[House Report 116-672]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]


116th Congress     }                                  {         Report
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
 2d Session        }                                  {        116-672

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



 
   BOUNDARY WATERS WILDERNESS PROTECTION AND POLLUTION PREVENTION ACT

                                _______
                                

 December 18, 2020.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on 
            the State of the Union and ordered to be printed

                                _______
                                

 Mr. Grijalva, from the Committee on Natural Resources, submitted the 
                               following

                              R E P O R T

                             together with

                            DISSENTING VIEWS

                        [To accompany H.R. 5598]

    The Committee on Natural Resources, to whom was referred 
the bill (H.R. 5598) 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, having considered the same, reports 
favorably thereon with an amendment and recommends that the 
bill as amended do pass.
    The amendment is as follows:
  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. 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 Reg. 6639), are hereby withdrawn from--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.

                          PURPOSE OF THE BILL

    The purpose of H.R. 5598 is 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.

                  BACKGROUND AND NEED FOR LEGISLATION

    Originally designated under the Wilderness Act of 1964, the 
Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness (BWCAW) is a 1,090,000-
acre Federal wilderness area inside Superior National Forest in 
northern Minnesota. It is the nation's most visited wilderness 
area, welcoming approximately 150,000 visitors annually.\1\ 
Along with nearby Voyageurs National Park, the Boundary Waters 
is a lynchpin of the regional economy, supporting 22,000 jobs 
and $1.4 billion in annual visitor spending.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\U.S. Department of the Interior Press Release, Obama 
Administration Takes Steps to Protect Watershed of the Boundary Waters 
Canoe Area Wilderness, December 15, 2016. https://www.doi.gov/
pressreleases/obama-administration-takes-steps-protect-watershed-
boundary-waters-canoe-area.
    \2\Dissenting Views, H.R. 3905 Bill Report. https://
www.congress.gov/115/crpt/hrpt422/CRPT-115hrpt422.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    BWCAW is nationally significant because of its pristine 
water resources, remote location, and expansive solitude. The 
BWCAW contains nearly 1,200 lakes ranging in size from 10 acres 
to 10,000 acres, more than 1,200 miles of canoe routes, and 
2,100 campsites.\3\ There are also 1,500 cultural resource 
sites including historic Ojibwe villages and Native American 
pictograph panels.\4\ The BWCAW is a prime location for hunting 
and fishing, and contains valuable biodiverse ecosystems that 
provide a protected home for wildlife such as loons, black 
bear, moose, foxes, and deer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\Ibid.
    \4\``Section 2, Findings'' of H.R. 5598 Boundary Waters Wilderness 
Protection and Pollution Prevention Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The BWCAW watershed is also internationally significant. In 
1909 the United States signed a treaty with Canada, known as 
the Boundary Waters Treaty, requiring that neither country 
pollute waters that flow across the international boundary. 
Within the Rainy River Watershed, the Kawishiwi River flows 
north directly into the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness 
and then into Canada and the shared waters of Voyagers National 
Park. The commitment to protect this international watershed is 
why the Canadian government has formally expressed concern over 
the risk to water quality from proposed increases in mining 
activity, through the International Joint Commission (IJC) in 
2015\5\ and Global Affairs Canada in 2019.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \5\Letter from IJC Secretaries Camille Mageau and Dr. Charles A. 
