Paul Gosar

Mr. GOSAR

Mr. GOSAR. I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on the bill under consideration.

Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2371 will increase transparency and afford ratepayers with the necessary information to positively engage WAPA about its operations and spending decisions. Imagine that: getting back to what customers want. Mr. Speaker, I urge adoption of the measure, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Today, we are considering my bill, H.R. 2371, the Western Area Power Administration Transparency Act. This bipartisan bill simply requires the Western Area Power Administration, known as WAPA, to establish a pilot project to allow for a more detailed understanding of how it uses both taxpayer and ratepayer dollars. This bill is the result of calls from some of WAPA's customers given rate increase trends and other financial discrepancies. H.R. 2371 requires WAPA to develop a publicly available website that contains a detailed accounting of its rates, expenditures, staffing, and other operational and financial dealings. Since cost increases are ultimately borne by its customers, WAPA needs to be more transparent about its business practices. That is exactly what this bill seeks to achieve. H.R. 2371 will increase transparency and afford ratepayers with the necessary information to positively engage with WAPA about its operation and spending decisions. I urge adoption of the measure. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GOSAR

Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Poliquin).

Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2504, introduced by my Maine colleagues, Chellie Pingree and Bruce Poliquin, is a bipartisan effort to right a bipartisan wrong. In regulations created by an outgoing George W. Bush administration and carried on by administrations since, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has imposed unnecessary fees and duplicative and costly inspection requirements on what was once a growing industry that aims to export niche seafood to overseas markets. Even the National Marine Fisheries Service, a bastion of Federal regulatory growth, disagrees with its sister agency on this matter. The stories of spoiled food shipments, loss of jobs, and bureaucratic indifference embody the arrogance of an agency gone wild. This bill preserves and promotes jobs as a counter. I will include in the Record an exchange of letters with Chairman Royce of the Foreign Affairs Committee, who also received a referral of this bill. I thank him for his cooperation in allowing this bill to go forward today. Again, I commend our two Maine colleagues for working on a bipartisan basis to address this matter. I urge adoption of this commonsense measure, and I reserve the balance of my time. U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on Natural Resources, Washington, DC, January 8, 2018. Hon. Edward R. Royce, Chairman, Committee on Foreign Affairs, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. Chairman: H.R. 2504, To ensure fair treatment in licensing requirements for the export of certain echinoderms, was introduced on May 17, 2017. The bill was referred primarily to the Committee on Natural Resources, with an additional referral to the Committee on Foreign Affairs. I thank you for allowing the Committee on Foreign Affairs to be discharged from further consideration of the bill so that it may be scheduled by the Majority Leader. This discharge in no way affects your jurisdiction over the subject matter of the bill, and it will not serve as precedent for future referrals. In addition, should a conference on the bill be necessary, I would support having the Committee on Foreign Affairs represented on the conference committee. Finally, to memorialize our understanding, I would be pleased to include your letter and this response in the Congressional Record when the bill is considered by the House. Thank you for your response and cooperation. I look forward to further opportunities to work with you this Congress. Sincerely, Rob Bishop, Chairman, Committee on Natural Resources.

Mr. GOSAR

Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Wagner).

Mr. GOSAR

Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express serious concern and opposition to the unilateral decision by the Chinese Civil Aviation Authority to activate four air routes in the Taiwan-Strait. The decision was made without any consultation with the government of Taiwan, which is a clear violation of international law according to the International Civil Aviation Organization. This action by China could pose a grave threat to the cross-strait status quo between China and Taiwan. The cross-strait status quo has been essential in preventing a military crisis between the two countries that could be a threat to peace and security in East Asia. All relevant parties, including the Taiwanese Government, support the continuation of the cross-strait status quo. The Chinese Government must come to the negotiating table with Taiwan in order to return to the status quo. I am pleased that the State Department has come out strongly against this unlawful action by the Chinese Government and I encourage them to use their influence to bring China back to the negotiating table. The relationship between China and Taiwan should be based on dignity and respect, not one side trying to dominate the other.

