Providing for Congressional Disapproval of the Rule Submitted By the Bureau of Land Management Relating to Public Land Order No. 7917 for Withdrawal of Federal Lands; Cook, Lake, and Saint Louis Counties, Mn
Floor Speech
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to H.J. Res. 140, a resolution that would threaten America's beloved Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness in northern Minnesota.
Mr. Speaker, Boundary Waters draws more visitors than any other wilderness in the country. Millions of Americans have paddled, fished, swum, and found solace among its pristine lakes and forests. It supports a multibillion-dollar outdoor economy, thousands of jobs, and a way of life that has been passed down for generations.
It is an area that Presidents, reaching back to Teddy Roosevelt, and Members of Congress on both sides of the aisle have long recognized in terms of its value, and we have protected it as part of our American heritage.
Yet, the Boundary Waters have been under threat for years. Twin Metals, owned by Antofagasta, a Chilean mining company with close ties to China, has been lobbying for years to set up a mine just outside the wilderness area, along the banks of waters that flow north, directly into the wilderness.
The type of mining that Twin Metals has proposed has a 100 percent track record of toxic pollution. There has never been a mine of this kind that did not leach toxic pollution.
Despite what the other side of the aisle might say, there is no guarantee that the precious minerals that were just talked about produced from this mine would actually stay in the U.S. and benefit the American economy or American national security at all.
Antofagasta sends most of its minerals to China, where they are then sold on the global market, likely the same fate for these minerals if this mine is allowed to happen.
All of this is why, nearly 3 years ago, Secretary of the Interior Deb Haaland protected the lands surrounding the Boundary Waters and its headwaters from mining for 20 years through a public land order, a standard tool and process backed by peer-reviewed science and extensive public engagement.
The Congressional Review Act resolution on the floor today would overturn those protections, once again putting our beloved Boundary Waters at risk of toxic pollution from a foreign-owned mine.
If that weren't enough to convince my colleagues that this resolution is a terrible idea, I will briefly touch on the abuse of the Congressional Review Act itself that this resolution represents.
The Congressional Review Act, or CRA, has been used to overturn rules finalized by administrations of both parties since it was signed into law in 1996.
This Congress, the Trump administration and Republicans in both Chambers have been using the CRA to overturn public lands protections that have never been considered rules in the past. In an entirely unprecedented move, they are moving forward, even though the Government Accountability Office hasn't yet ruled on whether they believe this public land order constitutes a rule that would be subject to the CRA.
This administration and its allies in Congress have just unilaterally decided that they can do this, despite the fact that the Department of the Interior has never before considered a land withdrawal like this to be a rule.
Congress received notice of this withdrawal 3 years ago. If the resolution's sponsor wanted to pursue a CRA, he should have inquired then.
If this CRA succeeds, it won't just open the Boundary Waters to pollution but would set a terrible and dangerous precedent for Congress to roll back protections for any of our treasured public lands with little oversight or notice, just because Republicans have decided they would rather pillage them for profit.
Some places are just worth protecting, and this pristine, one-of-a- kind place is one of those incredible places.
Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this backdoor attempt to open our public lands to foreign mining, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, to the claim that Secretary Haaland failed to notify Congress as required by law, I am holding the notification that went out 3 years ago to the gentleman from Minnesota, personally, from the Secretary of the Interior. Maybe there is a misunderstanding there, but we have the receipts on that one.
McCollum).
I appreciate that the gentleman from Montana is suddenly so forthcoming about all of the analysis that has gone into this particular mining project because that wasn't always the case. When he was Secretary, we asked to see that analysis, and what we got back was page after page of redaction. We got zero information.
I appreciate the newfound candor from the gentleman, but I have to question his scientific credentials when he assures us that this will be the first ever copper mine of its kind to have no toxic pollution, even though 100 percent of mines using this particular method have leeched toxic pollution. Somehow, we are told this will be the first one to not do that because of all the extra scrutiny it has received.
Well, this series of black pages tells you a lot about the transparency and the scrutiny we have come to expect from the folks across the aisle.
Morrison).
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Speaker, just for clarification, we are well aware that the Twin Metals mine is proposed just outside of the border of the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness. We have been very clear on that. However, it is very much within the watershed of the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness. In fact, it is right on the edge. It is just a couple of miles upstream on a river that flows right into this area. Let's stop kidding ourselves. To try to say that it is outside the border on this map and, therefore, the Boundary Waters have nothing to worry about when this mine leaks-- because it will, because every mine of this kind, 100 percent in the past, have leaked and have caused toxic pollution--when it happens, that pollution is going straight into America's most popular wilderness. That is a fact.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Speaker, now we hear about a gold mine on the Canadian side of the Boundary Waters watershed that has been producing minerals without incident. I am beginning to worry that my colleagues don't understand basic hydrology and how water flows and moves. To begin rebuttal, I include in the Record two articles on New Gold:
Mr. Speaker, the mine was fined nearly $200,000 for discharging 19 million liters of pollution into the watershed. New Gold was fined again in 2018 after a sediment spill from a dam.
The only reason that that wasn't catastrophic for the Boundary Waters is because that mine is on the north side of the wilderness, where the water flows away from the protected areas.
That is how it works: Water in a watershed flows downhill in whatever direction that watershed takes it. I don't know why that basic principle seems so hard to understand, but apparently we have some hydrology problems across the aisle.
Mr. Speaker, we have been told time and again by our friends across the aisle that we have nothing to worry about here because this mine, even though it is proposed right next to the Boundary Waters wilderness on a river that flows directly into the wilderness with a type of mining that has a 100 percent track record of leaching toxic pollution, that, in spite of all that, we have all these wonderful environmental standards that will protect America's most popular wilderness.
That is pretty cold comfort, Mr. Speaker, coming from lawmakers who are working overtime to gut every single one of those bedrock environmental protections.
It may not be in this particular bill, but do I have to remind my colleagues that, just a few weeks ago, we were here on the floor debating their legislation to gut the National Environmental Policy Act. In our markup the same week, Republicans led the charge to eviscerate the Endangered Species Act. Separately, in other committees, they are going after the Clean Water Act.
Every one of these safeguards that we are told will be a backstop against anything going wrong in the Boundary Waters is under unprecedented attack from the same folks who are pushing this legislation right now.
Don't be fooled that everything will be fine because of our environmental laws and standards. Those are under an unprecedented attack.
Mr. Speaker, I strongly oppose this resolution for both the extreme danger that it poses to the Boundary Waters and the outrageous abuse of the Congressional Review Act that it represents.
As you have heard today, the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness is an American treasure with a strong, nonpartisan history of protection, dating back to 1909 through treaties with Canada and to 1964 with the Wilderness Act, which passed with overwhelming bipartisan support back when we had great conservation champions in both parties.
Americans from across the country who have experienced the serenity of this wilderness know exactly what is at stake. Passing this resolution would pave the way for toxic mining that would, without a doubt, cause permanent and irreparable harm, mining that wouldn't even benefit the U.S. economy.
This move is deeply unpopular in Minnesota and does not put American critical mineral security first. This material will go to China.
It would also have far-reaching consequences for the future of public lands management, making beloved, protected lands across the country vulnerable to exploitation with very little oversight.
At the end of the day, some places really are worth protecting, and this is one of those places. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on H.J. Res. 140, and I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source