[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     and dated January 31, 2023, is hereby rescinded.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.

                          ____________________