Mr. GOSAR

Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak on the developments in Iran. For years many in the United States and elsewhere, have been advocating for changes in Iranian policy, including the adoption and implementation of human rights with respect to dissidents, religious minorities, protesters and opponents. The recent protests, and the loss of life in response to the protests, give us the opportunity to reflect that now is the time to reaffirm freedom of expression. Now is the time to reaffirm restraint and protect the lives of protestors. I am encouraged that the High Level Political Dialogue between the European Union and Iran in Brussels last year included a discussion on protecting and enhancing human rights. Nor should it go unnoticed that even the Iranian Supreme Leader noted that the leading opposition group, the Mujahedin-e Khalq (MEK), has popular support within Iran. It follows that the MEK should be treated as a legitimate opposition party with grass roots appeal. The MEK has pointed out the excesses of the current government and its efforts at accountability ring true with many Iranians. It is my hope that Iran can embrace a more responsible world view, a more humane approach to its own people, and allow dissidents and protestors the freedom to air their grievances.

Mr. GOSAR

Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Speaker, it is with great satisfaction and pride that I report the outcome of the first formally authorized national Convention of State Legislatures to convene in 156 years. The ``Arizona Balanced Budget Amendment (BBA) Planning Convention'' was held September 12-15, 2017 in the chamber of the Arizona House of Representatives. The purpose of the convention was to discuss and plan for an eventual Article V--convention of states to propose a federal balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. The convention was formally called by the Arizona legislature's passage of HCR2022 sponsored by the Arizona Speaker of the House, J.D. Mesnard, on March 16, 2017. Pursuant to that resolution, the purpose of the convention was to create a proposed set of rules for adoption by and to govern a future single subject Article V convention to propose a BBA. Additionally, delegates were instructed to address the logistics involved in preparing for and participating in an upcoming Article V BBA convention. This report is intended to inform the work of the Arizona BBA Planning Convention and highlight areas of importance. The Arizona BBA Planning Convention has created a roadmap for future conventions to draw upon when they convene, and has provided a sense of security to those who questioned the ability of State delegates to hold a convention that would address solely its single purpose and nothing more. It was an important endeavor that deserves proper cataloguing in the appropriate annals to include the Congressional Record, the Library of Congress, the National Archives, State Libraries, and the participating State Legislatures' records. I submit this congressional report and ask that you consider the work of the delegates as legitimate and pertinent. In keeping with the traditions of past national conventions, the Arizona BBA Planning Convention has encouraged delegations to create a report of the convention to their state. Georgia, Michigan and Minnesota, among others, are states whose delegates have provided a comprehensive assessment. We encourage them to submit their work to the above archives as well, and hope to preserve this work and encourage more national conventions on a variety of topics in the future. Therefore, I include in the Record a report to Congress in regard to Arizona balanced budget amendment: It is with great confidence that I believe each member of Congress possesses the same depth of gratitude for the work of our Founding Fathers as those of us who attended this first fully authorized convention of states since the Civil War. We are all tasked with the grand responsibility to govern the people. In doing so, we reach with one hand into the future to focus on protecting the prosperity of our children's children, and with our other hand we reach to the past to learn and explore what happened so that we are better able to protect and preserve the vision of those who built this great Republic. One such visionary was Col. George Mason, who insisted that the States should also be able to propose amendments to the Constitution. He imagined that there would come a time when the Legislatures would be called upon to take appropriate action, and that there ought to be a second mechanism to update our founding document should the need arise. This method has recently gained interest and popularity across the country, and for several years State Legislators have been examining the viability of such an exercise. It can be legitimately argued that the time George Mason envisioned is before us. The momentum is