Lawson to Christopher Wilkie, Director of U.S. Transboundary Affairs 
Division, Foreign Affaris and International Trade Canada and Susan 
Saarnio, Director Office of Canadian Affairs, U.S. Department of State. 
January 22, 2015.
    \6\Letter from Eric Walsh, Director General, North American 
Strategy Bureau, Global Affairs Canada to Derek Strohl, Natural 
Resources Specialist and Project Lead, Bureau of Land Management. 
January 30, 2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    While the BWCAW is specifically protected for its 
conservation, recreation, and historical values, Superior 
National Forest also has a long history of industrial activity. 
In 1966, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) issued two mineral 
leases covering 5,000 acres of the Superior National Forest 
just outside the BWCAW.\7\ These leases were valid for twenty 
years, at which point the federal government reserved the right 
to review the leases to determine if they should be extended. 
In a 1966 press release, the Department of the Interior (DOI) 
explicitly stated that the leases ``grant mining rights to the 
company for 20 years; renewable for 30 years at 10-year 
intervals if the property is brought into production within the 
initial 20-year term.''\8\ Neither lease has ever supported 
active mining, yet they received waivers from the production 
requirement and were renewed in 1989 and 2004.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \7\Under 16 U.S.C. 508b, national forests in Minnesota are not 
subject to the Mining Law of 1872.
    \8\U.S. Department of the Interior Press Release, ``Government 
Grants Leases for Nickel and Copper Mining,'' June 14, 1966.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In 2012, Twin Metals Minnesota--a wholly owned subsidiary 
of Chilean mining company Antofagasta--requested an extension 
of the two leases in order to build a sulfide-ore copper mine. 
While mining operations are common in northern Minnesota and 
Superior National Forest, the type of mining practiced in the 
area has been taconite (iron ore) mining, which does not lead 
to acid mine drainage. Copper sulfide mining, on the other 
hand, has never been attempted in this water-rich ecosystem. 
Sulfide ore mining is notorious for polluting rivers, lakes and 
groundwater with severe and long-lasting acid mine drainage,\9\ 
and any pollution produced at the Twin Metals mine would flow 
directly into the Boundary Waters.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \9\B. Gestring, ``U.S. Copper Porphyry Mines: The Track Record of 
water quality impacts resulting from pipeline spills, tailings failures 
and water collection and treatment failures,'' Earthworks, July 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In 2016, after a public input process, the Forest Service--
which needs to provide consent before BLM can authorize mining 
operations on the leases--concluded that building a sulfide-ore 
copper mine in the watershed near the BWCAW could result in 
``extreme'' and ``serious and irreplaceable harm'' to the 
wilderness area.\10\ The Forest Service withheld its consent 
for renewal and the leases expired. In denying the lease 
renewal, the Obama administration cited ``broad concerns from 
thousands of public comments and input about potential impacts 
of mining on the wilderness area's watershed, fish and 
wildlife, and the nearly $45 million recreation economy,'' and 
``the potential risk of environmental contamination of the 
surrounding watershed,'' including within the BWCAW. The Obama 
administration also determined that the Boundary Waters would 
be particularly sensitive to any acid mine drainage from the 
proposed sulfide-ore copper mine.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \10\Letter from Thomas Tidwell, Chief of the U.S. Forest Service to 
Neil Kornze, Director of the Bureau of Land Management. December 14, 
2016. https://www.savetheboundarywaters.org/sites/default/files/
attachments/twin_metals_proposed_lease_renewal_with_bibliography.pdf.
    \11\U.S. Department of the Interior Press Release, Obama 
Administration Takes Steps to Protect Watershed of the Boundary Waters 
Canoe Area Wilderness, December 15, 2016. https://www.doi.gov/
pressreleases/obama-administration-takes-steps-protect-watershed-
