of
iron ore that come from Minnesota each year, it is a treasure.
The abundant resources in our region are now more important than ever
with sources of nickel, cobalt, titanium, and now even helium being
discovered and poised to play a huge role in the growth of renewable
energy technologies and mineral independence.
At the same time, those of us in the Great Lakes region are fiercely
protective of our forests, waters, and wilderness, which is why I am a
proud supporter of programs like the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative
and the North American Wetlands Conservation Act.
It is the job of the Bureau of Land Management and the Forest Service
to properly balance responsible resource extraction with the protection
of our natural treasures.
Instead of balance, the Biden administration pushed a 20-year ban on
mining on more than 200,000 acres of land entirely outside the Boundary
Waters Canoe Area Wilderness. This decision ignored a very simple
truth: Environmental conservation and utilization of our natural
resources are not mutually exclusive.
Projects should be approved or disapproved based on their individual
merits and risks after proper environmental reviews are completed, not
just banned wholesale. This abrupt cancellation also goes directly
against the Biden administration's efforts to secure domestic supply
lines for critical minerals that go into solar panels, batteries, and
other renewable energy infrastructure.
The United States cannot lead the world in clean energy while at the
same time being reliant on the minerals produced by countries with
absolutely no regard for environmental standards like China and Russia.
This reliance on foreign adversaries for our domestic mineral
manufacturing and energy supply lines also poses significant risk to
our national security. We are blessed to have abundant natural
resources within our borders, and we have the responsibility to protect
the environment while we secure America's mineral and energy
independence into the future.
Mr. Speaker, I strongly urge all of my colleagues to support the
bill.
Ms. PORTER. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to the time remaining.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from California has 6\1/2\
minutes remaining.
Ms. PORTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I will start by noting that the Harvard study was, in fact, peer-
reviewed. As a former professor, I am very familiar with the peer-
review process. It is a reliable study, and what it shows is what is
best for the economy of this region and that is to protect these public
lands and waters.
Let me ask, what is the value of clean water? Water is also a
valuable resource. It is also a resource in scarce supply around the
country.
If this bill moves forward, it will allow for the irreversible
pollution of this pristine and incredibly valuable landscape. Remember,
the Forest Service concluded after scientific study that there is a
virtual certainty of severe and irreparable economic harm. All 100
percent of the sulfide-ore copper mines in this country have had
leakages and environmental contamination. That is what will happen
here.
This will mean the decimation of local economies that depend on
visitation. This is the most visited wilderness area in our country. It
belongs to the people of the United States. It does not belong and
should not belong to a Chilean mining company which, under our outdated
mining laws, will pay no royalty at all to the American people.

If the U.S. wants to reduce our demand for copper, which is
increasing, then we should invest in recycling, in reuse, in
manufacturing improvements. That would create jobs domestically and not
risk special places like the Boundary Waters.
If this mine proceeds, and if this water is contaminated and
destroyed, there is no known remediation strategy. It cannot be undone.
The U.S. Forest Service has conducted an environmental review. They
have consulted with communities, they have consulted with Tribal
members, and they have relied on cutting-edge science, and they have
concluded that these mines should not go forward.
The science is done here. It just doesn't line up with the answer of
my colleagues' donors.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. STAUBER. Mr. Speaker, first off, they have never completed an
environmental review. I will be very clear: There will never be mining
in the Boundary Waters or the buffer zone around it. That was decided
in 1978. This bill will not circumvent or shortchange environmental
review in any way. We are not requiring any permits or mine plants be
approved. We are simply requiring that they go through the review
process the way any other project would move forward.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr.
Emmer), the majority whip.
Mr. EMMER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the Superior National Forest
Restoration Act.
For the last 3 years, the domestic mining industry in Minnesota and
around the country has been under assault. Mining supports good-paying
jobs, and it is critical to our economy and national security. However,
rather than putting Minnesota miners to work, those opposing this
legislation would rather rely on China and Russia to supply our
critical materials making us less secure and causing greater
environmental harm.
This bill strengthens Minnesota's economy while promoting a safe and
clean energy supply. I thank Congressman Stauber for his relentless
work on this issue, and I urge all of my colleagues to support his
bill.