increasing and the reality of an Article V Convention of States is becoming ever apparent. Greater Legislators than I were aware of the need to prepare the way in advance, and it has been an honor to join them in that effort. We hope to work together with Congress to restore fiscal accountability through the requirement of a balanced budget, and preparing a proposed set of rules for the Balanced Budget Amendment Convention is our gift to future delegates to make that process easier. We present this report to you in hopes that you will consider the work that has been accomplished thus far. The Phoenix Correspondence Commission was created as an outgrowth of this convention, and as a founding member of that Commission, I look forward to beginning the conversation needed to prepare for the much-anticipated Article V Convention of States. ``We face the most predictable economic crisis in history.'' That was the conclusion of Erskine Bowles, co- chair of the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform (Simpson-Bowles Commission), to the U.S. Senate Budget Committee on March 8, 2011. At the time of this ominous warning to the nation in 2011, the national debt had just eclipsed $14 trillion. It took 206 years for our nation to amass $1 trillion in debt; it has increased by over $6 trillion in the just the last seven years. Had Congress acted on the commission's proposal, it would have reduced the national debt by $4 trillion over a decade and put Social Security solidly on the road to solvency. Congress ignored this unequivocal national wake up call. ``The fiscal path we are on today is simply not sustainable,'' Bowles said. ``This debt and these deficits that we are incurring on an annual basis are like a cancer and they are going to truly destroy this country from within unless we have the common sense to do something about it.'' States are exercising the common sense to do something about it. Acting under Article V of the U.S. Constitution, 28 of the required 34 States have now called for a convention of states to propose a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution in order to avert this ``most predictable economic crisis in history.'' In September of 2016, at the call of the Arizona Legislature, 19 States convened in their official capacity to propose rules for conducting an Article V balanced budget convention of states. We call upon Congress, the States, and people of good faith everywhere to extend their utmost efforts to support this constitutional remedy for curing the national fiscal ``cancer'' before the exponentially increasing national debt ``destroy[s] this nation from within.'' The Phoenix convention was instructive in preparing for a future Article V BBA convention. We learned much about the process of communicating with the state legislatures and the need to continue to educate them on the logistics of a convention. We were encouraged from the manner in which the delegates conducted themselves that any future convention, like Phoenix, will stick to its task and never ``run away'' as Article V naysayers assert. The nature of delegate appointment process and the rules, in addition to numerous other safeguards, simply won't allow for it. As a result of the Arizona convention, including the establishment of the Phoenix Correspondence Commission, the states as a group are positioned to assist Congress in counting the number of live Article V BBA applications in place, in assisting with identifying a time and location for a future BBA convention to be held, in addressing any legal issues which may arise concerning the calling of such a convention, in preparing language for an appropriate resolution to be passed by Congress fulfilling its mandatory obligation to call the convention when the threshold number of states have applied and to otherwise assist Congress in performing its duties pursuant to Article V of the United States Constitution. At present, twenty-eight (28) states have passed (and not rescinded) Article V applications calling for a convention to propose a balanced budget amendment. As we approach the two- thirds threshold triggering the call of a convention, we stand ready to work cooperatively with Congress in moving forward with this historic endeavor. I authored the resolution calling for a Balanced Budget Amendment Planning Convention in Phoenix because I love this country. I believe it to be the greatest nation that has ever existed, but I am greatly concerned that our country is not on a sustainable fiscal path. Contrary to what some would like us to believe, the responsibility to get our fiscal house in order does not just rest with Congress, nor is Congress the end-all-be-all for governing this country. In fact, a critical responsibility of the states in this great Union is in helping to keep our federal government in check. That value of Federalism was a bedrock principle that our Founding Fathers captured in the design of