[House Report 117-499]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]


117th Congress }                                          { Report
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
  2d Session   }                                          { 117-499

======================================================================
 
    RESOLUTION OF INQUIRY DIRECTING THE SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE TO 
TRANSMIT CERTAIN DOCUMENTS TO THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES RELATING TO 
       THE MINERAL WITHDRAWAL WITHIN THE SUPERIOR NATIONAL FOREST

                                _______
                                

 September 28, 2022.--Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be 
                                printed

                                _______
                                

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

                             ADVERSE REPORT

                             together with

                            DISSENTING VIEWS

                      [To accompany H. Res. 1251]

    The Committee on Natural Resources, to whom was referred 
the resolution (H. Res. 1251) of inquiry directing the 
Secretary of Agriculture to transmit certain documents to the 
House of Representatives relating to the mineral withdrawal 
within the Superior National Forest, having considered the 
same, reports unfavorably thereon with an amendment and 
recommends that the resolution as amended not be agreed to.
    The amendment is as follows:
  Strike all after the resolving clause and insert the 
following:

  That the Secretary of Agriculture is directed to transmit to the 
House of Representatives, not later than 14 days after the date of the 
adoption of this resolution, copies of any document, memorandum, 
correspondence, and other communication or any portion of any such 
communication, that refers or relates to the mineral withdrawal within 
the Superior National Forest and composition of the Duluth Complex, 
including the following:
          (1) All documents and communications relating to the minerals 
        found within the Duluth complex, including but not limited to 
        any reference to--
                  (A) the amount of copper or recognized critical 
                minerals found; and
                  (B) minerals needed for infrastructure, renewable 
                energy, or electric vehicle production.
          (2) All documents and communications referring or relating to 
        initiating the mineral withdrawal process within Superior 
        National Forest.
          (3) All documents and communications relating to the impact 
        of the mineral withdrawal on Twin Metals operation, including 
        but not limited to any reference to--
                  (A) preventing production of minerals;
                  (B) union project labor agreements; and
                  (C) the loss of economic benefits at the State and 
                local level.
          (4) All documents and communications relating to the impact 
        of the two-year pause on mineral activity in Superior National 
        Forest while the mineral withdrawal application is considered, 
        including but not limited to any reference to--
                  (A) national security implications;
                  (B) mineral supply chain stability implications;
                  (C) increased dependence on foreign minerals; and
                  (D) the economic losses at the State and local level.
          (5) Any meeting or communication that occurred between 
        Secretary Tom Vilsack, or his representative, and environmental 
        advocacy groups referring or relating to the mineral withdrawal 
        application in Superior National Forest.
          (6) All documents and communications referring or related to 
        the U.S. Forest Service's Environmental Assessment recommending 
        a mineral withdrawal in the Superior National Forest.

                       PURPOSE OF THE LEGISLATION

    The purpose of H. Res. 1251 is to direct the Secretary of 
Agriculture to transmit certain documents to the House of 
Representatives relating to the mineral withdrawal within the 
Superior National Forest.

                 BACKGROUND REGARDING THIS LEGISLATION

    A resolution of inquiry (ROI) is a simple resolution (as 
opposed to a joint resolution or concurrent resolution) that 
makes a nonbinding demand for the Executive Branch to provide 
the U.S. House of Representatives with specific information.\1\ 
Pursuant to clause 7 of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of 
Representatives, if the committee of referral does not report a 
properly drafted ROI back to the House within 14 legislative 
days of the ROI's introduction, then any Member may offer a 
non-debatable motion on the House Floor that such ROI be 
discharged from committee. By contrast, if an ROI is reported 
to the House within the 14-day window, then only a Member 
authorized by the committee may call up the resolution on the 
floor.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\See generally Christopher M. Davis, Cong. Res. Serv., IN10661, 
Resolutions of Inquiry in the House (updated July 21, 2022) https://
www.crs.gov/Reports/IN10661 and Christopher M. Davis, Cong. Res. Serv., 
R40879, resolutions of Inquiry: An Analysis of Their Use in the House, 
1947-2017 (updated Nov. 9, 2017), https://www.crs.gov/reports/pdf/
R40879--of which the above text is largely excerpts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                            COMMITTEE ACTION

    H. Res. 1251 was introduced on July 22, 2022, by 
Representative Pete Stauber (R-MN). The resolution was referred 
solely to the Committee on Natural Resources, and within the 
Committee to the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, 
the Subcommittee on Energy and Minerals Resources, and the 
Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests, and Public Lands. On 
September 15, 2022, the Natural Resources Committee met to 
consider the legislation. The Subcommittees were discharged by 
unanimous consent. Chair Raul M. Grijalva (D-AZ) offered an 
amendment in the nature of a substitute, which was agreed to by 
voice vote. A recorded vote was requested and postponed on 
adopting the legislation as amended and ordering it reported 
unfavorably to the House. The Committee adjourned.
    On September 21, 2022, the Natural Resources Committee met 
to continue its consideration of the measure. The resolution, 
as amended, was adopted and ordered reported unfavorably to the 
House of Representatives by a roll call vote of 22 yeas and 18 
nays, as follows:


                                HEARINGS

    Clause 3(c)(6) of House rule XIII requires designating a 
hearing as used to develop or consider certain bills and joint 
resolutions. The provision does not apply to simple 
resolutions.