{time} 1345

Mr. STAUBER. Mr. Speaker, how much time do I have remaining?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman has 5\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Mr. STAUBER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. PORTER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. STAUBER. Mr. Chair, I want to reiterate the fact to the American
people, there will be no mining in the Boundary Waters, and there will
be no mining in the buffer zone around the Boundary Waters. That was
settled in 1978.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr.
Westerman), the Chair of the full Natural Resources Committee.
Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 3195, the
Superior National Forest Restoration Act of 2024.
First of all, I thank the chairman of the Subcommittee on Energy and
Mineral Resources, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Stauber), my good
friend, for his leadership in this area.
Since his first day in Congress, Mr. Stauber has fought tirelessly
for his district and has done an excellent job representing the people
and the interests of the Iron Range through his work here in
Washington.
This bill is the culmination of years of meetings, hearings, and hard
work to ensure that the voices of those living in northern Minnesota
are heard in Congress and the White House.
I have been to northern Minnesota many times, even with Mr. Stauber's
predecessor, Democrat Congressman Rick Nolan, and I have seen how
important the mining industry is to the region, as it has been for over
a century.
I have also seen American mining companies' dedication to producing
essential minerals with exemplary regard for their employees, the
environment, and the communities in which they operate. In doing so,
U.S. domestic mines set the global gold standard for responsible
resource procurement.

[[Page H2726]]

The Duluth Complex in northern Minnesota contains one of the largest
deposits of minerals in the world, including the world's second largest
deposit of copper. According to S&P Global Market Intelligence, global
copper demand is expected to be double current production in the next
decade, driven primarily by the push to electrification.
In fact, annual copper output from the Twin Metals project alone
would support the production of 13,000 megawatts of wind turbine power
or 10,000 megawatts of solar power per year. Yet, from 2022 to 2023,
U.S. copper production dropped by 11 percent, even as our net import
reliance--meaning the amount of copper we have to buy from foreign
sources--rose 46 percent. The Duluth Complex also contains world-class
reserves of critical minerals such as cobalt and nickel.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. STAUBER. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the
gentleman from Arkansas.
Mr. WESTERMAN. The Biden administration's recent actions to restrict
access to this treasure trove of vital and increasingly scarce minerals
simply does not make sense for our national security, for the people of
northern Minnesota, or even for President Biden's own mineral-intensive
goals to build out renewable energy production and achieve net-zero
emissions.
I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 3195 and reinstate Minnesotans'
rights to access their abundant resources.
Mr. STAUBER. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time and am
prepared to close. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. PORTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to
close.
Mr. Speaker, the Boundary Waters is not a bathtub. The water flows
from one place into the other, and in this case the watershed flows
north, meaning it would flow past the mine and into the protected
wilderness.
My colleague on the other side of the aisle says there would be no
mining in the Boundary Waters, but there would be waste. There would be
pollution in those waters because of the watershed.
This is exactly why we should rely on the scientific process and the
conclusion of the Forest Service that this mining would cause severe
and irreparable harm. I have heard no rebuttal from the other side of
the aisle to the fact that 100 percent of every sulfide-ore copper mine
in our country has had leakages and environmental harm.
Mr. Speaker, we have been having hearings, markups, and floor votes
on this issue for years. Administrations have canceled and reinstated
these leases, and then canceled them again.
The Biden administration, unlike the previous administration, took
the time and effort to do the process right. They came to the
considered decision, based on science, to cancel the wrongly reinstated
leases and to protect the Boundary Waters region for the next 20 years.
That decision is not just based on sound science. It also is based on
community input, robust Tribal consultation, and at the end of the day
on the best interests of the American people because that is who these
public lands belong to. That is who should benefit from these public
lands.
However, a foreign company and politicians who bend to their
interests don't like it. As I have made clear in this Congress, their
priority is not putting science first or protecting communities. Their
priority is putting corporate polluters' profits above all else by any
means necessary.
My Republican colleagues say that the toxic mining industry needs
certainty. Well, this is certainty. The Boundary Waters watershed is
off limits.
I welcome the opportunity to work across the aisle to reform the
mining law; for example, to require royalty payments. That way we can
build a sustainable future for the industry. Part of that
conversation--support of mining--needs to be recognition that some
places are too special and too risky, and some types of mining are too
risky to do.

