Floor Statements

Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I want to say a couple of words about this bill that I strongly oppose.

This bill would expand the already draconian global gag rule to apply to more types of foreign aid, more services, and more organizations by codifying the Trump administration's so-called human flourishing policy. So this would basically be a gag rule not just on global health programs, which is bad enough, but on all nonmilitary foreign assistance.

What it would do is it would say that any organization anywhere in the world that provides, refers, or even mentions abortion or support of LGBTQ+ people or any diversity and inclusion initiative would be banned from getting U.S. foreign assistance. This gag order would put-- basically, it would put a gag order on the world's most vulnerable people by the world's most wealthy Nation.

What is ironic about this is that this is not just a cruel policy but an incoherent policy because it would not in any way reduce abortion, which is what my colleagues say their goal is.

There was a previous narrower gag rule earlier imposed by the Trump administration, and in that case, abortion rates actually went up in those countries. Why is that? Well, because of this gag rule. It resulted in less access to contraceptives, to birth control, and more unintended pregnancies.

This is about forcing foreign governments and forcing multilateral institutions and NGOs to accept an ideological agenda or risk being cut off entirely from U.S. assistance.

I think everybody should have the ability to make their own decisions about their own bodies and their own lives and their own futures. Certainly, they should be able to make those decisions without somebody in Washington, DC, who knows nothing about their lives telling them what to do.

We should be joined together in our belief that U.S. foreign assistance should be helping people, lift them out of poverty, support them in getting the services they need, and not trying to impose an ideological gag rule on their activities.

Therefore, I object.

Mr. President, I ask for consent for 10 minutes prior to the scheduled vote.

Mr. President, I rise today as the Senate takes the next important step toward passage of the 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act.

This legislation is probably the most important bill Congress has passed in decades to lower housing costs and boost the construction of homes for Americans.

We all know that without a safe, comfortable, affordable place to live, nothing in your life works--not your job, not your family, not your education, not your health. Our homes are a source of stability and comfort and dignity, and they give us the freedom and the opportunity to build the lives we want to live.

Today in America, people are trying to figure out how to afford their lives and how to hold it together as prices skyrocket and paychecks aren't keeping up. Millions of people in big cities and small towns and rural communities that we all represent stretch to pay their mortgage or make their rent payment. And the American dream of owning your own home? It feels like a pipe dream to working families. I hear from young Minnesotans who tell me they can't even imagine a future where they own their own home.

So why is this happening? There are simply more people who need a place to live than there are houses that people can afford to rent or buy. And affordable places to live for people working in low-wage jobs, for veterans, or for folks living on a fixed income? We don't have nearly enough places for these people to live.

The result is that the cost of housing is soaring higher and higher. Over 22 million people in this country are paying more than 30 percent of their income on rent, which means that they don't have enough money for the other necessities in their lives. Over 12 million people pay more than half of their income on rent. In Minnesota alone, there is a shortage of 100,000 affordable homes.

Home ownership, as we have heard today, is increasingly out of reach. Mortgage payments are roughly 40 percent higher than they were in 1990, and that is even after adjusting for inflation. And in the past few years, the median home price has reached $400,000.

So all of this is why the 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act will make such a difference. This bill will boost housing supply by cutting redtape and empowering local governments to make it easier and less expensive to build good places for people to live. It creates incentives for cities and towns to build more housing. It removes regulatory barriers to help streamline environmental review and to speed up construction and make it less expensive. It strengthens existing programs that help local communities address their housing and infrastructure needs--especially when it comes to natural disasters.

This bill also takes several important steps to promote high-quality modular and manufactured housing, including doing away with outdated chassis requirements for manufactured homes that add thousands of dollars in costs but no value. And thanks to the important work of Senator Cortez Masto, this bill will also help preserve and upgrade manufactured home communities.

Very importantly, this bill cracks down on large institutional investors who swoop in, make all-cash offers on homes, and then buy up single-family homes as investments and rent them back to people for a profit. Out-of-State landlords have gobbled up homes, leaving properties in disrepair, tenants in the lurch, and jacking up the rent.

For the first time, in this bill, we are banning big private investors from buying up the American dream of home ownership, because homes should be for people, not corporations.

But I want to focus for a minute on reforms in this bill to the Rural Housing Service to preserve over 400,000 very affordable homes in rural communities. This has been a project I have been working on for quite a few years, and I am so excited that it is included in this big bill.

You know, I began working on this issue when I first came to the Senate over 8 years ago, and people in Minnesota were telling me that they couldn't find an affordable place to live. Businesses were telling me that housing shortages were making it impossible for them to recruit talent to their communities. Mayors told me that the housing shortage was hurting the vitality of their communities. Homebuilders were telling me it was too complex and expensive to build new homes.

In 2018, Senator Shaheen and I went to work, and we figured out how the USDA could do a better job of preserving affordable rural housing.

Then, starting in 2022, when I became chair of the Housing Subcommittee, Senator Mike Rounds and I started to hold hearings that dug into the challenges that faced the Rural Housing Service at the

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following interns in my office be granted floor privileges for the day: Mumtaaz Hirsi and Elijah Minicozzi.

Mr. President, I want to thank my colleague Senator Klobuchar, who knew and loved and worked closely with Melissa for so many years. I know that this is a personal moment for her, to think about the loss that we experience every day not having Melissa with us but also just being able to capture who she was as a person.

And this really is a somber day for us. It is almost exactly a year since Melissa and Mark were assassinated at their home, along with the loss of their dog Gilbert, the same night that John and Yvette Hoffman were also shot and, thank God, survived.

You probably can relate to this because I know every party and every State has a big party dinner, and it was kind of incredible for us because Melissa and Mark were shot in the wee hours after our big party dinner. And so we had all been together just hours before we lost them.

And it was a horrifying act of targeted political violence that shocked our State and also transfixed the Nation as law enforcement searched for the perpetrator of this horror. And we collectively searched for meaning in these senseless acts.

And it is 1 year later, and in most ways this loss still feels so fresh to all of us. This solemn anniversary, I know, will probably bring a fresh wave of opinions and think pieces trying to answer the questions of what Melissa's death means and where we go from here, what this says about the state of American politics or what it might reveal about our frayed democracy.

And I have to tell you, honestly, that I don't have answers to those weighty questions, but what I know is that, today, I want to remember my friend Melissa and how she really exemplified what it should mean to be in public service, to be a public servant.

I love that Amy read that quote from St. Francis because that was all about the value of being a servant in the cause of helping people's lives be better. Melissa was born in Fridley, MN, which is a suburb of the Twin Cities. She was gifted. She was smart. She excelled because she worked really hard, not because anything was ever handed to her. And she really pretty much thought that any job that was worth doing was worth doing right. And that is the mantra that she carried with her, whether it was her first job making burritos to her last job leading Minnesota's House through a dramatic and consequential legislative session.

She felt a deep responsibility to put her talents to work in the cause of service. And, you know, it is interesting. She started in public service as an intern in this very body. We have interns here on the floor today. So think about that, where this woman's life took her.

She was an intern for Senator Al Gore and then Senator John Kerry and then she decided to go to law school. And there she served the cause of justice in the State courts and as a prosecutor where she fought against housing discrimination, and she won those cases.

And then she decided to get involved in local politics. After volunteering on campaigns, she decided to run herself. And she actually ran for office twice before winning. So she was tenacious. She was not afraid to persevere, even when she faced some headwinds because she really believed that she had something to offer, yes, but that she also had a responsibility to help.

Melissa and I got to know each other well when I was chief of staff to the Governor of Minnesota and she was coming into leadership in the State house.

And, you know, we all know well in this body that writing and passing legislation is an incredibly rewarding activity, but it also can be tiresome and frustrating, and it takes a really long time. It is inconvenient, and it can be pretty annoying too.

So when you are in those moments--as Senator Klobuchar was saying-- and you are trying to hash it out and work it out and get people to the table, you need somebody like Melissa there because she knows how to get the job done. She would always be ready with a fresh idea about, like, what is it going to take to deliver a result here.

And she also was really funny. She was quick with a quip and a funny joke

to keep the process moving and to keep people focused on taking what they were doing seriously without taking themselves too seriously.

I can tell you from personal experience that she also was pretty fun if you wanted to get together after all that work for a margarita.

As a legislator and eventually as speaker of the Minnesota House, Melissa approached her work in this way: by leading with compassion and respect, always staying in touch with our shared humanity. And, of course, she was unafraid to demand the same respect in return, both for herself and for others.

She was a woman leader, a leader who was a woman in a time when, sometimes even to this day, women are sort of not paid as much attention to as they deserve.

And Amy was referring to this. Once on the house floor, Melissa called out a group of male legislators who were playing cards in a back room rather than paying attention to women legislators that were speaking on the floor about how a criminal justice bill was going to impact their communities.

And so Melissa called them out. And, I mean, they were pretty pissed. They were unaccustomed to being confronted by their rude behavior, and they actually demanded an apology. And Melissa's response was characteristically honest and simple. She said, ``I'm really tired of watching women of color, in particular, being ignored. So [I will not apologize].''

And this became kind of a thing. The next day, all over the Minnesota State Capitol, people were wearing T-shirts that said, ``I will not apologize.'' It was quite--it was quite a moment.

Melissa stood up for others. She spoke truth to power, and she insisted that we treat each other with dignity and respect because public service should be--you know, even in a climate like we are in today, public service is serious business, unlike some of the nonserious activities that we see every day here in Washington.

So here is Melissa's true legacy: Millions of Minnesotans are better off because Melissa Hortman did the work that she did.

They have healthier drinking water because Melissa secured the funding that will eliminate lead water service lines in Minnesota.

Minnesotan schoolchildren will be able to focus on their learning. They won't be hungry because Melissa helped pass free breakfast and lunch for all Minnesota families with their kids in school.