government put forth in the Constitution of the United States, over two centuries ago. I believe it is time for the states to start flexing our constitutional muscles, just as our Founding Fathers envisioned. And one vital tool for facilitating that, was instilled by our Founders in Article V of the Constitution. That is, the power of the states to propose amendments, especially as a means of constraining the power of the federal government. In 1798, then Vice President Thomas Jefferson, in correspondence with a state legislator, wrote, ``I wish it were possible to obtain a single amendment to our Constitution. I would be willing to depend on that alone for the reduction of the administration of our government; I mean an additional article taking from the Federal Government the power of borrowing.'' While it might be more than two centuries late, I hope that soon we will be able to give President Jefferson his wish--for our own sake All fifty state legislatures were invited to attend the Arizona BBA Planning Convention. The Arizona planning committee actively sought a delegation from each state and was fully inclusive in their efforts to host a bi-partisan event. HCR2022 specifically required that the delegations be chosen by resolution of the legislature or by formal joint appointment by the leadership in both houses of their respective state legislatures. This was to ensure that the delegation was authorized to speak and vote on behalf of their state Legislature. Delegates who were not listed on their State's approved delegation list were not seated. The meeting consisted of officially approved delegates from 19 state legislatures, with delegates from three additional states observing. Committees established to fulfill the requirements of HCR2022 were as follows: The Rules Drafting Committee; The Planning Committee, which was divided into two sub-committees: A Subcommittee on Ethics which was formed to address the impact and management of outside influence on the convention process and A Subcommittee on Delegates and Correspondence to assist in planning for a future BBA convention. A synopsis of the product of the Rules Committee is as follows: Produced a model set of rules for an Article V convention to propose a BBA. Some components of the set of model rules were as follows: The Article V convention shall be limited in scope to the balanced budget amendment. Governing rules provide for appropriate order and conduct during a BBA Article V convention which include, but are not limited to, the following: Duties of the officers. A quorum is a majority of the states in attendance. Each state shall be given only one vote, as has been the precedent in all preceding state conventions. Order of business and names of committees. The cost of the convention to be divided equally among the states in attendance. A synopsis of the Planning Committee is as follows: Recommendations for protecting the integrity of an Article V Convention. Non-delegates should not be permitted on the Chamber Floor, Members' Lounge, etc., and should only be permitted in public areas. Any interaction of Convention leadership and staff with non-delegate individuals or organizations that pertains to Convention business or process should be strictly prohibited, with the exception of the press. Convention communications should only include official activities. States should consider extending their ethics restrictions (i.e. lobbying, food, gifts, etc.) to delegates serving within a convention, in addition to any ethics standards imposed by Convention rules. Sub-Committee on Delegates and Correspondence reported the following: In anticipation of the call for a convention for proposing amendments, states are strongly encouraged to enact delegate selection legislation at the earliest opportunity. The Phoenix Correspondence Commission (PCC) was created. The PCC will consist of commissioners appointed by the states to carry out the following functions to organize a convention for proposing amendments: Creating a single point of contact to act as a liaison with Congress. Track all applications for a convention for proposing amendments. Create a process to suggest to Congress a time and place for a convention for proposing amendments. Provide a process for legal representation, if necessary. Perform tasks as needed to organize the convention. Each state is strongly encouraged to appoint a commissioner to the PCC to communicate on all matters associated with a convention for proposing amendments with any or all of the following: State Legislators, United States Citizens, Convention Organizers, State Congressional Delegations, and Congress. The members of the PCC will be initially comprised of one member appointed from each delegation present at this Arizona Balanced Budget Amendment Planning Convention, until such time as each commissioner's state formally appoints a commissioner to the PCC or declines to do the same.