boundary-waters-canoe-area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Following the refusal to renew the mineral leases, the 
Forest Service initiated a public process to withdraw 235,000 
acres of Superior National Forest within the Rainy River 
Watershed from potential mineral activity for a period of 
twenty years in order to provide further protections for the 
BWCAW.
    In December 2017, the Solicitor at DOI reversed an Obama 
administration legal opinion and concluded that BLM had no 
right to let the leases expire.\12\ Ignoring the 1966 DOI press 
release, the new Solicitor's M-opinion questionably concluded, 
``the historical record of the 1966 lease implementation shows 
that production was not made a condition of renewal,'' and 
that, ``Properly analyzed, examining both the text of the 
leases and the intent of the parties as expressed during 
negotiations, the renewal provisions found in the 1966 leases 
remain operative, and provide the non-discretionary right to a 
third renewal.'' While DOI officials have testified, 
appropriately, that press releases are not legally binding, the 
new Solicitor's M-opinion rests at least in part on the 
``historical record'' and ``the intent of the parties'' while 
ignoring a clear statement of intent from DOI when the leases 
were first signed. This calls into question the intent and 
reasoning behind the December 2017 M-opinion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \12\U.S. Department of the Interior Solicitor Memorandum M-37049, 
``Reversal of M-37036, `Twin Metals Minnesota Application to Renew 
Preference Right Leases (MNES-01 352 and MNES-0 1353)','' December 22, 
2017.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Trump administration subsequently reinstated the mining 
leases and overruled Forest Service objections in order to 
ensure that this mine could be developed. Furthermore, the 
administration abruptly cancelled the proposed mineral 
withdrawal in the watershed of the BWCAW and abandoned the 
accompanying Environmental Assessment 20 months into a 24-month 
review period. Both DOI and U.S. Department of Agriculture have 
provided woefully inadequate responses to congressional 
document requests regarding the Twin Metals project. The 
administration has consistently failed to fulfill requests 
regarding key questions raised by the Committee on the 
decisions to reinstate the Twin Metals leases and cancel the 
withdrawal application and its associated Environmental 
Assessment.
    The proposed Twin Metals mine is a direct threat to the 
pristine water, clean air, and healthy forest ecosystem of the 
Boundary Waters. Allowing sulfide ore mining to go forward on 
public land within the watershed of the BWCAW would present 
unnecessary risks to this treasured special place. H.R. 5598, 
the Boundary Waters Wilderness Protection and Pollution 
Prevention Act protects the wilderness for future generations 
by permanently withdrawing 234,328 acres of federal land and 
waters inside Superior National Forest from future mineral and 
geothermal leasing activities. These lands are inside the Rainy 
River Watershed of the Superior National Forest. Importantly, 
the legislation protects all current, valid existing leases 
inside the withdrawal area and allows for sand, gravel, 
granite, iron ore, and taconite mining if the Chief determines 
that those activities would not be detrimental to the water 
quality, air quality, and health of the forest habitat of the 
Rainy River Watershed.
    At the time of the committee's consideration of H.R. 5598, 
BLM's decision to reinstate the Twin Metals leases was still 
being challenged by two lawsuits in federal court. If these 
leases are found to be invalid, the proposed copper-sulfide 
mine will not be built. Even if the court rules that the leases 
are valid, H.R. 5598 would prevent the destructive mine from 
moving forward by blocking future mining approvals in the area 
surrounding the existing leases, including two pending Twin 
Metals preference right lease applications, the conversion of 
federal prospecting permits into preference right leases, and 
future prospecting permits. Without these additional permits, 
Twin Metals is not expected to be able to move forward on the 
proposed copper-sulfide mine.