Starting this year, Minnesotans will have access to paid leave. Every Minnesotan will have access to paid medical and family leave to care for their new babies, to take care of a loved one who might be ill because Melissa never gave up on that project and believed that that should be something that everybody has.

One year after her death, I still can't quite believe that she is gone. We had our big party dinner just last Friday night, and I kept looking around and wondering--forgetting that she wasn't there.

And I know this summer, this fall, when I am out door-knocking, that I and a lot of people will be thinking about how she was always out there, doing the organizing of politics.

But, today, I am really focused on what Melissa and Mark meant to me and to all of us who had the privilege to know them. And my heart is with their family and their friends and especially their children Sophie and Colin. I know that they are comforted by the fact that so many people loved Mark and Melissa so much.

And I think that we would all do well to follow the advice of their children Sophie and Colin. And when they were asked so many times in the days after Melissa and Mark were killed, what people could do to help, this is what they told us. They said:

If you would like to honor the memory of Mark and Melissa,

please consider the following: Plant a tree. Visit a local

park and make use of their amenities, especially a bike

trail. Pet a dog. A golden retriever is ideal, but any will

do. Tell your loved one a cheesy dad joke and laugh about it.

Bake something--bread for Mark or a cake for Melissa, and

share it with someone. Try a new hobby and enjoy learning

something [new]. Stand up for what you believe in, especially

if that thing is justice and peace.

That is a good inspiration for all of us every single day.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I rise today to talk about Minnesota because the fight that is about to happen here on the Senate floor started far away from this place on the streets of my home State.

Tomorrow, Republicans in the Senate are going to force through a partisan bill to give ICE and Customs and Border Protection almost $70 billion, all because they have refused to do anything to rein in the abuses of ICE--abuses that destroyed trust, killed American citizens, and ripped Minnesota families apart. So I want to take a moment to remind my colleagues of how we got to this moment.

What happened was that a masked and lawless Federal police force occupied my State, kidnapping people in the street, tearing families apart, and committing terrible acts of violence. The entire country watched in horror. Your constituents watched. We watched Renee Good killed in her car after dropping her child off at school. We watched Alex Pretti swarmed by masked agents and then shot in the back and killed. We watched 5-year-old Liam Ramos, in his bunny hat and his Spiderman backpack, separated from his father. We bore witness to countless acts of violence captured on camera and many, many more that were hidden from public view. Across the country, it was impossible to look away as we watched our government terrorize people.

But we also saw something exceptional, of course. We saw Minnesotans showing what resistance and what courage look like. In subzero temperatures, Minnesotans met guns with whistles and came out to protect people they didn't even know. Churches and neighbors organized mutual aid and delivered prescriptions to folks who couldn't leave their own homes. They drove kids to school and back again, and they coordinated food deliveries for people who were afraid to go to the grocery store.

We marched--thousands and thousands strong--to demand that ICE get out of our State. And it worked, colleagues. History will remember that Minnesota won the battle of Operation Metro Surge, just as we got through the long, long, cold Minnesota winters, by showing up for our neighbors no matter what our differences might be, by helping people we don't even know, and by peacefully demanding justice and accountability.

But that victory was not without a cost. The great damage done by this rogue, dangerous, secret police force is still felt in Minneapolis and in St. Paul. It is felt in Chicago, in Los Angeles, in Portland, and in countless communities across the country. It is felt in Newark. Lives lost. Injuries sustained. Parents separated from their children. Kids traumatized by these tactics and still not back in school. Businesses that are shuttered.

Colleagues, we still have not had a fair and unbiased investigation with State investigators into the killings of Renee and Alex. People who have done nothing wrong are still waiting for accountability in crowded courtrooms. Legal residents of this country are still being held illegally in detention camps hundreds of miles away from their families. Rent payments missed. Businesses closed. Cities and counties spent their entire annual police overtime budgets to protect their communities.

So I know that it is uncomfortable for my colleagues to hear all of this and that everybody wants to turn the page on this, but on behalf of Minnesota, I need to say out loud and to be clear that it is unacceptable that this legislative battle is happening tomorrow because of the complete failure to agree to even the most basic guardrails on ICE, the same kind of guardrails that your local police department agrees to live by every single day.

I have to say I was hopeful because in the days and the weeks that Operation Metro Surge was unfolding, so many of my colleagues came up to me to offer their support. Many of you both publicly and privately said that what we are seeing in these videos is unacceptable and that we need to do something.

When the former Secretary of Homeland Security declared that the Minnesotans shot and killed by Federal agents were ``domestic terrorists,'' many of you came out and said that we need a full and fair investigation of what happened.

We must have a transparent, independent investigation into

the Minnesota shooting, and those responsible--no matter

their title--must be held accountable.

Who said that? Not me but Senator Curtis.

Here is another one:

I support a full and impartial investigation into the

events leading up to the death of

Alex Pretti. His family, law-abiding citizens exercising

their Second Amendment right and the trust of the American

people deserve a fair process.

Who said that? Senator Crapo said that.

We need a full investigation into the tragedy in

Minneapolis. We need all the facts. We must enforce our laws

in a way that protects the public while maintaining its

trust.

My colleague Senator McCormick said that.

So what happened?

Today, we have a partisan bill to send another $70 billion to ICE and Customs and Border Protection. There has not been a full and impartial investigation. There have been no reforms to stop ICE from kicking down the doors of your home without a warrant. There is nothing to stop masked, secret agents from pulling people out of their cars, following people home, grabbing parents away from their kids--nothing to stop that from happening. There is nothing to help small businesses that were forced to close or school districts trying to help traumatized students. There is nothing to help teachers or parents or police departments that have the millions of dollars in overtime costs.

Now, I will be filing an amendment to make sure that an investigation into Alex and Renee's death is done by the books, that it is fair and that it is unbiased and that it is conducted jointly with State and Federal investigators so that it has credibility in order to restore the public trust. And this is how these investigations have always been done in the past. But there won't be votes for that. My colleagues won't vote for that.

So I want to be clear. I want to thank all of my colleagues who worked with determination and heart to negotiate commonsense reforms to stop the worst of these abuses from happening ever again. Our asks weren't complicated. They weren't radical. We just wanted clarity that Federal agents should follow the same standards as local police departments: No random arrests or breaking down doors without a warrant or probable cause. Wear proper identification and body cameras. No masks.

ICE needs oversight and accountability when they violate the rights of individuals, as guaranteed in our Constitution. Basically, we were just looking for reforms that say ICE has to abide by the laws equally, as they apply to every person in this country.

It is a shame that all of that hard work came to nothing because Donald Trump and Stephen Miller don't want accountability under the law; they want impunity.

And let's be clear. This is really out of step with where Americans are. After months of this lawless behavior, Americans are strongly opposed. They have seen it. Americans are opposed to this. They are strongly opposed to this administration's domestic interior enforcement policy. Fifty-six percent of Americans disapprove.

Meanwhile--let's be honest about this--these abuses are continuing, though maybe without all of the public attention--not all of the public attention. Raids are happening in California, in Oklahoma, in Ohio, and elsewhere. We have seen what has been happening in Newark this past week. ICE pepper-sprayed a U.S. Senator outside a detention center in New Jersey just this past week--my colleague Senator Andy Kim.

Mr. President, 100,000 children are separated from their parents right now, today. Three-quarters of them are estimated to be U.S. citizens--100,000 kids. At least 33 people died in ICE custody in 2025. Already in 2026, over 18 people have died. This is the best data we have, though it is very difficult to get this information. That is one person who has lost their life every 6 days, and many of these losses of life were under deeply concerning circumstances. We are denying lifesaving care, lifesaving medical treatment for transplant and for cancer patients--people that are detained by this Federal Government. Just today, I was working to try to get a humanitarian release for a woman who is suffering from an extreme health condition, who could lose her life if she does not get the care she needs.

The Federal Government is taking people hundreds of miles away from home and then turning them out on the street with nothing--no ID, no money, no papers, no way to get home.

The truth is, this administration is still doing what it did in Minneapolis; they are just doing a better job of keeping it out of the news.

So here we are today at a partisan impasse that Americans just don't understand because, for them, this isn't about politics; this is about common decency. Democrats stand strong, and we are demanding strong but basic commonsense guardrails and accountability. We want our communities to be safe. We want our children to be able to walk to school without fear of being scooped up by a Federal agent. We want people to be able to go to their jobs without fear that an agent is going to break their car window and drag them out of their car and onto the street. But my Republican colleagues are saying no to this. In the face of a crushing cost-of-living crisis in this country, where millions of Americans are struggling to afford their lives, Republicans' answer to this is to send $70 billion to ICE and Customs and Border Protection for massive, privately owned, for-profit detention centers and a Federal immigration police force with a budget that is several times larger than the FBI's.

You know, I don't know about your home State, but in Minnesota, $70 billion is a lot of money, and people are just not getting this. This is the priority we have in this body today? This is what we are choosing to do?

We could take this money and lower health insurance premiums by extending the Affordable Care Act tax credits for 2 whole years. But no, we can't do that. We are told by our Republican colleagues that that is too expensive. But we can send $70 billion, on top of everything we have already sent, to ICE and Customs and Border Protection.

We could pay for Head Start preschool for 5 years. But no, we don't have money for that; we just have money for this.

Why not update and repair or replace every drinking water or wastewater system in Minnesota, and then we would still have more than $7 billion left over. That is a choice we could make, but today and tomorrow, this body is making a different choice.

No. Republicans are choosing to send billions of your tax dollars to ICE for a Federal police force and for-profit detention centers with no reforms or guardrails.

Not only that, but rather than address any of the challenges facing ordinary, middle-class Americans, Republicans want to load up this bill with extra giveaways for billionaires and convicted felons, sometimes the same category.

They want an extra billion of taxpayer dollars to pay for a ballroom. They wanted almost $2 billion in a slush fund. That has, thankfully, fallen out of this bill so far, but I want to know for sure that that is not going happen.