At the end of the day, what would you choose: your child's health,
our lands, wilderness, endangered species, tourism jobs, our local
economy, or would you choose a foreign company who wants to mine in a
location that would hurt the environment, our economy, and our health?
I know what I would choose.
Mr. Speaker, I urge opposition to this bill, and I yield back the
balance of my time.
Mr. STAUBER. Mr. Chair, I yield myself the balance of my time to
close.
The Biden administration's mining policy is: anywhere but America,
any worker but the American worker.
The Republicans refuse to allow child slave labor to happen. We
refuse to allow this great country to purchase minerals mined by child
slave labor in Congo. We will not turn a blind eye to the atrocities
and the slave labor happening in Congo where this administration wants
to purchase its minerals.
Mr. Speaker, I again urge my colleagues to support H.R. 3195. The
bottom line is you can't be a proponent of national security, a
proponent of reducing global emissions, and a proponent of fair labor,
and yet be against domestic mining at the same time.
Congress voted to spend billions of dollars on building out
transmission and increasing renewable energy development, all of which
require enormous amounts of copper, nickel, cobalt, and other minerals
that can be sourced right here in the United States of America in my
home State of Minnesota.
Issuing directives to pursue renewable energy development while at
the same time denying access to the minerals needed to domestically
manufacture the products simply does not make sense.
The International Energy Agency estimates that achieving net zero by
2050 would require six times more mines than are currently operating
today. While the U.S. is blessed with abundant mineral resources within
our borders, domestic, primary mine production of critical minerals--
those defined by USGS as essential for our economic and national
security--decreased by almost 25 percent from 2022 to 2023, forcing the
U.S. to look elsewhere to source these materials.
We cannot totally rely on our allies to access these vital resources.
China currently dominates global production for over half the materials
on the critical minerals list. Biden's mining policy of anywhere but
America, any worker but American must be stopped.
We can mine these minerals domestically under the best labor and
environmental standards in the world. We know this all too well in
northern Minnesota, where mining is our past, our present, and our
future. If we get the politics out of the way, our mining future will
be bright. Minnesotans know how to do it.
Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record letters of support for this bill
from the National Mining Association, Jobs for Minnesotans, Mining
Minnesota, Up North Jobs, Range Association of Municipalities and
Schools. I also include the project labor agreement between Twin Metals
Minnesota and Iron Range Building and Construction Trades Council.
Washington, DC, April 29, 2024.
Hon. Mike Johnson,
Speaker, House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Hakeem Jeffries,
Democratic Leader, House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Speaker Johnson and Minority Leader Jeffries: On
behalf of the National Mining Association (NMA), I am writing
to express our strong support for the Superior National
Forest Restoration Act (H.R. 3195). Ensuring access to our
federal lands for responsible mineral exploration and
development is critical to securing the essential materials
necessary for nearly every sector of our economy.
Northern Minnesota is a place of tremendous natural beauty
and is also blessed with worldclass mineral deposits
including copper, nickel and essential metals that are vital
for U.S. economic and national security priorities. In fact,
this area contains the largest undeveloped deposits of
nickel, copper and platinum metals in the world. Despite
these abundant resources, the U.S. continues to be
increasingly reliant on foreign sources of metals and
minerals, including from geopolitical adversaries that do not
share our values when it comes to environmental, labor and
safety standards.
The Biden administration's self-sabotage of domestic
mineral supply chains through mineral withdrawals,
restrictions and duplicative permitting processes is
completely out of step with the dramatic increase in minerals
production that is needed in the coming decades to keep up
with new technologies, infrastructure and manufacturing
needs, let alone the administration's energy transition
goals. Instead of ceding our nation's mineral supply chain
security to other countries, the U.S. should utilize its
world-class environmental standards to produce