                            COMMITTEE ACTION

    H.R. 5598 was introduced on January 14, 2020, by 
Representative Betty McCollum (D-MN). The bill was referred 
solely to the Committee on Natural Resources, and within the 
Committee to the Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources 
and the Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests, and Public 
Lands. On February 5, 2020, the Subcommittee on Energy and 
Mineral Resources held a hearing on the bill. On September 30, 
2020, the Natural Resources Committee met to consider the bill. 
The Subcommittees were discharged by unanimous consent. Chair 
Raul M. Grijalva (D-AZ) offered an amendment in the nature of a 
substitute. Representative Pete Stauber (R-MN) offered an 
amendment designated Stauber #1 to the amendment in the nature 
of a substitute. The amendment was not agreed to by a roll call 
vote of 16 yeas and 21 nays, as follows:


	[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    
    
    Representative Stauber offered an amendment designated 
Stauber #2 to the amendment in the nature of a substitute. The 
amendment was not agreed to by a voice vote.
    Representative Stauber offered an amendment designated 
Stauber #3 to the amendment in the nature of a substitute. 
Representative Paul Gosar (R-AZ) offered an amendment 
designated Gosar #1 to the amendment in the nature of a 
substitute. Representative Garret Graves (R-LA) offered an 
amendment designated Graves #1 to the amendment in the nature 
of a substitute and an amendment designated Graves #2 to the 
amendment in the nature of a substitute. The amendments to the 
amendment in the nature of a substitute designated Stauber #3, 
Gosar #1, Graves #1, and Graves #2 were considered en bloc and 
were not agreed to by a roll call vote of 16 yeas and 20 nays, 
as follows:


	[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


    No additional amendments were offered. The amendment in the 
nature of a substitute offered by Chair Grijalva was agreed to 
by voice vote. The bill, as amended, was adopted and ordered 
favorably reported to the House of Representatives by a roll 
call vote of 19 yeas and 16 nays, as follows:\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \13\Rep. Paul Tonko (D-NY) was unable to vote due to a scheduling 
conflict. Rep. Tonko requested, after the closing of the vote, that the 
record reflect that had he been present he would have voted in favor of 
ordering the bill favorably reported.


	[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                
                                
                                HEARINGS

    For the purposes of section 103(i) of H. Res. 6 of the 
116th Congress--the following hearing was used to develop or 
consider H.R. 5598: hearing by the Subcommittee on Energy and 
Mineral Resources held on February 5, 2020.

                      SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS

Section 1. Short title

    This section provides the short title of the bill, the 
``Boundary Waters Wilderness Protection and Pollution 
Prevention Act.''

Section 2. Withdrawal of certain federal lands and waters in the state 
        of Minnesota

    This section states that approximately 234,328 acres of 
federal land and waters, as depicted on the ``Superior National 
Forest Mineral Withdrawal Application Map'' dated December 5, 
2016, are permanently withdrawn from future mineral and 
geothermal leasing. If the federal government acquires lands 
depicted on the map, those lands are also withdrawn from future 
mineral and geothermal leasing. The legislation protects all 
valid existing rights, and the Chief of the Forest Service is 
authorized to permit the removal of sand, gravel, granite, iron 
ore, and taconite within the areas depicted on the map if the 
Chief determines that removal is not detrimental to water 
quality, air quality, or the health of the forest habitat 
within the Rainy River Watershed.

            COMMITTEE OVERSIGHT FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

    Regarding clause 2(b)(1) of rule X and clause 3(c)(1) of 
rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives, the 
Committee on Natural Resources' oversight findings and 
recommendations are reflected in the body of this report.

      COMPLIANCE WITH HOUSE RULE XIII AND CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET ACT

    1. Cost of Legislation and the Congressional Budget Act. 
With respect to the requirements of clause 3(c)(2) of rule XIII 
of the Rules of the House of Representatives and section 308(a) 
of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 and with respect to 
requirements of clause (3)(c)(3) of rule XIII of the Rules of 
the House of Representatives and section 402 of the 
Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the Committee has requested 
but not received a cost estimate for this bill from the 
Director of Congressional Budget Office. The Committee adopts 
as its own cost estimate the forthcoming cost estimate of the 
Director of the Congressional Budget Office, should such cost 
estimate be made available before House passage of the bill.
    The Committee has requested but not received from the 
Director of the Congressional Budget Office a statement as to 
whether this bill contains any new budget authority, spending 
authority, credit authority, or an increase or decrease in 
revenues or tax expenditures.
    2. General Performance Goals and Objectives. As required by 
clause 3(c)(4) of rule XIII, the general performance goals and 
objectives of this bill are 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.

                           EARMARK STATEMENT

    This bill does not contain any Congressional earmarks, 
limited tax benefits, or limited tariff benefits as defined 
under clause 9(e), 9(f), and 9(g) of rule XXI of the Rules of 
the House of Representatives.