If you are watching this and you are feeling confused about what is going on in this body, colleagues, I mean you should feel--Americans, my constituents in Minnesota--you should feel confused because this is outrageous. This is not how our democracy is supposed to work.

I mean, here is the thing, I actually believe that a lot of my colleagues on the Republican side are actually kind of embarrassed by this. They know it. They know that this isn't right, and they for sure know that it is bad politics.

But that is not enough. We also need everybody in this body to not just say what they say behind closed doors but to say it out loud in public. That is what our country needs right now.

But here we are. And while Democrats may not be in power in the Senate, we are not powerless. So we will keep fighting, and we will keep preserving the Minnesota way just as we did fighting Operation Metro Surge.

We will double down on our love for our neighbors and unity in the face of this injustice. We will keep fighting for a better country. We will not forget our neighbors Alex and Renee and Liam and all of the others that were so hurt by what happened in my home State, and we will keep up the fight. And we will vote no on this bill.

Colleagues, today is your chance. This is the chance that we have to speak out with the eyes of history upon us. So I urge you to say no to this bill and to stand on the side of justice, justice for Minnesota, justice for this whole country.

I yield the floor.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Madam President, I rise today to join my colleagues in defending the consumer protections that the Trump administration is working so hard to unravel.

During the financial crisis of 2008, Americans lost trillions because of deceptive and abusive and irresponsible financial practices. And I saw firsthand what this meant in North Minneapolis and in other communities around Minnesota. I saw what happened when families lost their homes, when properties went vacant, when whole blocks went vacant. It has taken years for my communities to recover.

So the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau was created in the aftermath of this crisis to be the strong advocate for consumers. In a financial marketplace that too often is rigged in favor of the big financial institutions with so much power and influence, the CFPB was charged with standing up for the little guy, and it worked. When people got ripped off, when they were faced with consumer fraud, the CFPB was there to enforce the law.

The CFPB has done its job. It has actually worked. It has returned more than $21 billion stolen from consumers.

But in 2025, when the Trump administration came in, they began undoing all of this good work and dismantling this Agency that was created by Congress, by us, to protect the people.

So, today, I want to talk about just one example of what this means. This is a true story about how these predatory lenders, these predatory land contracts, and contracts for deed have created such a serious problem in my home State of Minnesota.

S.J. Res. 149, which we will be voting on today, would ensure that consumer protections apply to these predatory land contracts.

So here is how this swindle works and how people get taken advantage of. This is a real story about a father. He worked as a long-haul truckdriver, and he rented an apartment in the Twin Cities for years. But it was just too small for his young children, and they were sleeping sometimes three to a room, all together. But he honestly didn't make enough money to qualify for a mortgage.

The father heard how he could move into a home with room for each of his children to grow, how there was this great backyard for them to play in, and he could do so using a contract for deed.

So what he does is he puts together a hefty downpayment, and they move into this home. And even though these contracts can seem like a mortgage, they lack the critical protections in a standard mortgage.

What that means is unscrupulous sellers could take advantage of unsuspecting buyers. For example, with a land contract, a single missed payment--a single missed monthly payment--can mean that a family forfeits all of the money that they have paid in years of payment, and then they face eviction. They have been able to build no equity at all. In actual fact, what happens is that they lose everything.

So here is what happened with this Minnesota truckdriver.

After a few months, the cost of diesel went up, and he had fewer shifts available to work on, and he struggled to make those monthly payments.

In a story that was published in the Sahan Journal in Minnesota, he talks about how ``his family'' then found themselves ``at risk of losing not only the house, but about $100,000`` that ``they have paid'' in, ``including'' their entire ``down payment.'' And ``he never understood the disadvantages and'' the tricks of this ``contract for deed.'' But, at this point, ``it [was] too late to get out of it.''

Now, none of this would have happened if he had the protections of a traditional mortgage. And I want to be clear. I know that the President represents farming interests. I don't know if it is this way in your State, Madam President. But in my State, contracts for deed can be legitimate tools for financing real estate transactions.

But predatory land contracts can be designed to fail, and that is what happened here. A set of bad actors specifically targeted Minnesota's Muslim families, who, under the tenets of their faith, were limited in paying interest with traditional mortgages.

And families thought they were realizing their dream of homeownership only to be sucked into these contracts that are so-called ``interest free,'' and they found themselves intentionally in situations designed by the seller where there is no way they can succeed. They lose their homes, and they lose all their money with no recourse.

This is not a rare problem. Over 8 million Americans have used contracts for deed to purchase their home. They deserve the same basic protections as anyone with a mortgage.

I held a subcommittee hearing on this topic a few years ago with my colleague Senator Lummis, and we dived into this, and we developed some bipartisan solutions for establishing just even basic reporting requirements around this.

And I want to thank Senator Lummis for that partnership.

Here is what happened. In August of 2024, the CFPB took action on these predatory land contracts. I stood alongside the Director in Saint Paul, where they issued an advisory opinion affirming that financial products should be subject to the same consumer protections as traditional mortgages.

But now, the Trump administration is tearing up that work. They are tearing up that advisory opinion. Rather than cracking down on the people who are ripping off families, the President is making it easier for bad actors to get away with predatory practices like this, by stealing money from Americans and from Minnesotans.

Colleagues, we should not be on the side of making it easier for our constituents to get swindled, to make it easier for bad actors to take away people's homes.

We should be on the side of hard-working Americans, making it easier for them to afford their lives and making it harder for these bad actors to rip them off.

That is what this resolution that I offer today would do, and I ask my colleagues to support it.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I want to start by just thanking my colleague from Minnesota, Senator Klobuchar, and Senator Heinrich and Senator Baldwin and all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle who have joined me in opposing H.J. Res. 140.

I start from this place: One of our most important responsibilities, I think, in this body is to protect our precious public spaces--those places that, as Senator Heinrich just said so eloquently, helped to forge our national identity and connect us to our past and to our future. I am thinking of places like Yosemite and the Black Hills of South Dakota, the Grand Canyon, and, of course, the Boundary Waters.

Traditionally, historically in this body, we have approached our responsibilities to protect these precious places with a sense of balance. We think of the value of the wilderness itself. We also think of the need for economic opportunities for our constituents. We think of our responsibilities around stewardship of these places, of these natural resources.

In that balancing effort that we have traditionally tried to take, we are guided by the science; we are guided by public input, what people in these parts of the country think is the best thing to do, because those folks that are closest to the issues, closest to the land are going to have the best ideas about what should happen to the land. Also, we are guided by the longstanding trust and treaty obligations that the Federal Government has to the Tribal nations, a sovereign relationship that goes beyond just the laws of this country.

This is actually what Minnesota knows how to do. We know how to strike this balance. Minnesota is the No. 1 producer in the country of iron ore. The battleships and the tanks of World War II were built with Minnesota iron.

Minnesota is also moving down the path of figuring out how to safely and responsibly mine the copper and the nickel and the platinum group of metals that are there in the Duluth Complex up in Northern Minnesota. You can see it in the maps that I was showing last night.

But Minnesota also understands--we know that you can support mining, but that does not mean that you support every mine in every place. I think that this is bipartisan. We understand this in our country. We can support the need for mining, but that doesn't mean that we mine on the edge of Chaco Canyon or on the rim of the Grand Canyon, and it does not mean that we think that a copper sulfide mine on the doorstep of the Boundary Waters is a good idea.

Colleagues, what you are about to do, should you end up passing H.J. Res. 140--what you are about to do is fly in the face of that balance that has traditionally been a bipartisan goal, something that we have traditionally worked on together. You are about--should you make this vote, you are about to overturn a public land order that was put in place 3 years ago that stopped not all mining--not all mining, colleagues--but this particular kind of copper sulfide mining for 20 years in just one place--in this one place--in the Superior National Forest on the doorstep of the Boundary Waters.

If this is the decision that you end up making, colleagues, in this goal that we have of striking a balance, you are picking one side over the other. You are putting your thumb on the wrong side. When it comes to protecting this precious place, you are choosing the wrong side because you are not protecting this place that needs our support, that needs our protection.

Colleagues, the outdoor economy and outdoor recreation is essential to the vibrancy of Northern Minnesota. You are not choosing that if you make this decision, and you support H.J. Res. 140.

Of the small business people who count on the economy of Northern Minnesota and the outdoor recreation economy, I have a letter here from dozens and dozens of Minnesota small businesses beseeching the Senate to oppose H.J. Res. 140, and the reason is they tell us right here.

They say:

The love for the Boundary Waters powers a strong and

enduring recreation economy in Northeastern Minnesota . . .

17,000 jobs and over $1 billion in sales annually in the

region.

Many small businesses have been able to grow and develop and support their families because of the access to this incredible resource of the Boundary Waters. But, no, colleagues, you would not be choosing that in this balance that we are trying to strike.

Colleagues, if you support H.J. Res. 140, you are ignoring what Minnesota wants, not only the hundreds of thousands of people who sent in their public comments during the process of setting aside this space and protecting it from mining but the 70 percent of Minnesotans who say: No, we do not want this mine in this place. We want our elected leaders to protect--to protect--the Boundary Waters.

I want to be clear because there has been a question about this. This is not just people from the Twin Cities who go up to the Boundary Waters to visit. This is everybody in Minnesota. This is people who live in Northeastern Minnesota who want to see this protection done.

So, colleagues, if you support H.J. Res. 140, you are also choosing to ignore the trust and the treaty obligations that we have to the Chippewa Tribes in Northern Minnesota. You are saying: Nope. We are not going to pay any attention to that. That doesn't matter.

You know that this mine is going to infringe on their hunting and fishing

rights, on their rights to harvest wild rice, but you are saying: I am not going to come down on that side of the scale.

What you are going to do if you support H.J. Res. 140 is you are going to come down--who is the winner here? You are going to come down on the side of a Chilean billionaire, a Chilean billionaire who owns the largest copper mine--the largest copper company--in the whole world, a Chilean billionaire who is going to take our minerals, ship them to the Pacific coast, where they are going to go to China to get smelted--where this company has a sweetheart deal with their smelters. Then, if we are lucky, that copper is going to be sold back to us at a profit.