[[Page H2727]]

needed minerals while protecting our environment.
H.R. 3195 supports responsible mineral exploration and
development in an area specifically designated and set aside
by Congress and the U.S. Forest Service for such activities.
The administration's anti-mining actions continue a dangerous
trend of politicizing domestic mineral supply chains first
initiated in the waning days of the Obama administration.
Continuing to pursue dangerous policies that lock up federal
lands with high mineral potential will both kill future
mineral development in this region and deny the hard-working
men and women of Northern Minnesota the opportunity of high-
paying jobs--all, while eliminating significant revenues for
Minnesota's rural communities that come from these projects
in the form of taxes and royalties. These revenues support
local schools and important regional development projects.
Currently, less than half of the mineral needs of U.S.
manufacturing are met by domestically mined minerals. H.R.
3195 will help change this alarming trajectory by ensuring
access to one of our nation's important mineral deposits.
The NMA urges passage of this important legislation and
continued trust of our nation's strong environmental
regulations and system of due process to strengthen a
reliable and stable domestic mineral supply chain for the
future.
Sincerely,
Rich Nolan.
____

Jobs for Minnesotans,

St. Paul, MN, April 29, 2024.
Members of the House of Representatives: I am writing today
on behalf of Jobs for Minnesotans, a nonpartisan coalition
co-founded by the Minnesota Building and Construction Trades
Council and the Minnesota Chamber of Commerce and
strengthened by labor unions, community leaders and business
members from across the state. We represent 70,000 union
workers, 6,300 companies and 500,000 employees in Minnesota.
In May 2023, the Superior National Forest Restoration Act--
H.R. 3195 was introduced by House Natural Resources
Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources Chairman Pete
Stauber (R-MN) to re-establish the ability for safe,
sustainable mining in northeast Minnesota. Our coalition is
in strong support of H.R. 3195. We have consistently
advocated for a fair regulatory process--fair to the public,
the government agencies and investors alike.
The Duluth Complex in Minnesota is home to significant
domestic reserves of nickel, cobalt, and copper. Unlocking
this domestic supply of critical minerals is crucial for
bolstering US national security by reducing our nation's
reliance on foreign resources, strengthening a secure supply
chain, and fostering a timely energy transition.
H.R. 3195 is essential for preserving the 140-year
historical legacy of mining in northeast Minnesota, which has
been an economic cornerstone for the region. By re-
establishing safe, responsible mining, H.R. 3195 aims to
secure and create jobs in the region, allowing Minnesota to
live up to its full potential in leading the responsible
production of critical minerals that are essential to our
nation's clean energy goals.
To ensure the continued prosperity of mining in the region,
H.R. 3195 includes provisions that give companies a chance to
undergo the rigorous, scientifically based regulatory
processes under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
that are needed to start new mining projects. These processes
ensure mining activities are conducted responsibly and with
minimal environmental impact.
Passing the Superior National Forest Restoration Act is not
only an issue of economic importance but also one of securing
domestic mineral production for the long run. We hope you
will join us in supporting this critical legislation.
Thank you for your consideration,
David Chura,
Board Chair.
____

