Katie Porter

Ms. PORTER

Ms. PORTER. Mr. Chair, our servicemembers deserve the best medical care and often they get world-class care, but sometimes military doctors fail our servicemembers, making grave errors. In the civilian world, patients can file malpractice claims in court against doctors and have a jury hear their claims, but military doctors are immune from that scrutiny. Instead, several years ago, Congress and the DOD developed a process for evaluating servicemember malpractice claims, but that process is clearly broken. We all have constituents who have been victims of military medical malpractice, and we need to hold DOD and its doctors accountable. That is why I cosponsored Congressman Issa's HERO Act and that is why we need this amendment. We need an independent, objective analysis of how military medicine is failing our servicemembers. My bipartisan amendment would address servicemember traumatic brain injury stemming from blast pressure in combat and in training. Brain injuries among servicemembers are on the rise. Just last month, there were reports that artillery soldiers are also suffering these career-altering injuries. Whether injuries are the result of training or combat, our servicemembers and their families need the best healthcare we can offer. That is what this amendment does by requiring the DOD to explore new technologies for the treatment and prevention of brain injuries. Last year, this amendment passed the House with bipartisan support. We must do it again because it was not included in the final legislation with the Senate. Mr. Chair, I urge my House colleagues to pass it again and my Senate colleagues not to delay this important amendment. Too often, our servicemembers rely on decades-old equipment that can't be updated at a fair price. Open system interfaces solve that problem. These systems are already in our daily lives. They are in our phones and in our cars. They have been embraced by some defense programs because open systems promise faster and cheaper upgrades. That is because they allow the government to embrace competition for new parts and software that make equipment more effective. For small and innovative companies to offer their solutions to the Pentagon, they need to know what standards the government is using. This amendment will give businesses access to the information they need to compete. My amendment would grow small businesses and give our servicemembers the tools they need to win. Mr. Chair, I rise to support our military families. Military child development centers are a lifeline for our servicemembers who move frequently and often work long hours, past when childcare centers are open. Serving more than 20,000 children, the military has offered childcare on its bases for decades. Yet, like many families, military families struggle to find childcare. A shortage of providers has left roughly 9,000 children waiting months for a spot at a military childcare center. Childcare is a quality-of-life concern for Active-Duty servicemembers, including those in my district at Naval Weapons Station Seal Beach. My amendment would provide a strategy to construct an adequate number of child development centers to support our military families as they tirelessly serve our country. Mr. Chair, I urge Members to support this amendment.

Ms. PORTER

Ms. PORTER. Mr. Speaker, dealing with a flight delay or cancellation is tiring and frustrating, and it often feels like the airlines are working against you rather than treating you as a valued customer. When things go wrong, even getting a refund can be discouraging or impossible. Not anymore, because thanks to the Biden administration's new rule, airlines must now automatically refund customers for tickets and fees when a flight is canceled or significantly delayed. I applaud the administration's rule, and Congress should do even more to stand up to the airline industry. I have consistently taken on airlines who spend tens of millions of dollars each year lobbying Washington to prevent protections for travelers. This Congress, I introduced four bills to protect Americans from corporate abuse when they fly, and I will keep working to hold airlines accountable and do right by travelers.

Ms. PORTER

Ms. PORTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise to congratulate the University High School boys' tennis team for winning California's first-ever statewide tennis championship. The Trojans' top-tier athleticism and exceptional motivation led the team to victory in one of the country's most competitive boys' tennis leagues. Under Coach John Kessler, the University High School boys' tennis team has racked up nearly 900 wins, 18 consecutive Pacific Coast League titles, 8 Ojai Tournament wins, 15 California Interscholastic Federation Southern Section championships, 4 Southern California Regional crowns, and 4 National All-American titles. Their win at the CIF State Championship cements Uni High in the record books and is a testament to the hard work and dedication of the players and Coach Kessler. Congratulations to these extraordinary athletes, their families, and the entire Uni High family on this incredible achievement.