That is not an ``America First'' strategy, colleagues. That is a ``Chilean Billionaire First'' strategy.

I can't help but just recognize that, as we are on the cusp of making this decision in the Senate, isn't it ironic that President Trump, who says that he is a supporter of miners and that he stands with steelworkers, is about to use foreign steel to build his billionaire ballroom off of the White House? What is that about?

Now, look, I understand that there are different perspectives on this mining issue--I see this play out every single day in my beloved State of Minnesota--but as you vote, I ask you to think about this: I ask you to think about the precedent that you are setting here because here is what I have learned after having been in the Senate for the last 9 years: What goes around comes around. What goes around comes around because what you would be doing here, colleagues, is you would be allowing this public land order to be rescinded under the Congressional Review Act. This is a dangerous precedent. This has never been done before. Public land orders have never previously been submitted by any administration, including the Trump administration, as rules subject to the CRA. This would be the first one submitted even though this public land order was submitted 3 years ago, processed legally, and done by the book--done by the book that Congress wrote.

So what does this really mean if this is the step that the Senate takes today?

What this would mean is that any public land order that has been done over, potentially, decades could then be rescinded by some partisan act of Congress just willy-nilly. Think about what this means. It means mineral leases, and it means timber public land orders in North Dakota. It means that any public land order that has been out there in the past or potentially any administrative action could be just undone under a privileged process in the U.S. Senate.

Colleagues, I beseech you not to do this. I know that this is a terrible thing for us to do. I know that not only will it have impacts for my beloved Boundary Waters in my State but that it will have impacts in all of our States.

So, as I close, I want to speak directly to the Minnesota people who care so much about the Boundary Waters and who care so much about the precious places that we have all over this country.

You have organized. You have made calls. You have sent messages. I am thinking about the hunting and fishing groups. I am thinking about the outdoor groups. I am thinking about the Minnesota citizens and American citizens. I am thinking about all of the Tribal leaders and members who have made your voices heard.

I want everyone to know that whatever the outcome of this vote this afternoon, that we will not stop fighting, and we will not stop our work to protect the Boundary Waters. Of all the places that we have in this country, this place has such special meaning. It is a sacred place, and we will never stop defending it.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following interns in my office be granted floor privileges for the day: Hanna Schechter, Rosemary Lofstrom, Molly Birr, and Juliette Sanchez.

Mr. President, I rise to make a point of order, and I ask for 1 minute of comment without objection.

Mr. President, allowing public land orders to be rescinded under the Congressional Review Act, which is what would be happening here tonight, is a dangerous precedent that would affect every State in our country. Public land orders have never been previously submitted by any administration, including the first Trump administration, as a rule under the CRA. Using the CRA to undo this public land order would establish a new precedent, allowing future Congresses to undo with no time limit any public land order and potentially any administrative action.

Think of what this might mean, colleagues. Examples of orders that would be overturned years after the fact would include fossil fuel and mining leases, permits, and permitting denials--any rule or determination of any administrative law matter. So, colleagues, I ask you not to set this precedent today that any land order dating back to 1996 could be overturned on a party-line vote, with no environmental review.

Mr. President, I make a point of order that H.J. Res. 140 is not entitled to expedited procedures under the Congressional Review Act because Public Land Order No. 7917 is not a rule within the meaning of the Congressional Review Act, and H.J. Res. 140 does not meet all of the requirements of section 802 of the Congressional Review Act under the precedent set on May 21, 2025.

Mr. President, I rise tonight thinking about my beloved Minnesota and thinking about all of the people in Minnesota and around the country that love the Boundary Waters.

And I want to talk for a while about the Congressional Review Act resolution--this is H.J. Res. 140--that is before us tonight, and I want to speak directly to my colleagues about the CRA and why I think it is so important that we vote no on this CRA.

So what this CRA would do is it would roll back protections for the Boundary Waters Wilderness, which is in Northeastern Minnesota. This is a picture of just one of the many glorious scenes of what you find in the Boundary Waters, which I will be talking about more this evening. This CRA, as I said, would roll back protections for the Boundary Waters Wilderness in Northeastern Minnesota. What it would do is it would allow copper sulfide mining in the watershed of the Boundary Waters, and this would be devastating to the wilderness.

The decision that this body makes will have long-term implications for the Boundary Waters, and it will also have long-term implications for how we protect public lands around this country going forward.

So I want to start with the core point that Minnesota is a mining State. We support mining--just not mining in this place. Minnesota is a mining and natural resources State. Mining is so important to our economy. We are proud to be the No. 1 source of iron ore in the whole country, and we produced three-quarters of the iron that went into the tanks and planes that led us to victory in World War II. And we are still producing most of the Nation's iron ore today.

And it is also true that there are other potential mines currently under consideration and development in Minnesota--not iron ore mines but other mines--that would produce copper and nickel.

Responsible mining is an economic driver in our State. It is part of our history, and it is part of our future.

So why oppose this CRA? Why would we oppose this CRA, which, I will tell you, will pave the way for developing a copper sulfide mine right on the doorstep of the Boundary Waters?

Well, I want to start this discussion tonight by giving three simple and basic reasons. The first is that this is an incredibly special place, beloved by Minnesotans and beloved by people all around the country, and this mine poses an unacceptable threat to this place.

The Boundary Waters, if the Presiding Officer has not been there, is a million acres of lakes and bogs and rivers. It is a wealth of hunting and fishing resources. People go there to canoe all the time. They go there in the wintertime to dogsled and to ice-fish.

I was there last summer, and I saw two wolves just in one day, on a day trip to the Boundary Waters.

It is some of the cleanest water that you will find anywhere in this country. You can drink the water right out of the middle of the lakes. You will find lake trout and northern pike and walleye. There is no better place in the world for it.

Over 150,000 people visit this incredible place every year, and so what that means is that the outdoor recreation economy in Northern Minnesota benefits greatly from the Boundary Waters.

This generates thousands of jobs and supports hundreds of local, small businesses, and it generates millions in economic activity.

Outdoor recreation is also a significant economic driver in the region around the Boundary Waters Wilderness. What happens here with this mine that will be allowed by the CRA is that this mine puts this incredible resource and the economic benefits of this resource at great risk.

It is kind of unbelievable to know that this kind of mine in 100 percent of the instances where they have been built has caused pollution.

What happens is you bring up the rock from underground. The sulfide in the rocks interacts with the water and the oxygen. My colleague Senator Heinrich is an expert on this. That rock interacts with the water and the oxygen, and it creates basically sulfuric acid. That sulfuric acid flows directly into the Boundary Waters and on into Voyageurs National Park.

We have a map here so you can see how the water flows. This sulfuric acid, of course, is extremely dangerous, not just for fish and wildlife and the whole ecosystem in the Boundary Waters but also for the humans that recreate there, that swim in this water, that canoe in this water.

This is why Backcountry Hunters & Anglers, why sportsman's groups, why Trout Unlimited, and Pheasants Forever, and outdoor people of all kinds have weighed in and said: No. Simply, this is the wrong thing to do. Not this mine in this place. Even descendants of the great President Theodore Roosevelt have said that we should protect this national treasure and ``leave it as it is.''

This is also why this mine is so unpopular in Minnesota. A recent poll showed that 70 percent of Minnesotans across the political spectrum--Independents, Republicans, and Democrats--agreed that protecting the Boundary Waters from sulfide-based mine pollution should be a very important priority for elected officials in the State. And 61 percent of Minnesotans have said that they support establishing a permanent protection for public land within the Boundary Waters Watershed.

So that is the first reason because this place is so special and because this mine is so dangerous to this place.

But the second reason why, colleagues, we should oppose this CRA is that it sets an incredibly unprecedented and dangerous use of the Congressional Review Act. Now, we know that the Congressional Review Act is a way for Congress to doublecheck the executive branch if Congress feels that the Executive has passed a regulation that goes too far, that didn't follow the laws that Congress passed.

If the Executive passes a regulation that Congress feels doesn't reflect the will of Congress, then Congress can within 60 days say: Nope. You can't do that. That doesn't make sense.

But that is not what is happening with the CRA before this body tonight because for the first time ever, the House is asking the Senate to apply

the CRA process not to a rule, but to a statute, to a public land order.

They want to claw back a public land order that was put into effect legally and lawfully 3 years ago. This was never the intention of the Congressional Review Act. It has never been used in this way, to overturn a mineral withdrawal or any public land order, and especially not a mineral withdrawal that was finalized 3 years ago like this one was.

Now, I know that many of my Republican colleagues are thinking about this, and they are asking themselves: What does this mean? What are the implications of this? What would happen if this were to pass--this CRA were to pass?

And ask yourself: What would you do if the shoe was on the other foot? What would you do if we set this precedent where we say that with a simple partisan majority, Congress can claw back a public land order that has been in place potentially for years or decades? What might that mean in North Dakota? In Montana? In Utah? In Arizona? In any State in the country if these public land orders could be undone so easily? I mean, it would be chaos, I think.

The third reason that I want to talk about why it is so important to oppose this Congressional Review Act before us today, this House resolution, is that this will violate Tribal treaty rights in a way that is strongly opposed by Tribal Nations not only in Minnesota, but also around the country.

These are Tribal Nations, indigenous people, that have lived in Northern Minnesota, on the borderlands of Northern Minnesota, for time immemorial. They have treaties with the Federal Government, particularly the treaty of 1854, which grants to these Tribes in exchange for the land that they gave up hundreds of years ago, it grants them hunting and fishing rights, and also the rights to harvest manoomin, which is wild rice.

And yet, this CRA before us today completely aggregates those Tribal treaty rights. It ignores the responsibility of the Federal Government to consult with Tribes, which has not been done. That is why so many of the Tribes across the country have come together to oppose this.