Mr. GOSAR

Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. We have heard some other charges that H.R. 3905 changes five Federal laws for Minnesota's national forests. This bill alters no current environmental laws or protections. The Federal Land Policy and Management Act, NEPA, and all other environmental laws still apply to Minnesota. Let's go through this history. In 1950, Congress took action to make land available for mineral exploration and development within the Superior National Forest. Congress did. Then again, in 1978, Congress passed the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness Act, a compromise that prohibited mining within the 1.1 million acre Boundary Waters; once again, the red area and the yellow. No mining. But again, it specifically authorized mining in the Superior National Forest, the green. Once again, red, no; yellow, no; green, go. But that is fulfilling all current legislative and environmental laws. The General Mining Act of 1872 that we heard about earlier governs most mining on Federal lands. However, in this case, it does not. It is the Weeks Act that controls projects in this area because they are located on acquired National Forest mineral leases on these lands. There are no indefinite agreements. They typically retain a nondiscretionary right--nondiscretionary right, once again--to renew every 20 years. The two leases for the mineral deposit in question began in 1966, were renewed in 1989, and again in 2004, without controversy. The MINER Act halts last-minute political mineral withdrawals by requiring congressional approval. Once again, the magical words are ``congressional approval.'' The return to federalism--amazing--renews those two mining leases that were denied for political reasons under the same terms they were renewed twice previously and ensures any future mining projects will have to satisfy all existing environmental permitting requirements, including NEPA. These people demand that they do it in a righteous way. There is no digging right now. These are proposed. The Minnesotans whom I came up to visit, they happily shared their history and their area with me. They want it done right because they have to live with the consequences; not somebody who comes from Twin Cities once in a blue moon. Once again, let's go back. This is the Boundary Waters. This is what you have heard misrepresented all the way around. There is no mining going on in the Boundary Waters. There is no mining going on in the buffer area. Once again, no other buffer exists around a national monument except this. This is hallowed ground. Green, go. Now, it is also very unfortunate that we hear rumors going around from Members of Congress that the Department of the Interior actually is against this. That rumor is far from the truth. We just received an email from the Secretary of the Interior that they are not opposed to this bill. I include in the Record a list of over 150 groups, individuals, and community leaders who now want to be on record as supporting the lawful aspects of returning this back to the folks in Minnesota for mining. Endorsements of H.R. 3905 53 bipartisan state legislators (including leadership of both parties); AFL-CIO International Association of Bridge, Structural, Ornamental, and Reinforcing Iron Workers Local Union 512; Agribusiness & Water Council of Arizona; ALLETE; American Exploration & Mining Association; Americans for Limited Government; Apache County (Arizona); Apache Sun Golf Club; APEX; Arizona Association of Conservation Districts; Arizona Cattle Feeders Association; Arizona Golf Association; Arizona Pork Council; Arizona Liberty; Arizona State Rep. Bob Thorpe; Associated General Contractors of Minnesota; AZ BASS Nation; AZ Deer Association; The Bass Federation; Better in our Back Yard; Cactus and Pine Golf Superintendents Association supports H.R. 3905; City of Ely. Colorado Mining Association; Competitive Enterprise Institute; Concerned Citizens for America (Arizona); Conservatives for Property Rights; Dena Cordova Jack, Executive Vice President, Mountain States Lumber and Building Material Dealers Association; Global Minerals Engineering LLC; Golden Vertex Corporation; Grand Rapids Area Chamber of Commerce; Hibbing Area Chamber of Commerce; International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local Union 31; International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 49; The Jamar Company; Jefferson County Commissioner Donald Rosier, P.E.; Jobs for Minnesotans; Laborers District Council of MN & ND; Laborers International Union of North America; Laurentian Chamber of Commerce; Minnesota Building and Construction Trades Council; Minnesota Chamber of Commerce; MiningMinnesota; Minnesota Pipe Trades Association. Minnesota Power; Minnesota State Rep. Josh Heintzeman; Montana Mining Association; National Mining Association; National Stone, Sand & Gravel Association; New Mexico Cattle Growers' Association; New Mexico Federal Lands Council; New Mexico Wool Growers, Inc.; North America's Building Trade Unions; Plumbers and Pipefitters Local 589; Range Association of Municipalities and Schools; Scott W. Yates, President, Denver Lumber Co.; Shake Rattle & Troll Outdoors; Sulphur Springs Valley Electric Cooperative; Twin Metals Minnesota; United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America; Water Resource Institute; Women's Mining Coalition; Yavapai County Cattle Growers; Yavapai County Supervisor Board Chairman Thomas Thurman; Yuma County (AZ) Chamber of Commerce. Other Groups Supportive of Issues Addressed by the Bill 62 bipartisan state legislators (including leadership of both parties); Chair of the MN Permanent School Fund Commission; Dakota County Regional Chamber of Commerce; Dale Lueck, Chair of the Minnesota Legislative Permanent School Fund Commission; Duluth Chamber of Commerce; Fairmont Chamber of Commerce; Fergus Falls Chamber of Commerce; Greater North Dakota Chamber of Commerce; Iron Mining Association of Minnesota; Laborers District Council of MN & ND; Lake County Board of Commissioners; Metro North Chamber of Commerce; Minnesota Association of School Administrators--Region 7; Minnesota Chamber of Commerce; North Central States Regional Council of Carpenters; Owatonna Chamber of Commerce; Rochester Chamber of Commerce; St. Louis County Board of Commissioners; Twin West Chamber of Commerce; Up North Jobs; Western Mesabi Mine Planning Board; Willmar Chamber of Commerce.

Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Emmer), the originator of this bill.

Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I want to remind everybody I am wearing a copper tie, and that is because I come from Arizona. We are known as the 5 Cs: for the cotton, for the climate, for the cattle, for the citrus, and for copper. It is a critical mineral. We have seen these displays here in the well this morning, diverting the public's attention about what truly is actually here. This is actually a cite to explain to people exactly the clear definition. Let's look at this. What you see in red and yellow, just like a light that you see red, stop; yellow, caution; green, go, the red is the Boundary Waters. The red is the Boundary Waters: no mining, no mining whatsoever. The yellow is a buffer. By the way, the only place in the United States in which a monument is surrounded by a buffer: no, don't proceed. They confused you with that map. This is where we are talking about, down in here, in the green area. It is not the Boundary Waters. The pictures you saw that were in the well so eloquently shown to us were of the Boundary Waters, not where the mining is going to take place. Let's dispel the rumors. Let's get back down to facts. Red, no mining; yellow, no mining; green, okay. But that is following rules. That is following all rules. Once again, just to remind folks back home that are watching, the red is the Boundary Waters. There is no mining in the Boundary Waters. The pictures you saw in the well are of the Boundary Waters. No mining occurs in the Boundary Waters. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Westerman).

Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 631, I call up the bill (H.R. 3905) to require congressional approval of any mineral withdrawal or monument designation involving the National Forest System lands in the State of Minnesota, to provide for the renewal of certain mineral leases in such lands, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Speaker, in July, the Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources heard all about how royalties, if ill-constructed, serve only to disincentivize investment in self-sufficiency and increase our reliance on imported critical minerals. This amendment is a hallmark example of such a poorly designed royalty. This amendment doesn't specify what the royalty will be applied to, when in the mining process it will be assessed, and it doesn't even have a cap, for that matter. This amendment is just a thinly veiled means to prevent this important mining project from getting off the ground. The author actually stated that in his comments. Mr. Speaker, I oppose this amendment. I ask all Members to vote against it, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, once again, we may want to go back to misinformation. This does not pertain to the Mining Act of 1872. In fact, this is under the Weeks Act, which controls projects in this area because they are located on acquired natural forest land. Mineral leases on these lands, though not indefinite agreements, typically retain nondiscretionary right for renewal every 20 years. The two leases for mineral deposits in question began in 1966, were renewed in 1989, and again in 2004 without controversy. I would also like to take the opportunity to go through a number of groups that actually are against this amendment and endorse the bill. Fifty-three bipartisan State legislators from the State of Minnesota are for this bill: ``As elected leaders of the Minnesota Legislature, we are writing in strong support of H.R. 3905. This legislation supports jobs, economic development and industry in northeast Minnesota, and will reverse an onerous, overreaching, and politically motivated decision by the Obama administration. H.R. 3905 has bipartisan support, and it is our sincere hope that it will become law for the well-being of our State and its citizens.'' A second one from the Range Association of Municipalities and Schools: The results of the withdrawal and a potential 20-year moratorium would have a devastating impact on the financial support for our statewide public school system and future generations of Iron Rangers who would be employed in any future mining developments. It has been estimated that within 20 years of mining for precious metals, our Permanent School Trust Fund would reap nearly $3 billion in royalties if allowed to go forward. The Miner Act does not infringe or restrict these very strenuous and stringent environmental review processes, and we emphasize there will be no mining in the Boundary Waters or the buffer zone specifically surrounding the Boundary Waters. Let's go to the next one from the American Exploration & Mining Association: ``H.R. 3905 will eliminate delays, return to good stewardship of fair process and restore the opportunity to explore strategic metals critical to our economy and national security in one of the richest mineral deposits in the Nation. . . . The emerging mining industry is an investment in the future well-being of our State and Nation; without this legislation, that future is at risk.'' Here is another one from the Competitive Enterprise Institute: ``The bipartisan H.R. 3905 is a welcome reassertion of congressional authority over public lands. Article 4 of the Constitution vests Congress--not the President--with plenary power over public lands. Members on both sides of the aisle should take umbrage at President Obama's lameduck machinations to withdraw from the multiple- use framework more than 230,000 acres of public lands in Minnesota-- with the mere stroke of a pen. By treating public lands regulation as a means to build a Presidential legacy through midnight regulation, the previous administration flouted the spirit of participatory and inclusive lands-use statutes as designed by Congress. Lawmakers should correct the course by passing the excellent H.R. 3905.'' Finally, the Associated General Contractors of Minnesota: H.R. 3905 changes no environmental review processes, relaxes no environmental standards, and specifically restates Congress' prohibition on any mining activity in the Boundary Waters and surrounding protective buffer areas. H.R. 3905 would reaffirm longstanding congressional intent that actually espouses that this area be designated for mining and timber sales. Mr. Speaker, I ask everybody to vote against this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on H.R. 3905.

Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Speaker, what transpired here was a travesty. As I outlined, historically, Congress dictated twice in a usual fashion this green area for go. They designed the Boundary Waters and a buffer area for protection. Once again, no Boundary Waters--you are being misled--no Boundary Waters are having mining. This is as clear as it gets. What ended up happening was in an illegal action by the President last year, or earlier this year, he wiped this away. This doesn't wipe away any environmental laws. What it does is, it returns it to the way it was. The way that it should be; the way that Congress dictated. Federalism, a return to the people in that State. Mr. Speaker, I ask everybody to vote for this bill and support this bill. I also ask everybody to go to a video that has been produced by the people in this iron-ore range to see exactly how the people of that area of Minnesota actually feel about it. It is magnificent. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Speaker, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. GOSAR. That is a taconite pit.

Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman is talking about this whole aspect, the gentleman is right, but it is about all mining. This isn't just about copper mining. This is about taconite and all other mining.

Mr. GOSAR. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question of the gentleman from California. Can the gentleman give me an example of a mine that he actually supports?

Mr. GOSAR. I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. GOSAR

Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the rule and H.R. 3905, the Minnesota Economic Rights in the Superior National Forest Act. 17,000 jobs, $3 billion for education, $1.5 billion in annual wages, and $2.5 billion annually for our economy are at risk if we don't pass H.R. 3905. Further, there are more than 4 billion tons of ore containing copper, nickel, and other metal resources within the area the previous administration tried to shut down, which represents the largest known undeveloped deposit of strategic and critical minerals in the world. If left unchallenged, these political anti-mining and anti-education actions set precedent for a sweeping executive power grab that threatens communities throughout the country. Education will be significantly harmed, as Minnesota is projected to lose up to $3 billion in royalty revenues for the State's permanent school trust fund that would support nearly 900,000 K-12 students statewide if the withdrawal application and canceled leases are not rejected. As the President, on January 19, was leaving office, he actually proposed a massive land withdrawal in northern Minnesota, immediately placing 245,000 acres off limits to development potentially for 20 more years in the future. In conjunction with this massive mineral withdrawal, the Obama administration's Bureau of Land Management inappropriately rejected Twin Metals Minnesota's application to renew two hard rock mineral leases in Minnesota's Superior National Monument. Finally, I want to put to rest the false claim raised by the extremist groups that this bill would affect the 1.1-million-acre Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness that already has a significant buffer between it and the forest. No one is advocating to mine in the wilderness or the surrounding buffer zones. In fact, the bill clearly states on page 4: ``Nothing in this section may be construed as permitting the prospecting for development and utilization of mineral resources within the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness or Mine Protection Area.'' Congress has authorized mining in the forest by law two different times, and the 1986 Forest Service and 2004 Forest Plans both concluded mining is a desired condition in the Superior National Forest. Mr. Speaker, I ask Members to support this commonsense, job-creating bill and to support the rule to bring this bill to the floor for proper adjudication.