                 UNFUNDED MANDATES REFORM ACT STATEMENT

    An estimate of Federal mandates prepared by the Director of 
the Congressional Budget Office pursuant to section 423 of the 
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act was not made available to the 
Committee in time for the filing of this report. The Chair of 
the Committee shall cause such estimate to be printed in the 
Congressional Record upon its receipt by the Committee.

                           EXISTING PROGRAMS

    This bill does not establish or reauthorize a program of 
the federal government known to be duplicative of another 
program.

                  APPLICABILITY TO LEGISLATIVE BRANCH

    The Committee finds that the legislation does not relate to 
the terms and conditions of employment or access to public 
services or accommodations within the meaning of section 
102(b)(3) of the Congressional Accountability Act.

               PREEMPTION OF STATE, LOCAL, OR TRIBAL LAW

    Any preemptive effect of this bill over state, local, or 
tribal law is intended to be consistent with the bill's 
purposes and text and the Supremacy Clause of Article VI of the 
U.S. Constitution.

                        CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW

    If enacted, this bill would make no changes to existing 
law.

                            DISSENTING VIEWS

    H.R. 5598 would permanently withdraw over 234,000 acres of 
National Forest System land in Northern Minnesota from mineral 
development. This bill is a clear attempt to halt the Twin 
Metals Minnesota mining project in the Duluth Complex, one of 
the largest undeveloped mineral reserves in the world.\1\ 
Committee Republicans are strongly opposed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\Mining Minnesota. ``Minnesota's Vast Mineral Resources.'' http:/
/www.miningminnesota.com/duluth-complex/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In the last few days of the Obama Administration, the 
Department of the Interior initiated a mineral withdrawal of 
234,328 acres in the Superior National Forest, immediately 
halting all mining-related activities pending the results of an 
environmental review.\2\ The Obama Administration also declined 
to renew the two mineral leases held by Twin Metals Minnesota, 
despite their long tenure and hundreds of millions of dollars 
spent exploring their prospective mine site in the area.\3\ 
After 15 months of environmental review, the Trump 
Administration cancelled the mineral withdrawal on September 6, 
2018,\4\ and reinstated the mineral leases on May 2, 2018.\5\ 
In December 2019, Twin Metals Minnesota formally submitted a 
Mine Plan of Operation to begin the federal permitting process 
to development the Duluth Complex, with the Minnesota 
Department of Natural Resources conducting its own 
environmental impact as well.\6\ H.R. 5598 effectively 
reinstates the Obama-era withdrawal, decisively halting the 
Twin Metals project and any future hardrock project in the 
Superior National Forest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\U.S. Department of Agriculture. ``USDA Removes Roadblock to 
Mineral Exploration in Rainy River Watershed.'' Press Release. 
September 6, 2018. https://www.usda.gov/media/press-releases/2018/09/
06/usda-removes-roadblock-mineral-exploration-rainy-river-watershed.
    \3\``The Latest: Twin Metals: Reinstating leases `important 
step'.'' May 2, 2018. Associated Press. https://apnews.com/
7c030dc4e85e4926a2028cb96e32b817.
    \4\https://www.usda.gov/media/press-releases/2018/09/06/usda-
removes-roadblock-mineral-exploration-rainy-river-watershed.
    \5\U.S. Department of the Interior. ``Rescission of December 15, 
2016, Lease Renewal Application Rejection. Reinstatement of Mineral 
Leases MNES 01352 & MNES 01353 as Issued in 2004. Reinstatement of Twin 
Metal's 2012 Lease Renewal Application.'' May 2, 2018. https://
www.twin-metals.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/2018.05.02-Twin-Metals-
Lease-Reinstatement-Decision-002.pdf.
    \6\Karnowski, Steve. ``Twin Metals Minnesota files formal mine plan 
with regulators.'' Associated Press. December 18, 2019. https://
apnews.com/3cb7d821267e8ada06e1817b5c380eef.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Hardrock minerals have become necessary to modern life, 