This includes the Grand Portage Band and all the other members of the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe. It includes the National Congress of American Indians which passed a resolution urging the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs to at least hold a hearing on the implications of this before this legislation--this resolution--passes the Senate.

Tribal Nations across the country have spoken out, including the Midwest Alliance of Sovereign Tribes, White Earth Nation, Rosebud Sioux Tribe, Prairie Band of Potawatomi Nation, the Eastern Shoshone. They have all come out in opposition to the CRA.

So before I hand over to my dear colleague from Minnesota the senior Senator from Minnesota, Senator Klobuchar, I want to address one question that I have heard made in favor of this mine and just kind of flush this out for folks.

Now, some people will say that we need to pass this CRA for its national security benefits. They claim that this mine will provide much-needed sources for critical minerals.

But I ask, colleagues, to think about what is really going on here and who will be the owner of these minerals because that is very important as you think about this national security argument.

Just because these minerals are mined on American land, on public land, on national forestland, that does not mean that they will be reserved for American markets. In fact, the copper and nickel mined in the Duluth Complex which is where the Boundary Waters is, where this mine would be, would essentially be brought out of the ground. They would be shipped to the Pacific Coast. They would be taken to China where they would be smelted, and there, they will either be sold by the company that is doing all of this, a foreign international conglomerate from Chili, Antofagasta. It will either be sold there or sold back to the United States to be paid for by all of us.

This mine is wholly owned by Antofagasta, a massive Chilean conglomerate with billionaire owners. It is one of the largest foreign mining companies in the world. They have deep ties to the Chinese Government in its mineral processing operations. Most recently, Antofagasta secured recordbreaking, zero-cost processing agreements with the Chinese copper smelters, all of which are state-owned in whole or in part.

So what we are doing here is we are creating a pathway for this foreign company to build a mine, pollute the Boundary Waters, send the minerals to China where they will be processed with this sweetheart deal, and then sold on the open market. And that is not an America- first strategy.

So I encourage my colleagues to take a look at who is benefitting from this mine, and it certainly won't be in the long run Minnesotans. There are no real winners here except for this massive Chilean company.

So in a few hours, we are going to be voting on this resolution, and I urge my colleagues to vote no on rolling back protections for the Boundary Waters Wilderness Area. We can support mining in Minnesota and in this country, but not this mine in this place.

We can be good stewards of our natural resources and support mining, but not this mine. These public lands belong to all of us, and we should not allow them to be exploited for our loss and the gain of others far, far away.

With that, I would yield the floor to my colleague Senator Klobuchar who has been such a strong champion for Minnesota for so many years.

Thank you, Senator Klobuchar.

Senator Klobuchar, you and I have known each other for many years, and I never knew that your father was friends and colleagues with Sigurd Olson, which is really incredible. He is such a storyteller of this particular part of this amazing, beautiful part of the world. So thank you for sharing that. And also thank you for the incredible representation that you have provided to Northern Minnesota and all of Minnesota for so many years. Your deep roots in Minnesota's Iron Range gives you so much credibility across the State, particularly on this issue. So thank you.

Mr. President, I believe that Senator Baldwin wants to say something.

Mr. President, I want to just thank my colleague from Wisconsin for her powerful words and her longtime support for the Boundary Waters and for treaty rights and for American jobs and American-made products.

And I just so greatly appreciate your being here today in support of this and appreciate very much--and I also really appreciate my colleague Senator Heinrich from New Mexico being here today as well to talk about how important this is and why this matters so much to him.

I know Senator Heinrich is planning a trip to the Boundary Waters this summer, and we will all be able to hear stories of that when you get back.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I want to thank my colleague from New Mexico for laying out the issues so ably that are before us with this House resolution on the Boundary Waters. It is wonderful to have a colleague who not only is really good at being a legislator but who is also an outstanding hunter and fisherman and then, on top of that, is also an engineer so that he can explain to us the impacts of this kind of mining on the environment with a scientific expertise that I just really value.

I thank Senator Heinrich so much for being here tonight to help tell the story of what the impact of this mine would be on this incredible place and why it is so important that this CRA be defeated.

As I think about what I want people to know about this place, I can't help but think about the first time that I saw the Boundary Waters myself. Some of my colleagues may know that I was originally born in New Mexico. I have lived in Minnesota for over 40 years now, but I was originally born in New Mexico. New Mexico is a desert climate. So, when I first went to Minnesota, I didn't quite know what to make of all of the lakes and rivers and streams and the beautiful green everywhere.

But I was married to a man who had spent his high school years up in the Boundary Waters. He went to a camp up there where he would go up for weeks at a time and canoe throughout the Boundary Waters. The Boundary Waters are connected to a big Canadian provincial park called the Quetico, and you literally can canoe from surface water in the Boundary Waters and get all the way to Hudson Bay, which is just remarkable. I went up there for the first time to see this incredible place after Archie and I had lived in Minnesota for a few years, and I think, in a lot of ways, it is when I first fell in love with Minnesota--the place of Minnesota--because I just couldn't believe all the water and the green and the wildlife and also how wild it was and to be able to be out on the water, in a canoe, and feel like you were just so far away from the pressures of modern civilization.

Yet, the Boundary Waters is really quite accessible to people. It is not one of those areas that is a wilderness area that is impossible to get to, which is why, as you know, we are talking about it tonight. People have been--you know, hundreds of thousands of people are able to visit the Boundary Waters each year and are able to experience what it is like to be in this place.

As I said earlier, the last time I was there was at the end of last summer. We were in the Boundary Waters just for a day trip, and even on that day trip, we saw two wolves, which is, like, really incredible. You can imagine in the wintertime, when it is so dark in that part of the world--long, long nights--the opportunity to see the aurora borealis, or the northern lights, which are just really phenomenal. Then, in the summertime, the long, long northern summer evenings stretch on until, you know, 9:30 or 10 at night, and you have incredible opportunities to go fishing and just be at the camp and just enjoy it. It is really amazing.

When I first went to the Boundary Waters with our kids, I started to get really interested in the history of this place, and I found it just fascinating to think about. So you have got, you know, what today we think of as the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness, which is a million areas of protected wilderness. It is important, I think, as I was diving into the history of this place, to understand that, historically, this has been the home of the Anishinaabe people, the Ojibwe people, in Northern Minnesota. They lived in this place for, you know, generations and generations. They canoed and hunted and fished to support themselves and their families and their communities, and that was their home.

Starting in the 18th century, the Boundary Waters got connected up through the fur trade routes as the voyageurs came, you know, all the way from across the Atlantic and in through, you know, what is now Northern Minnesota and Canada; but it was at that point that this was just an incredible resource for these fur trading routes that were a hugely--hugely--big deal. That fur trade really, you know, drove what was happening in that part of the country. In the 1700s and 1800s, French explorers and traders really opened up the area. The North West Company established a trading post at Grand Portage, and that was really kind of the economic driver.

In this moment, this part of the country that is now the Boundary Waters experienced some, you know, huge transitions, but I think it is important for us all to understand that, even though this is a wilderness place--it is a wild place--it has also always been a place where people were, where people were a part of what was happening in this country and in this particular part of the country.

Of course, you know, over time, as the United States became a country and entered into relationships with the Tribal nations that lived in this part of the country, that became sort of what drove a lot of the geopolitics, I guess you could say, of this part of the Nation.

In 1857, there was the Enabling Act, and the U.S. Congress was granted land to support schools through the University of Minnesota. Then a little bit later--this is right about the time of

the statehood for Minnesota; Minnesota was admitted into the Union in 1858--you know, there was additional negotiating that happened, and Congress granted the right to the State to swap lands in order to, you know, pull, you know, big chunks of land together.

By the time of about 1902, the U.S. Land Office--what it did is it withdrew a half a million acres in what is now the future--what was the future WCA wilderness area, and they withdrew it from settlement, which was a really, really important thing because, at this time, we were seeing massive development in Northern Minnesota, a huge--you know, massive timber resources were present in the State and, of course, mineral resources, including iron.

In 1904, at the request of the State's forestry board, Congress granted 20,000 acres to the State for the Burntside Forest Reserve, and it said in that situation that State forest reserves should be devoted not alone to the business of raising timber but to the pleasures of all the people. It is interesting to me. I think about how Minnesota--even, you know, back more than a century ago--was thinking carefully about how to balance the power and the vitality of our economy in Northern Minnesota with also the understanding that some of that most precious land needs to be set aside in a place where people can enjoy it.

Over time, in 1909, the Superior National Forest was created by President Theodore Roosevelt--a great conservationist in our country's history. I often think of him as the man who really was the leader of the powerful Republican conservation movement in this country. So, in 1909, President Theodore Roosevelt created the Superior National Forest from previously withdrawn lands that had been set aside, including what is now part of the Boundary Waters Canoe Area. There was continuing work both at the State level and at the Federal level to create sort of game refuges--yes, refuges--and other places that would be places where, you know, the moose and the caribou and other wild creatures would have a place to live even as Northern Minnesota was becoming increasingly developed.

In 1926, the roadless wilderness area in the Superior National Forest was established by the Secretary of Agriculture at the time, which was 640,000 acres. At that point, they said the policy here was to retain as much as possible the land which had recreational opportunities of this nature in the wilderness.

The efforts of this country to continue to protect this area went forward in the 1930s with the passage of the Shipstead-Newton-Nolan Act to protect water levels and lakeshores. There had been some dams and other sort of navigational structures that had been built that were having an impact on how the water flowed in the Boundary Waters. So here we had kind of a prohibition of those dams and logging within 400 feet of this recreational area just to sort of protect the natural area.

And then in the late 1920s and early 1930s, work continued to sort of establish what was this special place that was going to be protected.

In 1938, the U.S. Forest Service established the Superior Roadless Primitive Area, with boundaries that, today, are quite similar--quite similar to what today is the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness.