Mining Minnesota,

April 26, 2024.
Members of the House of Representatives: Last May, House
Natural Resources Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral
Resources Chairman Pete Stauber (R-MN) introduced the
Superior National Forest Restoration Act--H.R. 3195 to
reestablish the ability for safe, sustainable mining in
Northeastern Minnesota. On behalf of MiningMinnesota and our
members, we are writing to urge you to support this vital
piece of legislation.
The recent withdrawal of federal land use for over 225,000
acres by the Biden Administration has put essential mining
projects, including Twin Metals Minnesota, at risk. This
decision undermines American mineral independence. The Duluth
Complex in Minnesota is home to significant domestic reserves
of nickel, cobalt, and copper. Unlocking this domestic supply
of critical minerals is crucial for bolstering US national
security by reducing our nation's reliance on foreign
resources, strengthening a secure supply chain, and fostering
a timely energy transition.
Furthermore, H.R. 3195 is essential for preserving the 140-
year historical legacy of mining in Northeastern Minnesota,
which has been an economic cornerstone for countless cities
and towns in the region. By re-establishing safe, sustainable
mining, H.R. 3195 aims to secure the jobs that the withdrawal
aims to threaten, thereby restoring the economic livelihood
of those in Northeastern Minnesota.
To ensure the continued prosperity of mining in the region,
H.R. 3195 includes provisions that give companies a chance to
undergo the rigorous, scientifically-based regulatory
processes under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
that are needed to start new mining projects. These processes
make certain that mining activities are conducted responsibly
and with minimal environmental impact.
Passing the Superior National Forest Restoration Act is not
only an issue of economic importance but also one of securing
domestic mineral production for the long-run. We hope you
will join us in supporting this critical legislation.
Thank you for your consideration,
Julie C. Lucas,
Executive Director.
____

Up North Jobs,

April 26, 2024.
Dear Members of the House of Representatives: Last May,
House Natural Resources Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral
Resources Chairman Pete Stauber (R-MN) introduced the
Superior National Forest Restoration Act, H.R. 3195, to
establish safe, sustainable mining in Northeastern Minnesota.
On behalf of Up North Jobs Inc., a Minnesota based nonprofit
and our almost 3,500 individual and corporate members, we are
writing to urge you to support this vital piece of proposed
legislation.
The recent withdrawal of federal land use for over 225,000
acres by the Biden Administration has put essential mining
projects, including Twin Metals Minnesota, at risk. This
decision undermines American mineral independence. The Duluth
Complex in Minnesota is home to significant domestic reserves
of nickel, cobalt, and copper. Unlocking this domestic supply
of critical minerals is crucial for bolstering United States
national security by reducing our nation's reliance on
foreign resources, strengthening a secure supply chain, and
fostering a timely energy transition.
Furthermore, H.R. 3195 is essential for preserving our 140-
year historical legacy of mining in Northeastern Minnesota,
which has been an economic cornerstone for countless cities
and towns in the region. By reestablishing safe, sustainable
mining, H.R. 3195 aims to secure the jobs that the withdrawal
threatens, thereby restoring the economic livelihood of those
in 1Northeastern Minnesota.
To ensure the continued prosperity of mining in the region,
H.R. 3195 includes provisions that give companies a chance to
undergo the rigorous, scientifically-based regulatory
processes under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
that are needed to start new mining projects. These processes
make certain that mining activities are conducted responsibly
and with minimal environmental impact.
Passing the Superior National Forest Restoration Act is not
only an issue of economic importance but also one of securing
domestic mineral production for the long-run. We hope you
will join us in supporting this critical legislation.
Thank you for your consideration,
Gerald M. Tyler,
President and CEO.
Range Association of

Municipalities and Schools,

Mt. Iron, MN, April 30, 2024.
Re RAMS Letter of Support--Superior National Forest
Restoration Act (H.R. 3195)
Congressman Stauber and Members of the House of
Representatives: On behalf of the Range Association of
Municipalities and Schools (RAMS), I would like to indicate
our support for the Superior National Forest Restoration Act
(H.R. 3195).
This legislation recinds Public Land Order no. 7917 and
allows for the reissuance of mineral leases for safe and
sustainable sourcing of materials needed for Minnesota and
the nation to meet green new deal goals and the 2035 energy
transisiton. Without a domestic source of these minerals, we
are at the mercy of unethical foreign governments. Minnesota
operations have long been a leader in ethical and sustainable
mining practices. The materials needed to meet these goals
and an opportunity to do so are within our reach.
Our choices matter. The need for the minerals in the Duluth
Complex and surrounding areas is clear. We support the clean
energy transition and we must allow companies like Twin
Metals and others be able to act on previously issued leases
and move their projects forward to be a part of it.
Sincerely,
Paul Peltier,
Executive Director.