Ms. PORTER

Ms. PORTER. Mr. Speaker, I was unable to be present to cast my vote on Roll Call No. 248 and Roll Call No. 249. Had I been present, I would have voted YEA on Roll Call No. 248 and YEA on Roll Call No. 249.

Ms. PORTER

Ms. PORTER. Mr. Speaker, I was unable to be present to cast my vote on Roll Call No. 243, Roll Call No. 244, Roll Call No. 245, Roll Call No. 246, and Roll Call No. 247 on June 5, 2024. Had I been present I would have voted NAY on Roll Call No. 243, YEA on Roll Call No. 244, NAY on Roll Call No. 245, YEA on Roll Call No. 246, and NAY on Roll Call No. 247.

Ms. PORTER

Ms. PORTER. Madam Speaker, I was unable to be present to cast my vote on Roll Call No. 235 and Roll Call No. 236 today. Had I been present, I would have voted NAY on Roll Call 235 and NAY on Roll Call No. 236.

Ms. PORTER

Ms. PORTER. Mr. Speaker, I was unable to be present to cast my vote on Roll Call No. 237, Roll Call No. 238, Roll Call No. 239, Roll Call No. 240, Roll Call No. 241 and Roll Call No. 242. Had I been present I would have voted No on Roll Call No. 237, No on Roll Call No. 238, No on Roll Call No. 239, AYE on Roll Call No. 240, No on Roll Call No. 241 and NAY on Roll Call No. 242.

Ms. PORTER

Ms. PORTER. Mr. Speaker, I was unable to be present to cast my vote on Roll Call No. 233 and Roll Call No. 234 today. Had I been present, I would have voted YEA on Roll Call No. 233 and YEA on Roll Call No. 234.

Ms. PORTER

Ms. PORTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise to commemorate the 70th anniversary of Brown v. Board of Education, the Supreme Court's decision to desegregate public schools. Despite this landmark case and the integration that followed, segregation in schools has increased by more than 60 percent over the last few decades, driven by so-called school choice and Federal courts rolling back desegregation commitments. Every student should have the opportunity to get a quality education. Federal, State, and local leaders must work hand-in-hand to reverse the harmful policies, including the housing costs that have contributed to this new wave of segregation. In Orange County, which I represent, students challenged school segregation in one of the first cases of its kind, Mendez v. Westminster, which integrated California schools and laid much of the groundwork for Brown v. Board of Education. Mr. Speaker, as we mark the 70th anniversary of Brown v. Board of Education, I hope my colleagues will join me in recommitting to fighting segregation. Thanking Military Spouses

Ms. PORTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise to extend my sincere gratitude to our Nation's military spouses. We recently celebrated National Military Spouse Appreciation Day, a reminder to reflect on how military families support our servicemembers and our country through their selfless dedication. The Biden administration recently came to an agreement with the Department of Defense and State Department to strengthen the Federal Domestic Employees Teleworking Overseas program for military spouses working for the Federal Government. This agreement will help military spouses keep their jobs and advance their careers while their partners are stationed overseas. Yesterday, I joined my Oversight Committee colleagues to build on this success and advance a bill that would codify these protections into law. Our military is stronger and more capable when military spouses can build their careers because families choose to reenlist. I applaud their service and selfless dedication to our country. Paying Tribute to Jeffrey Jackson

Ms. PORTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise to commemorate the passing of the past president of the Orange County Realtors, Jeffrey Jackson. Jeff's presidency came at a tumultuous time for real estate, with changes to commission structures, historically low inventory, and high interest rates. Those challenges didn't inhibit his willingness to serve. As his association stated, he willingly embraced the opportunity. Jeff was a passionate advocate, and the struggles of his clients to find housing drove him to fight for housing for all. He fulfilled all of his roles, including at the State and national associations, until the final weeks of his battle with cancer. Jeff had four loves: his Hoosiers; his dog, Niles; jazz; and housing. He moved to California in 2010 and, in 2014, began his 10-year real estate career. Jeff was loved by many, including me, and he will be dearly missed. Pausing Expansion of LNG Export Capacity