In Minnesota, we know a lot about something called Thye-Blatnik. I can talk more about that, but in 1948, Congress passed the Thye-Blatnik area. And what happened then is that, through the Thye-Blatnik Act, resorts and other private lands in the wilderness were bought up, and we established something that is still very important to this day, something that I work on all the time, that in lieu of the property taxes that might have been achieved through those lands, there is a payment in lieu of taxes called Thye-Blatnik that goes to the counties up in Northern Minnesota--Cook County and Lake County, St. Louis County--in exchange for what was this wilderness area for all of us to enjoy.

In 1949, President Truman issued an Executive order for basically an airspace reservation over the wilderness area to prohibit planes from flying in on the lakes and disrupting the experience of nature that people could have there. You were not allowed to fly lower than 4,000 feet over the wilderness.

And then in 1958, the Forest Service changes the name of this place to the Boundary Waters Canoe Area, and it becomes a part of what we now know as the Boundary Waters.

In 1964, another really important milestone happened for the protection of this incredible place, and that was when Congress passed the Wilderness Act, and the Boundary Waters Canoe Area became part of the National Wilderness Preservation System with a clause that allowed for some logging and some use of motorized vehicles to continue in this area.

In 1965, the Secretary of Agriculture at the time was Orville Freeman, who was a Minnesotan, and Secretary Freeman issued all sorts of management changes that were recommended to kind of further protect this area from logging and from motorized boats and zoning to make sure that it would stay in its most natural state.

In 1978, Congress enacts the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness Act, which protected this place in perpetuity--we would hope--to be the wilderness area that it is. This was a very, very important thing.

It was somewhat controversial in Minnesota at the time, there is no doubt, but it has, today, become one of the most beloved places in Minnesota, thanks to the prescience of State and local leaders who went forward to protect this place.

And I am thinking--as I think about all of the people over so many generations who have been in this place for sustenance, for their food, for their housing, and in more modern times, for their ability to get away from it all and to enjoy this place in ways that is so difficult, I am thinking about all the people that I have heard from who have asked me to make sure that we are protecting this place.

I think, today--a big thanks to everybody who has reached out to our office. I think, today, we had hundreds of phone calls into the office asking me to do everything I can to protect the Boundary Waters Wilderness Area. And, honestly, over the last many weeks that this issue has been on the forefront of people's minds, we have gotten, I am sure, just thousands and thousands and thousands of messages from people.

And what is interesting about these messages is, you know, one, how many people have firsthand experience of this incredible place and what it means to them and just the diversity of the stories that people have.

I find this all the time when I go around Minnesota, and people will stop me and thank me for the work that I have done to protect this place, just the way that people want to tell the stories of what it has meant to them.

I think, today, especially in this time when it is so hard, especially for our young people to get--I mean all of us, however old you are--to get away from technology and to just sort of be centered in that experience of being, you know, out in nature, that it is causing people to be even more appreciative of what it means to have a wilderness area like this.

So I am going to just take a moment to read some of the stories that have been forwarded to me about the power of this place and the lives of people in Minnesota and across the country.

This is a story from Grand Rapids, MN, which is in the, kind of, northern part of the State, still south of the Boundary Waters, and it says:

I am a 53-year-old that has lived in Northern Minnesota her whole life. My family and I have enjoyed God's great Northwoods and all it has to offer through canoeing and camping, water skiing, biking, campfires, hiking, swimming, and much more. To see and hear about the Boundary Waters possibly condemned would be beyond a travesty. Just think of all of the animals, all of the family trips ended, tree growth, the disaster that would happen there, not to mention what it would do to the ecosystem and whatever else I cannot fathom right now.

This is a message that was sent in to me from Mahtomedi, MN, which is more in the Twin Cities, South Central part of the State in the Twin Cities area. This person wrote:

The Boundary Waters have been a very special place to me for a long time. I was first taken there by my father and my uncle, and it was the start

of my relationship with my uncle who was previously more distant from our family due to work. Since then, I have gone to the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness once a year for the past few years with my father and my uncle. So many of my fondest memories are all from the Boundary Waters, and I hope to continue to make more of them, not only with my father and my uncle but with my own children in the future as well.

This is a message from someone from Farmington, MN. Farmington is also in the suburban metro area of Minneapolis and St. Paul. And this person said:

Me and my dad take a trip once yearly to canoe the Boundary Waters. I am 23 years old, and every year is incredibly special because the Boundary Waters are so important to my family. My dad proposed to my mom in the Boundary Waters. The Boundary Waters represents love; the wild, untamed American spirit; and my family. I want to be able to show my children pristine wilderness. I am begging you to act to protect the Boundary Waters.

This is a message from Rochester, MN, the home of Mayo Clinic and University of Minnesota Rochester, an incredible community. This person has written this:

I was 10 years old when I first visited the Boundary Waters with my dad and my grandfather. I have since visited numerous times, including in 2020 when my grandfather, who had been going to the Boundary Waters for 40 years, made his final visit. This place is now, to my family, not just a tranquil retreat but also a time-honored family legacy and an act of remembrance for my grandfather. To allow the Boundary Waters to be permanently open for mining is to destroy one of the great natural gifts God has given Minnesota for current generations and generations to come.

Now, I just want to pause on this because I think it is an opportunity to talk a little bit more about--kind of help to locate in colleagues' and people's brains like where this mine will be, and I have a map which shows how this all flows.

So the Boundary Waters is this huge area, as we have said, a million acres of wilderness. And I am going to orient you here. The green here is the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness. And this is the border between Minnesota and Canada here. And this is the Quetico Provincial Park, which is this huge Canadian national park. It is really quite incredible.

And then here you see Ely, MN, which is a major entry point into the Boundary Waters. If you were to go over here, you would find--oh, I guess it is down here as I am orienting myself on this map. I guess it is over here. There is another access point that is commonly used by people in going into the Boundary Waters through the Gunflint Trail and Grand Marais, which is right here on Lake Superior.

And what we are talking about here, here you can see--I am going to give you the orientation here--the red--this area here, the yellow and green stripes, which you can see here, this is where the Twin Metals deposits are, this mine that we are talking about. These are the deposits that would be developed by Antofagasta, by the Twin Metals Mine, right here.

The red area shows how the water flows on the map, and it gives you an idea of why, even though this mine is just slightly outside of the actual boundaries of the Boundary Waters, that, for the practical purposes of the watershed and how the water moves, it might as well be inside the watershed in terms of how the damage to the water would flow because you can see, it is all connected. I mean, that is what happens with water, it flows.

And so here you have Birch Lake. It flows up this way. This is the Namakan River, Namakan Lake. Up here is Rainy Lake. This is close to where our kids went to camp. Kabetogama Lake is up here.

All of this area is connected. And so when you hear, colleagues, people telling you: You don't need to worry about this because this mine isn't in the Boundary Waters, that is not the point. The point is that it is in the watershed of the Boundary Waters, and that is how the damage is done.

(Mr. ARMSTRONG assumed the Chair.)

Mr. President, I was showing colleagues this map because I wanted to make a couple of points about how this works--how the waterflow works.

One is that even though the mineral deposits and how they are going to be developed are just barely outside of the Boundary Waters Canoe Area, the impact of the mine and the impact on the water spreads not only through the Boundary Waters, but it also flows up through these rivers that essentially form the border between Minnesota and Canada-- the United States and Canada--and then into Voyageurs National Park. I think sometimes we don't talk enough about the impact on Voyageurs, which is an incredible park.

Together, Boundary Waters and Voyageurs offer people so many different ways of experiencing this wilderness, and the impact on both of them is really significant.

I think sometimes also it is hard for folks to fully understand and appreciate what is the impact on water quality of this kind of mine. And so I want to just share some of that with you as well as you think about what is the risk that is actually posed by this?

And I am going to get into this a bit more in some detail, but I think it is important, as you are considering this, to understand that during the mineral lease withdrawal process that happened in--well, really, stretched over time between, roughly, 2016 and 2021, when it was brought to a conclusion, there was a massive amount of effort, scientific research study that was done, huge amounts of public comment to gather information about what people thought about this that became the basis for the decision to do this mineral withdrawal.

The mineral withdrawal process is defined in the Federal Land Management Policy Act. I believe it is the FLPMA, as people call it around here. And that was followed to a tee. And that congressional law allows for mineral withdrawals when it is determined that the potential risks of mines or other kinds of natural resources development pose too great a risk to the public resource that belongs to it all. So I will talk about that in a little bit more detail, but I wanted to just share with colleagues this background on why sulfide ore copper mining poses such a unique risk to the Boundary Waters of Minnesota.

So the background here is that a Chilean mining company operating under the name of Twin Metals--Senator Heinrich said it sounds like a nice Minnesota name, and it is, but it is essentially a wholly owned subsidiary of Antofagasta.

So this Chilean mining company has proposed this mine--a large copper-nickel mine immediately upstream of the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness. And this proposed mine would extract copper from a geological formation called the Duluth Complex.

The Duluth Complex really runs kind of this way. It runs from northeast to southwest across Minnesota. This is important because there are lots of places where the Duluth Complex can be developed in addition to this particular place where these leases in question are right on the border of the Boundary Waters. There are huge resources all across the way. And, in fact, there are other mines under development down in this part of the State that are going through the process of getting developed.

So this Duluth process, which has a specific type of sulfide ore that interacts with water in ways that can create--that do create permanent contamination risks. And so the question is, How does this mechanism work? What exactly happens? And why is it so particularly difficult to manage in this watershed? Part of why the water quality is of such a big concern in this area is that the baseline condition here is just so outstanding.

A 2017 report by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency describes the water within the Boundary Waters watershed as ``exceptionally clean and immaculate.'' It concludes that the majority of the water bodies within this watershed have exceptional biological, chemical, and physical characteristics.

