Tom Emmer: “I thank the gentleman for the additional time, and I recognize my esteemed colleague, the Representative from Minnesota…”

“I thank the gentleman for the additional time, and I recognize my esteemed colleague, the Representative from Minnesota, for his love of the Boundary Waters that we both share. Mr. Speaker, I want to address the Representative from California first on the claim that H.R. 3905 solely benefits a foreign mining company. I think you should ask the people of our State. You should ask a gentleman by the name of Dan Forsman, who, as a Minnesotan, has a family heritage of benefiting by mining in our State. He was recently ridiculed by environmentalists in The New York Times because, while he loves the place where he lives, he also wants to make a living in the place where he lives. There are several other companies exploring the area. Teck has nonferrous mineral holdings within the proposed withdrawal, the potential development of which would be greatly impacted by the withdrawal. Encampment Minerals, Inc., also has a nonferrous mineral holding within the withdrawal area and is awaiting Federal agency action on a submitted preference right lease application. Future expansion of the Northshore Mining taconite mine could extend into the withdrawal area and, thus, be impacted by the withdrawal. PolyMet has invested hundreds of millions on projects that will be negatively impacted by the proposed mineral withdrawal, one of which we voted on here last night.…”