Ms. PORTER. Mr. Speaker, Big Oil has long exploited and profited from our dependence on fossil fuels. I rise today proud that our President is finally standing up to Big Oil and putting people over polluters. I applaud President Biden's decision to pause the expansion of America's liquid natural gas export capacity. For too long, the United States has rapidly approved LNG terminals without verifying economic benefits and making sure that Big Oil companies are accountable to clean up their messes. The United States is already the top exporter of LNG, and future projects are not expected to go online for several years, handcuffing future generations with the harms of pollution. We need rigorous oversight of LNG exports to protect families, communities, the environment, and our national security. The Biden administration's announcement is an incredible first step to making sure the American people, not just Big Oil companies, actually benefit from changes to our energy policies.

Ms. PORTER

Ms. PORTER. Mr. Speaker, each year, millions of Americans pay third- party software companies to file their taxes. Having to pay hundreds of dollars in fees just to pay your taxes makes no sense. I championed a program called Direct File to change that, which was included in the Inflation Reduction Act. As a result, thousands of Americans filed their taxes directly with the government this year for free. Despite Big Tax Prep lobbying against Direct File, 140,000 Americans, including 33,000 Californians, used the pilot program this year. People want this program. Even better, 9 out of 10 people who used Direct File had a positive experience and said it made them more confident in the IRS. Let's take the win here, Congress. We don't have that many, to be honest. Let's make the Direct File program permanent and available nationwide.

Ms. PORTER

Ms. PORTER. Mr. Speaker, to hear Republicans tell it, the only problem with our immigration system is the border. That is a lie. Our process for legal immigration is badly broken. In 2023, 35 million people applied for green cards; some for economic opportunities, some to bring their families together, and some to flee violence. Of the millions in the green card lottery, what percentage got them? Go ahead. Take a guess. Twenty percent? Five percent? One percent? Nope. Mr. Speaker, it was 0.2 percent. That is wholly unacceptable. This deeply dysfunctional system for lawfully entering the United States worsens unlawful immigration. The two are connected. Congress can fix immigration, not just point the finger at those seeking a better life. Instead of blaming everyone else for our broken immigration system, Republicans should own up to the fact that Congress, under their leadership, is what is broken.

Ms. PORTER

Ms. PORTER. Mr. Speaker, I was unable to be present to cast my vote on Roll Call No. 196 and Roll Call No. 197 today. Had I been present, I would have voted YEA on Roll Call No. 196 and YEA on Roll Call No. 197.

Ms. PORTER

Ms. PORTER. Madam Speaker, we have heard repeatedly from across the aisle that mining pollution is a thing of the past, that today's modern mining industry operates under the highest environmental standards, and that after the mining operations stop, the industry cleans up after itself. If that sounds too good to be true, it is because it is. Our current regulations require companies to post financial assurances to cover the cost of cleanup after their mining operations stop, but it is not enough. Dangerous pollution still happens far too often. Depending on the mine type and location, between 74 and 82 percent of modern-day mines are polluting beyond what their permits allow. The kicker? Taxpayers pay domestic and foreign mining companies for their subsidies and often the entire cost of cleanup. Given the $54 billion backlog to clean up mines abandoned before our current reclamation regulations, which continue to pollute our lands, waters, and communities, the American taxpayer literally cannot afford new mining pollution. That is why I filed an amendment to this bill to improve bonding requirements and make mining companies keep up with the new mining rush that this bill would enable. This is a commonsense amendment. If we are going to allow a toxic mining free-for-all, we should at least make sure that taxpayers are not footing the bill. After all, this bill opens up our lands to our foreign adversaries, and I don't expect them to clean up after themselves out of the goodness of their hearts. My amendment would make sure operators post financial assurances to fully cover reclamation of all mining activities. It would correct for inconsistencies in both BLM and Forest Service regulations and codify those corrections into law. It would have made sure these financial assurances were real money, like surety bonds, irrevocable letters of credit, certificates of deposit, or cash, not insurance policies that lapse if the mining company goes bankrupt. It is time we hold industry accountable and make sure they cannot pass on the costs of cleaning up after themselves, the costs of their earning profits, to the American people. Guess what? The Republican majority refused to even consider my amendment. They blocked it from getting a debate on the House floor and even from getting a simple up-or-down vote. It is outrageous, and it paints a dark picture of the House Republican's priorities: polluters over people, and China over the American taxpayer.