So the water in the Boundary Waters is so clean that visitors frequently drink right out of the lakes. There is no need for any purification. I have done this myself. When you are canoeing--now, you are not going to want to drink the water right next to the shore

because that is where the wild animals are, but you can go out into the middle of the lake and dip your mug into the water in the middle of the lake, and the water is incredible. So the fundamental hazard of sulfide ore mining is this acid mine drainage that happens.

When sulfide-bearing rock is excavated and exposed to oxygen and water, a chemical chain reaction begins, and what happens is that the sulfide minerals here, primarily--I might not say this exactly right-- pyrrhotite, which is in the Duluth Complex, it oxidizes upon exposure and then you have sulfuric acid. And sulfuric acid then dissolves the surrounding rock and leaches out heavy metals--including copper and arsenic and lead and cadmium--into the water. And the resulting contaminated water, which is the acid mine drainage, is very acidic, and it is also laden with heavy metals, and that, of course, is toxic to aquatic life.

And the mining operations are going to dramatically increase the surface area of this rock as it is exposed to water and oxygen, and that accelerates the oxidation by many orders of magnitude compared to what you would see with natural weathering rates. And once this acid mine drainage has started, it is incredibly difficult to stop it, and it can continue for centuries or in perpetuity after the mine closes--a problem that is sometimes called perpetual treatment.

So if you think about it, this mine--the mining company itself says that they think that the mine would probably be in operation for, I think, 10, 15 years or in that area. Yet you are going to have centuries of impact from this so-called perpetual treatment issue.

A secondary chemical hazard, when you are doing sulfide ore mining in this particularly damp environment of the Boundary Waters watershed, would also substantially increase sulfite loading in the water. So elevated sulfate triggers a separate but related chemical reaction with serious consequences for human health.

Sulfite-reducing bacteria in sediment can convert sulfate to sulfide under low oxygen conditions and then the sulfide can react with inorganic mercury, which is naturally present in the environment, to produce methylmercury. And methylmercury bioaccumulates in the food chain, concentrating in fish at levels that can be dangerous for human consumption.

Sulfate discharges from existing disturbed areas of sulfide ore in the watershed have already elevated sulfate levels in the BWCA headwaters, and analysis of monitoring data indicates that there is a measurable water quality degradation that is already occurring.

So this is important because the Boundary Waters fisheries-- particularly walleye, the most beloved fish in Minnesota--are central to the recreational and economic value of this place. And, of course, mercury contamination resulting in consumption advisories would have a significant impact for the sport fishing industry, certainly for Tribal subsistence rights, and overall for the negative impacts on the regional tourism economy.

So I think, as you think about this, I mean, you have got to sometimes think: Wow, like, that sounds bad, but is that really going to happen? Do we really have to worry about that? Won't there be a way of avoiding this? And I just want to point out that we can look at the precedence of what has happened in the other places around the country to help answer that question.

The chemical risks that I have just described are not theoretical. In fact, there are two sites in the United States where this AMD from sulfide ore mining has caused serious and long-lasting harm. This is the acid mine drainage--AMD.

So the first site is the Gold King Mine in Colorado. This is from 2015. In August of 2015, an EPA contractor crew working at the abandoned Gold King Mine near Silverton, CO, accidentally breached a plug, releasing approximately 3 million gallons of acid mine drainage into Cement Creek, which is a tributary of the Animas River.

So this plume, which was literally visible orange from dissolved iron and heavy metals, it traveled more than 100 miles downstream through Colorado and New Mexico. It crossed into the Navajo Nation. The Navajo Nation relies on the San Juan River for irrigation and for drinking water, and three States had to declare emergencies.

The Navajo Nation had to shut down all water withdrawals from the river, farmers lost crops and were forced to sell their livestock, and some metals were measured at hundreds of times the legal limits for drinking water. Now, a treatment plant costing $1.5 million to build and $2.4 million per year to operate was still running as of 2024--9 years after the spill. This treatment plant is treating an estimated 300 gallons of contaminated water per minute draining continuously from the mine.

Local communities have declined Superfund designation for years out of concern for tourism, but the spill forced their hand, and victims have filed hundreds of millions of dollars in claims. None has been paid because the EPA evoked sovereign immunity.

So this was a breach in this gold metal mine in Silverton talking about a plume of this polluted acid drainage that is traveling more than 100 miles. And I know my Minnesota pretty well, but I would say that--I mean, certainly from Birch Lake to Voyageurs National Park is less than 100 miles. So it gives you an idea of how far this polluted water can spread in these kinds of dangerous environments.

I want to tell colleagues about another example of this kind of failure, and that is the Summitville Mine in Colorado. At the Summitville Gold Mine in southern Colorado, acid- and metal-laden runoff killed all biological life in a 17-mile stretch of the Alamosa River.

The operator declared bankruptcy in 1992 and abandoned the site midoperation, leaving EPA to manage the ongoing emergency, and the site was designated a Federal Superfund site, and Federal cleanup costs have exceeded $210 million. The Alamosa River has never fully recovered.

I think it is important that we think about these things as we consider the risks of this kind of mine. And, again, I want to remind colleagues that that is one of the reasons why this mineral withdrawal was done--because the Forest Service considered these risks. They did an environmental assessment, and they concluded that this risk was too great to bear.

When we weigh these substantial risks of mining near the Boundary Waters, it is important for us to ask: What is the benefit? What might we see here? Where might we benefit? And this is, I think, really important to understand because where would these minerals go?

There has been an argument made that this is an ``America First'' national security priority to develop these minerals, but the question is, Who would own the minerals that are brought up from this piece of land right here near Birch Lake in Northern Minnesota? And the answer to that question is these minerals are going to go to China.

Antofagasta--the Chilean company that is wanting to develop these leases--operates a number of copper mines in South America, and it sends the majority of the ore that it pulls out of the ground to Chinese state-owned refineries for processing.

This year, in fact, these Chinese refineries have agreed to an unprecedented zero-dollar contract for processing Antofagasta ore. So if you think about it, what this means is that China is in such great need of copper ore to develop their energy and their AI infrastructure--and all of the reasons that they need copper ore--that they have agreed to directly subsidize Antofagasta's copper production by providing free processing of its ore.

So what this means, of course, is that the copper nickel that is pulled out of these deposits is going to probably travel by train to the Pacific coast, where it is then going to be transported to China, where it will be smelted in China, and it will be used.

Those minerals aren't going to then be sent back to us free. They are going to be maybe, at best, sold back to us in iPhones or other kinds of consumer products. But they are not ours to develop. We are going to have to buy them back.

So I question, colleagues: What is the advantage here? Where is the national security advantage? Where is the ``America First'' advantage that we are looking for?

With a critical minerals trade war already underway, shipping American minerals to China seems to run counter to so much of the work that Congress

is trying to do to onshore critical minerals and critical mineral supply chains.

So as I have been looking at this, I think it shows us that the proposed risks of this mine are substantial. They arise from the chemistry of the ore itself and, specifically, the chemistry in this very particular climate. And here in the particular rock and the particular climate in Minnesota, you have got the inevitability of AMD, this acid mine drain-off, from this sulfide-rich rock. You have the absence of any natural acid buffering capacity in the watershed. And then you have this sort of sulfate-driven methylmercury pathway that is developed.

These chemical realities, combined with the connectivity of this water across so many miles between the mine site here, the BWCA immediately adjacent to it, and then all of this watershed mean that the consequences of contamination would be really severe. They would be long-lasting, and they would be effectively irreversible.

And as we consider the risks that come from this mine proposal, I think we really have to ask ourselves if it is worth endangering one of our most beloved wilderness areas so that American minerals can be processed and used in China.

Now, colleagues, I want to turn to an issue that is a little bit geeky and nerdy. If you are in Congress, though, you appreciate the value of it. And this has to do with, sort of, what is the process that we are using right here, right now, to pass this CRA. Let me just kind of talk about that a little bit because I think it is important for us to understand the precedent that we will be setting if we pass this resolution.

So we have before us H.J. Res. 140, which would essentially apply the congressional review authority process, with all of the privileges of that process, to something that is not a rule--which is what the congressional review authority is all about--but is a public land order. And this is important to understand.

The mineral withdrawal that was done here was done under the authorities of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act. And in that Federal Land Policy and Management Act, there are processes that Congress defined if they don't like what happened, if they don't like what the executive branch did. There are processes for congressional disapproval of a public land order.

And so under this Federal Land Policy and Management Act--I am going to call it FLPMA because that is what everyone calls it around here-- there is an existing process for Congress to express its disapproval with a public land order, like the 2023 mineral withdrawal which is under consideration here on the Senate floor tonight. In that process that is described, Congress is given 90 days to adopt a concurrent resolution of disapproval.

So what is interesting is that, following the 2023 mineral withdrawal, which was completed in 2023, a resolution of disapproval on that mineral withdrawal was actually introduced. It was introduced on the House floor, and it passed out of the House Natural Resources Committee--all done, sort of, under the rules of sort of what FLPMA establishes. But it was never brought to the House floor, never brought to the Senate floor. And, in fact, Congress never acted on it.

And what happened, of course, is that under FLPMA you have 90 days to review or disapprove of an action, and that 90-day window opened and closed, and it passed.

So now what is happening--you might be asking: So why are we dealing with this now? This was in 2023. It actually came up on the House floor, and nothing ever came of it. Why are we dealing with this now?

Well, so the reason for that is that Republicans in the House are trying to use the congressional review authority, basically, to get a do-over. They are ignoring the fact that the CRA wasn't created to overturn a public land order, especially one that was 3 years old.

The CRA was designed by Congress to say: If the Federal Government passes a rule that we don't like, within 60 days we have the right to say: No, that is not what we meant; we want to draw it back again.

But, of course, that is not what is going on here. We are talking about not 60 days, not 90 days; we are talking about 3 years. We are not talking about a Federal regulation; we are talking about a public land order that has been standing for 3 years.