Project Labor Agreement,

August 21, 2019.
Whereas, Twin Metals Minnesota and Iron Range Building and
Construction Trades Council recognize skilled employees from
construction and supporting crafts are vital to quality and
timely completion of an underground copper, nickel, platinum
group metals and cobalt mine; and
Whereas, Both parties are committed to working together in
a spirit of harmony and stability; and
Whereas, Both sides are committed to building a 21st
century underground mine operation that is safe for workers
and environmentally friendly; and
Whereas, the legacy of quality represented by the people of
the Building and Construction Trades continues a long
tradition that built Northeastern Minnesota; and

[[Page H2728]]

Whereas, Work and completion of the Twin Metals Minnesota
construction protect will help Iron Range communities to
prosper and grow;
Now, therefore both parties agree to enter into this
comprehensive Project Labor Agreement, which shall be signed
by Project Contractors selected for construction related to
the mining, processing of precious metals in the Maturi
Deposit, and tailings storage.
Kelly Osborne,
CEO, Twin Metals Minnesota.
Mike Syversrud,
President, Iron Range Building & Construction Trades
Council.

Mr. STAUBER. Mr. Speaker, I urge adoption of this piece of
legislation, and I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 1173, the
previous question is ordered on the bill, as amended.
The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was
read the third time.

Motion to Recommit

Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit
at the desk.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to
recommit.
The Clerk read as follows:

Ms. McCollum of Minnesota moves to recommit the bill H.R.
3195 to the Committee on Natural Resources.
The material previously referred to by Ms. McCollum is as follows:

Ms. McCollum moves to recommit the bill H.R. 3195 to the
Committee on Natural Resources with instructions to report
the same back to the House forthwith, with the following
amendment:
Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the
following:

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ``Boundary Waters Wilderness
Protection and Pollution Prevention Act''.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

Congress finds the following:
(1) The Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness is a
1,090,000-acre Federal wilderness area, located within the
Superior National Forest, that was originally designated in
the Wilderness Act of 1964 (Public Law 88-577).
(2) The Forest Service manages the Boundary Waters Canoe
Area Wilderness, which includes--
(A) nearly 2,000 pristine lakes ranging in size from 10
acres to 10,000 acres, and more than 1,200 miles of canoe
routes;
(B) 1,500 cultural resource sites including historic Ojibwe
village sites and Native American pictograph panel sites; and
(C) 150 miles of land and water on the international border
with the Government of Canada.
(3) In 1978, Congress passed the Boundary Waters Canoe Area
Wilderness Act (Public Law 95-495) to remove incompatible
uses, prohibit mining within the Boundary Waters Canoe Area
Wilderness and on 220,000 acres of the Superior National
Forest, and to provide management guidance to protect,
preserve, and enhance the lakes, waterways, and forested
areas of the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness to enhance
public enjoyment of the unique landscape and wildlife.
(4) The federally recognized Grand Portage Band of Lake
Superior Chippewa, the Fond du Lac Band of Lake Superior
Chippewa, and the Bois Forte Band of Chippewa retain hunting,
fishing, and other usufructuary rights throughout the entire
northeast portion of Minnesota, including the Boundary Waters
Canoe Area Wilderness, under the 1854 Treaty of LaPointe. All
Bands have a legal interest in protecting natural resources
and the Forest Service shares in the Federal trust
responsibility to maintain treaty resources.
(5) The Rainy River Watershed lies within the Superior
National Forest, which contains 20 percent of the fresh water
supply in the entire National Forest System.
(6) The Rainy River Watershed headwaters begin in
northeastern Minnesota and flow north through the Boundary
Waters Canoe Area Wilderness and Voyageurs National Park and
into Canada along the shared international border. These
international waters are governed by the 1909 Boundary Waters
Treaty, which states that ``boundary waters and the waters
flowing across the boundary shall not be polluted on either
side to the injury of health or property on the other''.
(7) The waters of the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness
and Voyageurs National Park are classified as Outstanding
Resource Value Waters under Federal and State law, and
degradation of water quality is prohibited. A risk of mining
development is acid mine drainage which generally occurs when
sulfide minerals are exposed to air and water creating
sulfuric acid, which decreases water pH and leaches harmful
metals such as copper, zinc, lead, cadmium, iron, and nickel.
(8) Acid mine runoff from sulfide-ore copper mining
entering groundwater, rivers, streams, and lakes harms
aquatic life, degrades water quality, and results in
potential severe environmental impacts.
(9) A peer-reviewed study of water quality impacts from 14
operating United States copper sulfide mines found 100
percent of the mines experienced pipeline spills or
accidental releases: 13 mines experienced failures of water
collection and treatment systems to control contaminated mine
seepage resulting in significant negative water quality
impacts.
(10) The mining of copper and other metals in sulfide
bearing ore on Federal lands in the Superior National Forest,
within the Rainy River Watershed, poses a direct and long-
term threat from sulfide-ore mining contamination to the
pristine water and air quality and healthy forested habitat
of the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness and Voyageurs
National Park.
(11) The likely contamination of the air, water, and
forested habitat of the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness
and Voyageurs National Park from the mining of copper,
nickel, platinum, palladium, gold, and silver on Federal
lands within the Rainy River Watershed puts at risk--
(A) the nationally recognized natural resources of the
area; and
(B) the region's amenity-based and tourism industry, which
if protected by a mineral withdrawal, would grow by 1,500 to
4,600 more jobs and $100,000,000 to $900,000,000 more income
over the next 20 years than if such mining were not banned.
(12) In 2016, the Forest Service issued a Record of
Decision which found ``unacceptable the inherent potential
risk that 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''. The Forest Service subsequently proposed a
20-year mineral withdrawal of 234,328 acres of Federal lands
and waters in the Rainy River Watershed.
(13) In 2018, approximately 20 months into a 24-month
review period of the Rainy River Watershed mineral withdrawal
proposal, the Department of Agriculture abruptly canceled the
withdrawal application and abandoned the Environmental
Assessment.