Ms. PORTER

Ms. PORTER. Mr. Speaker, I was unable to be present to cast my vote on Roll Call No. 195 today. Had I been present, I would have voted YEA.

Ms. PORTER

Ms. PORTER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. PORTER. Mr. Speaker, I also include in the Record a letter from the Wilderness Society in opposition to this legislation. The Wilderness Society, May 11, 2023. Dear Chairman Pete Stauber, Ranking Member Ocasio-Cortez, and Members of the House Natural Resources Energy and Minerals Subcommittee: On behalf of our more than one million members and supporters, The Wilderness Society (TWS) writes to urge you to oppose House Congressional Resolution 34 and the so-called Superior National Forest Restoration Act. We respectfully request that this letter be submitted to the hearing record. TWS supports Public Land Order 7917, which in early 2023 withdrew 225,504 acres of public lands and minerals located in the headwaters of the Boundary Waters in the Superior National Forest from the federal mineral leasing program for twenty years. House Congressional Resolution 34 and the Superior National Forest Restoration Act would reverse the goals of that Public Land Order. The two pieces of legislation being heard by the Subcommittee today represent a wholesale attack on both the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness's unique character and ecological values, as well as an attack on executive agency authority to protect our federal public lands and waters, particularly under the Federal Land Policy and Management Act. Protecting the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness from Copper Mining. The Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness in the Superior National Forest of northeastern Minnesota is made up of 1.1 million acres of interconnected lakes and rivers and is located adjacent to and downstream of Voyageurs National Park and Canada's Quetico Provincial Park. The Boundary Waters not only provides habitat for wildlife, but it is also a refuge for people from every state in the U.S. who visit the Boundary Waters to fish, canoe, hike, recreate, and enjoy its forests, tranquil lakes, trails, and more than 1,200 miles of canoe routes. The Boundary Waters is core to the region's booming outdoor recreation industry, which generates $913 million in revenue and supports more than 17,000 local jobs annually. A 2019 economic study by Harvard Professor James H. Stock, Ph.D., former chair of Harvard's economics department, found that protecting this watershed from copper mining would result in 1,500 to 4,600 additional jobs and $100 million to $900 million in additional income over a 20-year period in an already thriving outdoor recreation-based economy. In October 2021, the Biden administration announced they were re-initiating the process for a 20-year mineral withdrawal, reversing a misguided move by the former Trump administration to prevent a withdrawal and advance the destructive Twin Metals Mine. In early 2023, the Biden administration issued an environmental analysis and decision that found the impacts of sulfide-ore copper mining at the headwaters of the Boundary Waters could harm the area's abundant freshwater, deemed ``immaculate'' by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. Secretary Debra Haaland then issued Public Land Order 7917 withdrawing the area from new mining leases and permits, protecting America's most visited Wilderness area as well as Voyageurs National Park from toxic sulfide-ore copper mining in its headwaters/ H. Con. Res. 34 and H.R. __ needlessly cancel the science- based mineral withdrawal of the Boundary Waters, reinstate the cancelled mineral leases, and limit scientific and community input on the future of the Boundary Waters. The science is clear about the pollution and destruction that sulfide-ore copper mining on upstream land and waters would do: that pollution would flow directly into the Boundary Waters and into Voyageurs National Park and Canadian lands and waters as well. We urge your committee to reject this legislation and instead permanently protect the Boundary Waters by passing H.R. 5598, Rep. McCollum's Boundary Waters Wilderness Protection and Pollution Prevention Act. Mineral Withdrawals under the Federal Land Policy and Management Act. The Federal Land Policy & Management Act (FLPMA) explicitly grants the Secretary of the Interior the authority to make large-tract withdrawals of 5,000 acres or more of public lands from mineral extraction for up to 20 years. Republican and Democratic administrations have used this authority approximately 90 times over more than four decades, and Congress has never overturned one of those withdrawals. Both H. Con. Res. 34 and the Superior National Forest Restoration Act seek to undermine this key provision of FLPMA, threatening the ability of future presidential administrations to set aside tracts of land from mineral development. FLPMA withdrawals are used to protect a wide range of public land resources for conservation, cultural resource protection and even research. In fact, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) recently withdrew 22,684 acres of Public Land in Nevada's Railroad Valley upon request of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)'s to preserve the area's land surface which is used to calibrate NASA's Earth-observing satellites. Finally, H. Con. Res. 34 relies on a provision of FLPMA that is widely understood to be an unconstitutional legislative veto. Section 1130 of the House of Representatives Manual lists the provision as among several dozen unconstitutional legislative veto provisions. Additionally, a federal appeals court in 2017 definitively found the unconstitutional legislative veto provision severable from the Secretary of the Interior's withdrawal authority, which remains fully operative. Conclusion. TWS strongly opposes H. Con. Res. 23 and Superior National Forest Restoration Act and we urge all members of the Energy and Mineral Resources Subcommittee to oppose both pieces of legislation being considered by the Subcommittee today. Sincerely, Lydia Weiss, Senior Director, Government Relations, The Wilderness Society.