forming essential components of high-tech equipment including 
smartphones, defense systems, medical devices, and wind and 
solar energy technologies.\7\ Despite substantial reserves in 
the U.S., most of the nation's hardrock resources come from 
abroad, China in particular. Demand for hardrock minerals is 
expected to rapidly expand with the growth of electric vehicles 
(EVs) and other renewable technologies in the coming decades. 
For example, EVs require large amounts of lithium, gallium, 
cobalt, and nickel, which the United States must import in vast 
quantities.\8\ And since the U.S. has some of the best 
environmental and human labor standards in the world, it seems 
preferable to maximize domestic production of these materials, 
as well as being safer for the supply chain. If developed, the 
Duluth Complex in Northern Minnesota could become a crucial 
supply of minerals needed for renewables, including copper, 
nickel, and cobalt. This one deposit is estimated to contain 
7.7 billion short tons of ore,\9\ and Twin Metals Minnesota is 
planning to mine 180 million short tons over 25 years.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \7\David Iaconangelo. ``Rare earth 'critical' for U.S. offshore 
projects--study.'' E&E News. April 5, 2019. https://www.eenews.net/
energywire/2019/04/05/stories/1060143799.
    \8\U.S. Geological Survey. Mineral Commodity Summaries 2019. 
February 28, 2019. https://prd-wret.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/assets/
palladium/production/atoms/files/mcs2019_all.pdf.
    \9\Twin Metals Minnesota. Staff briefing. February 3, 2020.
    \10\Twin Metals Minnesota. Staff briefing. February 3, 2020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The national importance of the Duluth Complex is matched by 
its significance to the local community. A project-labor 
agreement was signed with the local Iron Range Building Trades 
Association, guaranteeing local jobs during the mine's 
construction.\11\ Construction alone will create about 700 
direct and 1,400 indirect jobs.\12\ Additionally, mining 
employment provides comparatively high wages, with an average 
mine worker in Minnesota earning close to $90,000 compared to 
approximately $21,000 in the tourism industry.\13\ The economic 
benefits will be felt throughout the State, as mineral 
development provides funding to every school district in 
Minnesota through the Permanent School Fund.\14\ This Fund has 
contributed $260 million to 337 public school districts over 
the past 10 years.\15\ Given the many positive local impacts, 
numerous Minnesota stakeholders including labor unions, 
builders, miners, schools, and local officials, have stated 
their strong support for the project and opposition to H.R. 
5598.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \11\Vandervort, Keith. ``Twin Metals inks project labor agreement 
with trades.'' The Timberjay. August 21, 2019. http://timberjay.com/
stories/twin-metals-inks-project-labor-agreement-with-trades,15357.
    \12\Twin Metals Minnesota. Staff briefing presentation. September 
2019.
    \13\Twin Metals Minnesota. Staff briefing presentation. September 
2019.
    \14\Bloomquist, Lee. ``Mining Funds All Minnesota Schools.'' Mesabi 
Daily News. June 27, 2018. https://www.virginiamn.com/mine/mining-
funds-all-minnesota-schools/article_e0220246-7979-11e8-b515-
635cdec50b2c.html.
    \15\Bloomquist, Lee. ``Mining Funds All Minnesota Schools.'' Mesabi 
Daily News. June 27, 2018. https://www.virginiamn.com/mine/mining-
funds-all-minnesota-schools/article_e0220246-7979-11e8-b515-
635cdec50b2c.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    During Committee markup, several Republican amendments were 
offered to address the many concerns with this bill, such as 
exempting minerals used in renewable energy technologies from 
the withdrawal, and delaying enactment until it is determined 
that the withdrawal would not increase cobalt imports from 
countries using child labor. None of these amendments were 
adopted due to opposition from the Democrats, and the 
legislation advanced along party lines.
                                   Rob Bishop.

                                  [all]