SEC. 3. WITHDRAWAL OF CERTAIN FEDERAL LANDS AND WATERS IN THE
STATE OF MINNESOTA.

(a) Definition of Map.--In this Act, the term ``Map'' means
the map prepared by the Forest Service entitled ``Superior
National Forest Mineral Withdrawal Application Map'' and
dated December 5, 2016.
(b) Withdrawal.--Except as provided in subsection (d) and
subject to valid existing rights, the approximately 234,328
acres of Federal land and waters in the Rainy River Watershed
of the Superior National Forest in the State of Minnesota, as
located on the Map and described in the Federal Register
Notice of Application for Withdrawal, dated January 19, 2017
(82 Fed. Reg. 6639), are hereby withdrawn from--
(1) all forms of entry, appropriation, and disposal under
the public land laws;
(2) location, entry, and patent under the mining laws; and
(3) operation of the mineral leasing, mineral materials,
and geothermal leasing laws.
(c) Acquired Land.--Any land or interest in land within the
area depicted on the Map that is acquired by the United
States after the date of enactment of this Act shall, on
acquisition, be immediately withdrawn in accordance with this
section.
(d) Removal of Sand, Gravel, Granite, Iron Ore, and
Taconite.--The Chief of the Forest Service is authorized to
permit the removal of sand, gravel, granite, iron ore, and
taconite from national forest system lands within the area
depicted on the Map if the Chief determines that the removal
is not detrimental to the water quality, air quality, and
health of the forest habitat within the Rainy River
Watershed.
(e) Availability of Map.--The Map shall be kept on file and
made available for public inspection in the appropriate
offices of the Forest Service and the Bureau of Land
Management.
Amend the title so as to read: ``A bill to provide for the
protection of the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness and
interconnected Federal lands and waters, including Voyageurs
National Park, within the Rainy River Watershed in the State
of Minnesota, and for other purposes.''.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XIX, the
previous question is ordered on the motion to recommit.
The question is on the motion to recommit.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further
proceedings on this question are postponed.

____________________