Ms. PORTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I just heard that Republicans now support a clean energy transition. I hope we can clip that because that is wonderful, wonderful news. Let me be the first to welcome the majority to the clean energy transition club, where we are going to support investments for States, municipalities, and Tribal governments to purchase clean energy technology, like solar panels, electric vehicle charging infrastructure, wind turbines, all of which, until today apparently, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle opposed. As the newest members of the clean energy transition club, let me give my colleagues on the other side of the aisle a brief lesson on where the U.S. stands with mineral production and trade, which is needed for the construction of clean energy technology, as my colleagues have correctly pointed out. First, the United States is among the top five producers of copper in the world and, according to the U.S. Geological Survey, has a low disruption potential. Second, while we do not, in the United States, have a significant amount of nickel or cobalt, we do have close trading relationships with our allies who do. Those allies are Canada--which is a leading supplier of nickel--Norway, Japan, and Finland. However, let's talk about what the Twin Metals mine would produce. If this project by this Chilean-owned mining company was allowed to go forward, mine, and pollute our wilderness, ship the ore and the jobs to China, and sell it anywhere in the world, what would it complete? Even if they were to sell all of it to us--and there is no guarantee they would choose to sell any of it here in the United States--it would produce about 1.5 percent of cobalt, about 2.3 percent of copper, about 3.6 percent of nickel, according to 2019 annual consumption, the most recent figures I could find. I emphasize there is no guarantee that the minerals produced at this proposed Twin Metals mine would wind up back here in the United States, but we are absolutely guaranteed to end up with pollution, contamination, and the destruction of beloved wilderness lands. That is what is at stake here. I also emphasize that the bill, H.R. 3195, would undo the withdrawal of 225,000 acres in the Superior National Forest. Removing these lands from the protection from mining would violate the will of indigenous communities. In this case, the Boundary Waters and Superior National Forest are traditionally known as the Anishinaabe land. The Ojibwe, or Chippewa people, have occupied this area since 1000 C.E. The region's interconnected waterways have been used as critical trade routes for thousands of years. By the 1830s, the United States Government began forcibly removing indigenous people from their lands in the upper Midwest. In exchange for millions of acres of land, the government promised to pay the Ojibwe people $35,000 each year for 20 years, and the Tribes were also granted the right to hunt, fish, and gather on those ceded lands. In 1848, copper was discovered along the north shore of Lake Superior. Mining companies pressured the government to open the land to mining, which required another land cession, including what would become the Boundary Waters Wilderness Area. The Tribes had to sue. In 1985 and 1989, they won confirmation of the Tribe's right to hunt, fish, and gather on those ceded lands, something that had been previously denied. To further protect these treaty rights, the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe supported the administration's withdrawal, and they support my colleague Representative McCollum's bill to permanently protect this region from mining. Because of their support for permanent protections, the Tribe has faced boycotts from mining-aligned interest groups, who have boycotted their casinos, event venues, and restaurants. That is a ridiculous and cruel response to a Tribe that is simply trying to protect its ancestral lands and waters from toxic pollution. To add insult to injury, this bill restricts judicial review of the reinstatement of leases, a blatant attack on treaty rights. The U.S. Government deciding on permits without allowing the Tribes to address their concerns in court is an egregious overreach of legislation in general, but also of particular concern to Tribal governments, who would be directly affected but unable to address their concerns in the only legal means that they currently have. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter from the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe in support of permanent protection of their Boundary Waters. The Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, January 31, 2020. Hon. Raul Grijalva, Longworth House Office Building, Washington, DC. Hon. Betty McCollum, Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC. Hon. Alan Lowenthal, Cannon House Office Building, Washington, DC. Dear Representatives Grijalva, McCollum, and Lowenthal: The Minnesota Chippewa Tribe is a federally recognized Indian tribe that is comprised of the following six Bands' Bois Forte; Fond du Lac; Grand Portage; Leech Lake; Mille Lacs; and White Earth. The Minnesota Chippewa Tribe has approximately 41,000 members. The duly elected governing body of the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe is the Tribal Executive Committee which is comprised of the Chairpersons and Secretary/Treasurers from the six constituent Bands. The United States has government-to-government relationships with both the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe and each of the six Bands of the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe. Three MCT Bands, Fond Du Lac. Grand Portage and Bois Forte, retain hunting, fishing, and other usufructuarv rights that extend throughout the entire northeast portion of the state of Minnesota under the 1854 Treaty of LaPointe (the ``Ceded Territory''). In the Ceded Territory, all the Bands have a legal interest in protecting natural resources and all federal agencies share in the federal government's trust responsibility to the Bands to maintain those treaty resources. The Minnesota Chippewa Tribe is concerned with the prospect of a series of sulfide-ore mines being developed in the headwaters of the Boundary Waters Canoe Area (``BWCA'') watershed. The BWCA watershed is located on the Minnesota/ Ontario border and is entirely within the 1854 Ceded Territory. The BWCA watershed is comprised of a vast area of pristine interconnected waterways that have been used by the Chippewa for centuries. Low buffering capacity of water and soil and the interconnection of lakes and streams, make the BWCA watershed particularly vulnerable to the impacts of mining. We are very supportive of HR5598, the Boundary Waters Wilderness Protection and Pollution Prevention Act. This bill would permanently withdraw federal minerals from potential leasing for sulfide-ore copper mining in the Rainy River Headwaters, which directly drain into the BWCAW. As former US Forest Service Chief Tom Tidwell stated, sulfide-ore copper mining has the potential to permanently destroy the pure waters and intact forests in the area of the proposed Twin Metals mine. The fish in adjacent waters--Birch Lake, the South Kawishiwi River, and downstream water bodies--are subject to consumption advisories designated by the Minnesota Department of Health because of mercury in their flesh. Sulfide-ore copper mining will increase the amount of mercury in fish, a toxin of great concern to our members who depend on wild caught fish for their sustenance. Wild rice and terrestrial species will also be at risk, as pollution and habitat destruction will have wide reaching impacts. We are currently blessed with a healthy environment, a healthy economy, and a public resource that offers sustenance and solace. All of this is at risk if any mining proposal in the watershed moves forward. It is unacceptable to trade this precious landscape and our way of life to enrich foreign mining companies that will leave a legacy of degradation that will last forever. We encourage you, in the strongest terms, to move this legislation forward. We need this protection before it is too late, and the future of this area is now in your hands. Sincerely, Catherine J. Chavers, President.