            COMMITTEE OVERSIGHT FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

    To the extent that clause 2(b)(1) of rule X and clause 
3(c)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of 
Representatives may apply, 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. 
The Committee notes that 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 do not 
apply to committee reports on simple resolutions.\2\ 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 also do not apply to simple resolutions.\3\ The 
Committee notes that clause 3(d) of rule XIII of the Rules of 
the House of Representatives as well does not apply to 
committee reports on simple resolutions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\See Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974, 
Pub. L. No. 93-344, Sec. 308(a), 88 Stat. 297, 313 (1974), https://
uscode.house.gov/statviewer.htm?volume=88&page=313 (codified as 2 
U.S.C. Sec. 639(a)) (statutory compilation through P.L. 116-94 at 
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/COMPS-10356/pdf/COMPS-10356.pdf) 
(explicitly limiting the subsection's various requirements to (1) ``a 
bill or joint resolution, or committee amendment thereto, providing new 
budget authority'', (2) a conference report, or (3) PAYGO legislation).
    \3\Compare Pub. L. No. 93-344, at Sec. 402 (codified as 2 U.S.C. 
Sec. 653) (limiting the section's requirements to ``each bill or 
resolution of a public character'' reported by a committee (emphasis 
added)), with, e.g., Jane A. Hudiburg, Cong. Res. Serv., R46603, Bills, 
Resolutions, Nominations, and Treaties: Characteristics and Examples of 
Use 4 (2020), https://www.crs.gov/reports/pdf/R46603 (noting that 
simple resolutions govern only ``the internal affairs of one chamber'' 
of congress and are not used for enacting public law).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    To the extent that any of the preceding requirements may 
nonetheless apply, the Committee notes that it has requested 
but not received a cost estimate for this legislation from the 
Director of Congressional Budget Office. The Committee adopts 
as its own cost estimate any forthcoming cost estimate of the 
Director of the Congressional Budget Office, should such cost 
estimate be made available before House agreement to the 
resolution. The Committee has requested but not received from 
the Director of the Congressional Budget Office a statement as 
to whether this legislation 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. To the extent 
that clause 3(c)(4) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of 
Representatives may apply, the general performance goals and 
objectives of this resolution are to express a nonbinding 
demand from the House to the Executive Branch for certain 
documents as described in the text of the resolution.

                           EARMARK STATEMENT

    Clause 9 of rule XXI of the Rules of the House of 
Representatives does not apply to reports on simple 
resolutions. However, the Committee finds that the legislation 
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.

                 UNFUNDED MANDATES REFORM ACT STATEMENT

    Section 423 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act does not 
apply to committee reports on simple resolutions. However, the 
Committee finds that the legislation contains no unfunded 
mandates as defined by the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act.

                           EXISTING PROGRAMS

    Clause 3(c)(5) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of 
Representatives does not apply to committee reports on simple 
resolutions. However, the Committee finds that the legislation 
does not establish or reauthorize a program of the federal 
government known to be duplicative of another program.

                  APPLICABILITY TO LEGISLATIVE BRANCH

    Section 102(b)(3) of the Congressional Accountability Act 
does not apply to committee reports on simple resolutions. In 
any event, 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

    The Committee finds that the resolution, if agreed to by 
the House, would not have the force of law and therefore would 
have no preemptive effect over state, local, or tribal law.

                        CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW

    Clause 3(e) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of 
Representatives does not apply to committee reports on simple 
resolutions. In any event, the Committee finds that this 
legislation, if agreed to by the House, would make no changes 
to existing law.

                            DISSENTING VIEWS

    H. Res. 1251 directs the Secretary of Agriculture to 
transmit communications relating to the mineral withdrawal 
within the Superior National Forest and composition of the 
Duluth Complex, including the initiation of the mineral 
withdrawal process and subsequent Environmental Assessment, the 
economic and national security impacts of the withdrawal, and 
the administration's work with environmental advocacy groups 
relating to the withdrawal in question.
    On October 21, 2021, the U.S. Forest Service filed an 
application to the Bureau of Land Management for a withdrawal 
of 225,378 acres in Northern Minnesota's Rainy River watershed, 
where the Duluth Complex is located, from mineral development 
for 20 years. The submission of this application immediately 
triggered a two-year pause on operations in the area while the 
administration began analysis of the proposed withdrawal.
    Numerous affected parties and multiple Members of Congress 
have expressed their concerns about the negative ramifications 
of this withdrawal on the economy of the region and the 
security of American mineral supply chains. Committee 
Republicans discussed these negative impacts at length during 
the legislative hearing before the Committee on Natural 
Resources on May 24, 2022, concerning H.R. 2794 (McCollum), a 
bill to withdraw the area in perpetuity.
    Despite these concerns, the U.S. Forest Service announced 
that public comment would begin on June 28, 2022, on an 
Environmental Assessment of the proposed withdrawal. Concerns 
about the negative impacts of this withdrawal were repeated 
once again at the Committee on Natural Resources markup of July 
13, 2022, during debate of H.R. 2794 (McCollum). Further, on 
August 3, 2022, Congressman Stauber submitted comments to the 
Department of the Interior and the Department of Agriculture on 
the Environmental Assessment of the withdrawal, detailing his 
opposition to this proposed action in the context of national, 
international, and local level impacts. The public comment 
period on the Environmental Assessment closed on August 12, 
2022.
    As the Department of Agriculture continues forward with 
their unilateral withdrawal without regard for the major 
economic and national security implications of threatening our 
mineral supply chains, it is critical to bring transparency to 
the decisions behind this administration's actions in the 
Superior National Forest.
    For these reasons, I oppose reporting H. Res. 1251 
unfavorably.

                                                   Bruce Westerman.

                                  [all]