Ms. PORTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, welcome back to the show, unlimited drilling and extinction of wildlife brought to you by the GOP, a subsidiary of Big Oil. This week's target: The Boundary Waters in northeastern Minnesota, a pristine wilderness that is, in fact, the most visited designated wilderness area in our country. It is the most visited for a good reason. Its beautiful landscapes, crystal clear waters, and abundant wildlife make it a haven for outdoor recreation. The Boundary Waters support a thriving outdoor recreation economy with hundreds of thousands of annual visitors and tens of thousands of jobs across northeastern Minnesota. In fact, the Boundary Waters is so popular that an overwhelming majority of Minnesota voters oppose building new mines near this federally protected wilderness. This region and its resources, our resources, have been under threat for years and are being threatened again today. In 1966, the Bureau of Land Management issued two mineral leases covering 5,000 acres of the Superior National Forest just outside of the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness. There was never mining on either lease, never mining, yet they were renewed in 1989 and again in 2004. In 2012, Twin Metals Minnesota, a wholly owned subsidiary of a Chilean mining company, requested another extension of those two expired leases on Forest Service land in the Boundary Waters watershed to build a sulfide-ore copper mine. In 2016, after an extensive environmental review process, which included public input and scientific analysis, the Forest Service concluded sulfide-ore copper mining, which is significantly different from the taconite mining that the region is used to, could result in ``extreme'' and ``serious and irreparable harm'' in the watershed of this wilderness area. The watershed there flows north, meaning it would flow past the mine and into our protected wilderness. The Forest Service found that any spills, leaks, or pollution would be all but impossible to contain, putting the entire ecosystem and watershed at risk. This should have been the answer: ``No'' to this sulfide-ore copper mine because that is what the scientists say, that is what the community wants, and that is what the law means, that a wilderness area is protected from severe harm. However, foreign companies wanting to mine and the politicians who answer to them were too enticed. As soon as President Trump came into office, his administration ignored the science and community input and reinstated Twin Metals' leases. The Department of the Interior solicitor under the current administration found that President Trump improperly renewed those leases. Thankfully, after another thorough review and rounds of community input and Tribal consultation, the Biden administration finalized 20-year protections for 225,000 acres around the wilderness area, making that area ineligible for mining, but this bill seeks to undo all of that. This bill would mandate the withdrawal be overturned and the leases be reinstated with no judicial review allowed. This means that it will not matter if the water and air become poisoned and the surrounding Tribes and communities become severely ill. No one will be able to take those concerns to a judge and ask that they revisit the decision to mine the Boundary Waters. Mr. Speaker, you will hear today that Americans have to choose between mining for minerals to secure our clean energy future over protecting the health of our families and vulnerable ecosystems. That is simply not the case. We all understand the need for mining as part of our clean energy future, but America is already a top producer of copper and is already invested in a circular economy with our trusted trading partners for cobalt and nickel. If we are going to build a sustainable, enduring, modern mining industry, then we have to do that while respecting sound science and community input, including Tribal consultation. Mr. Speaker, I deeply respect the workers who mine and their families and the way that that tradition has contributed to the backbone of industrial America, but they live and work in locations where mining is appropriate and where there is minimal to no harm to the environment or human health. Unfortunately, this bill disregards all of that and seeks to destroy now and deal with the ramifications not later but not at all. Mr. Speaker, I oppose this legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. PORTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Minnesota (Ms. McCollum).

Ms. PORTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, we are hearing a lot about America and America's mineral supplies, but what we are not hearing about is the truth about Antofagasta, the Chilean mining company that is pursuing these leases. In Antofagasta's mines in South America, the minerals are shipped to China for refining and smelting and then sold on the global market. I have seen no evidence because there is no evidence that Antofagasta won't do the exact same thing here: extracting our publicly owned minerals from pristine wilderness, paying no royalty for them, and then selling them abroad, leaving Americans with all the mess and no benefit. So much for America first. I also want to talk about the environmental effects of this mining. Sulfide-ore copper mining is what we are talking about--not iron mining, not taconite iron mining--sulfide-ore copper mining. That is what is being proposed outside of the Boundary Waters Wilderness Area, and that sulfide-ore copper mining poses a unique threat. It is different than taconite iron ore mining. What happens in sulfide-ore copper mining is the ore that is extracted contains metals that are bound together with sulfur. When exposed to air and water, this sulfide-bearing ore discharges acid mine drainage into the ground and surface water. The waste rocks and the tailings from this mine would generate acid mine drainage for hundreds of years, at least. Just so everyone knows, these facts aren't hyperbole. This is available information, studied and reported by scientists, with some who have published their findings on the dangers of sulfide-ore copper mining at universities, including the University of Minnesota. Proponents of this mine say that their tailing facilities would be safe from leakage. We hear that every time about every environmental extraction proposal. However, the facts are clear here. The Forest Service found that 100 percent of sulfide-ore copper mines in the United States experienced pipeline spills or accidental releases. It is a near certainty that that is what will happen, that we will have a pipeline spill, we will have an accidental release. We will have irreparable, severe environmental damage if this sulfide-ore copper mine is allowed to occur on this Forest Service land. It would infect and pollute the Boundary Waters, and we would be unable to reclaim our beautiful, pristine wilderness. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. PORTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I will be talking about what is good for our economy. There have been studies showing that what is best for the economy, including this area, is to continue to protect these public lands. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record an abstract on a study by James Stock and Jacob Bradt, Harvard economists, outlining the regional economic impacts of two scenarios, the first being the now-finalized withdrawal, and the second being if this mine is allowed to proceed. Mr. Speaker, the link to the full study can be found here: https:// scholar.harvard.edu/files/stock/files/snf_withdrawal_stock-bradt_ updated_june_2019.pdf Analysis of Proposed 20-Year Mineral Leasing Withdrawal in Superior National Forest (By James H. Stock, Department of Economics and Harvard Kennedy School, Harvard University) (By Jacob T. Bradt, Harvard Kennedy School, Harvard University, June 24, 2019) Abstract The Rainy River Watershed on the Superior National Forest is home to the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness (BWCAW). It also contains deposits of copper, nickel, and trace metals, and copper-nickel mining has been proposed adjacent to and upstream of the BWCAW. This sets up a potential tradeoff between economic benefits from mining and concerns about negative economic consequences of that mining on the local recreational and amenity-based economy. Existing studies of mining in the Superior National Forest focus on static effects on a single industry (e.g. mining) at some unspecified point over a medium-run horizon. We draw on these studies and the economics literature to provide a unified analysis of the effect of the proposed mining development on income and employment over time. Our results suggest that the proposed development would lead to a boom-bust cycle that is typical of resource extraction economies, exacerbated by the likely negative effect on the recreation industry. Keywords: Economic impact analysis, resource extraction, recreation economy, mining economy Declaration of interest: None.

Ms. PORTER. Mr. Speaker, if mining were permitted, these economists find that there would be an initial but temporary net growth in employment. But over time, any economic benefits of mining would be outweighed by the negative impacts of mining on the existing recreational industry and on folks moving to this area. Under any scenario where sulfide-ore copper mining is allowed, it leads to a boom-and-bust cycle where the local economy is left worse off than before. Look, these leases sat for decades and decades with no mining used. Now, when it is economically convenient, they want to mine. That illustrates that this is a boom-bust economy and what will be destroyed, though, is of enduring, lasting, economic value. By protecting this region and the land this will help preserve and grow the 22,000 jobs and $1.4 billion in annual visitor spending, including its small businesses, which are essential for a strong and robust diversified economy. The other choice, the alternative, is to allow a Chilean mining company to pollute our land, take our minerals without paying a royalty, ship them overseas to China, smelt them, and sell them on the global market, including to our competitors. What is best for our American economy is to protect the strong recreational economy we have now in this area and continue to protect these public lands. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.