And I just think we have to think about what are the impacts of this precedent if this is the step that the Senate decides to take, because, if we are allowing these public land orders to be rescinded under the Congressional Review Act--I mean, this is a really dangerous precedent. Public land orders have never previously been submitted by any administration, including the first Trump administration. They have never previously been submitted as rules subject to the congressional review authority. This is the first one, submitted 3 years after the public land order was issued by the Department of the Interior. And, in fact, as I have just said, Congress set up a completely different set of procedures specifically to reconsider public land orders under the Federal Land Policy and Management Act.

So what we are seeing here is using the CRA to undo this public land order, which would establish an entirely new precedent. It would allow future Congresses to undo public land orders with no time limit on any public land order. And potentially, based on this precedent, it could allow future Congresses, with a simple partisan majority vote, to undo any administrative action.

So what would that look like? What would that mean? Because I think, as we are making this decision, colleagues, you always have to think about that sometimes you are in power, sometimes you are out of power. But you have to think about what are the long-term implications of your decision.

So if this precedent is set--if we say, yes, the CRA could be used to undo a public land order, like we have here in the Boundary Waters-- well, then, I would think that some future Democratic Congress might think: Hmm, let's use the CRA to undo a fossil fuel lease or a mining lease or a timber lease that we don't think makes sense in South Dakota. Maybe we could use--this precedent would suggest that you could use the CRA to undo a permit or undo a permit denial. In fact, it seems so broad, this precedent, that it could probably undo any determination on an administrative law matter.

So that seems to me to be really risky--because one of the things that matters in this country is that you might not always agree with what happens, but there has to be some continuity, some consistency. If we are constantly doing something and then undoing it and then doing it again, I can tell you from my business background that that is a disaster, because how do you decide to make investment decisions if you think that willy-nilly, depending on who is in power and what the environment is, what the political environment is, an investment that you made in one area, under one administration, is going to be undone by another administration at another time--because that is exactly what is happening here. One administration, one party, is undoing what was done perfectly legally 3 years ago.

Now, it makes sense to me, right, that if something is done that Congress just disagrees with, that you would have a window of time to undo it--like, I think, 60 days, 90 days, as we have with the CRA and the Federal Land Policy and Management Act. That makes sense.

Congress says: No, that is not what we wanted. That is not what we intended. That was not our legislative intent when we wrote this. We are going to undo it.

Then that makes sense to me.

If an administration does a mineral withdrawal like we did here, like the Biden administration did here, and Congress says, ``That was a mistake; that doesn't comply with the laws as we wrote them; we are going to change it,'' then, by all means, go ahead and try to change it, but not 3 years later and not in this way, not using a tool that was not--the CRA tool was not built for this. It was built to change a regulation that Congress disagreed with.

I think that it is a very dangerous--very, very dangerous--precedent, and I think it is the kind of precedent that, honestly, when the shoe is on the other foot, it creates problems. And I know that I have spoken with my colleagues

on both sides of the aisle, Republicans and Democrats, who are concerned about this precedent and wonder what it might mean. And the Presiding Officer and I both have experience in the private sector, and I think we could relate to the idea that capital likes certainty, capital likes to minimize risk by knowing what is going to--what they can count on. And that is, I think, one of the gravest dangers of this action that the Senate seems poised to take.

In a world where the Senate is always going to be a place where people disagree with one another, where we are not always going to see things the same way, where a project that I might think shouldn't be permitted somebody else might think is reasonable to be permitted-- those disagreements will always be there. But if we get into a situation where different parties, depending on whether they are in power or not, are just sort of--kind of randomly--undoing what has been in place for several years, I just think it further undermines the need for--it adds to chaos, it undermines certainty, and it certainly doesn't contribute to the problem-solving mentality that I think that we need around here.

And, of course, for my precious Boundary Waters, it has potentially really significant impacts, as I have described here, with the likely impact of water pollution on this precious place. And it also just leads to more lawsuits and more, sort of, legal wrangling that, in my mind, I wish we could just avoid.

In my life as a political leader, I have always found that the best ideas usually come from the people that are closest to the ground and closest to the work and do understand best what is going on, and so I am going to just take a few more minutes to read some of the comments that have come my way from people who have firsthand experience with the Boundary Waters and know what an incredible place it is.

This is a note from a constituent of mine from Medina, MN, which is, again, in the Twin Cities Metro Area. They write:

I know all the facts and arguments below are important, but for someone who went on Boundary Waters trips growing up, to bring my own girls starting at ages 5 and 8, it is truly a place like no other. It is my dad's happy place. He has led and gone on hundreds of BWCA trips over his lifetime, and at the young age of 72, he continues to go.

This is what I was talking about earlier about how, even though this is a very wild place, it is also so accessible to people.

This person goes on to write: He told myself and my husband when we were packing up for our first trip ever with the girls that from the moment that they were born, he has dreamt of this moment. The girls love it there. We have gone every year since. They adore being in the wilderness, seeing nature, and disconnecting from a world that can be so overwhelming. They look forward to it every year. As a mom, I am truly proud that my two girls are getting these opportunities. They are learning valuable life skills while being up there, and it doesn't hurt that we all get to disconnect from technology for a few days. I beg you to work as hard as you can to save this special place so that my daughters' kids will be able to enjoy it all in its splendor for years to come.

This is a message that came to me from Waconia, MN, and this is what this person writes: I first visited the BWCA on a church retreat in 2001, and it has been a magical place for me since then. As someone with a wildlife biology degree who also happens to have conservative political beliefs, I believe that protecting our country's pristine wilderness should take precedence over any financial partnerships with other countries. While it may momentarily create jobs for people in the Iron Range, those benefiting the most will be in Chile and China. Let's protect one of our country's last natural treasures so it will be around for generations to come. I have a close group of nine girlfriends from high school, and we have been making an annual trip to the BWCA just outside of Ely--this is it; this is what it looks like-- just outside of Ely for 23 years now. I am now a 41-year-old mother, and it is still my favorite weekend of the year. Please vote no to protect the environment, the animals, and my own personal sanity. I need the BWCA to remain protected. Remember, take nothing but pictures; leave nothing but footprints; kill nothing but time.

I love that.

This is making me think that there has been, you know, some things written--some things said--about what is it that Minnesota wants when it comes to this mine and this place and protecting this place. The stories that I am reading give wonderful anecdotes about what people think about it, but I think I am just going to bring some polling into this here because this is polling that shows what Minnesotans think about this broadly across different parties.

I think it is important to know that this was research that was done just in December of 2025. That is quite recent. This research shows us that Minnesotans are deeply connected to the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness and intensely support its protection. Multiple polls over the last 10 years have consistently shown this deep connection amongst voters across all political alignments.

This connection drives opposition to sulfide ore copper mining within the Boundary Water watershed by double margins. Minnesota voters are generally pro-mining, as I talked about earlier. They are pro-mining for iron ore, taconite, and for copper-nickel with one important exception: They overwhelmingly oppose sulfide ore copper mines that would be located in the watershed of the Boundary Waters.

I am going to give you some of the data in a minute, but I think this is something that I was saying earlier and that I want to return to. Minnesota is a pro-mining State. We are so proud of our mining heritage, and we are very, very proud of the continuing contributions we make to the Nation's economy through iron ore. We are the No. 1 producer of iron ore in the whole country. It is a crucial part of our economic foundation, and we are excited about the opportunity to develop new precious metals mining in Minnesota as these new deposits in the Duluth Complex are being explored. But Minnesota's view is, not this mine in this place. That is the issue here because they understand how popular, they understand how precious this place is.

So here is some of the data that I think is interesting. The Boundary Waters is uniquely popular, and voters across all political parties-- all political parties--say protecting it is an important priority.

Sixty percent of Minnesotans say that they have been to the Boundary Waters. That is kind of incredible.

The Boundary Waters is viewed favorably by nearly all Minnesotans across the State. Eighty-six percent of Minnesotans have a favorable view and 67 percent of Minnesotans have a very favorable view of Boundary Waters.

Now, I don't know what your State is like, Mr. President, but to find something that 60 percent of people say they have done and--what was it here?--86 percent of people have a favorable view of, that is a pretty big deal in our State, that everybody agrees on this.

I think it is important to understand--let me kind of break that down a little bit because you might be thinking: Is this something that is driven by party politics? And I can tell you as a Senator from Minnesota that there is nothing political about people's love of the Boundary Waters. It is not a Democratic love or a Republican love or an Independent love, and you see that in this data.

When you ask Minnesotans ``How much of a priority do you think it should be for Minnesota elected officials to protect the Boundary Waters from mining pollution,'' overall, 68 percent say it is a priority. Eighty-seven percent of Democrats say this, 66 percent of Independents say this, and 50 percent of Republicans say this. So, again, it is not a partisan issue. By more than a 2-to-1 margin, Minnesota voters oppose sulfide ore copper mining in the Boundary Waters watershed, and opposition is consistent. It has been consistent over quite a few years because this issue has been very much on Minnesotans' minds for quite a few years. This has been in the works for nearly 10 years. So I think it is important to understand that this is consistent.

It is also interesting that support for sulfide ore copper mining in the Boundary Waters watershed has actually dropped in 8 years--over the last 3

years. So there is strong support for the Boundary Waters, strong opposition to developing a mine right in the watershed of the Boundary Waters, and actually a growing concern for what this might mean.

It says--I will just read this--it says: This is consistent with the view that Minnesotans generally support mining outside the Boundary Waters watershed by a 14-percent margin--40 percent favor, and only 26 percent oppose--and they strongly oppose sulfide ore copper mining within the Boundary Waters watershed.

I love this because it sort of shows that Minnesotans--I guess it is no surprise that as a Minnesota Senator, I should be reflecting the views of my constituents, and I think that is the case here--being pro- mining, wanting to see that opportunity, wanting to see that developed but not this mine in this place.

If you look at the biggest differences in opposition between mining in Minnesota versus mining in the Boundary Waters watershed, it is really quite interesting. The difference amongst Independents is plus- 62. That is a very big number for people who look at polling across the board.

I don't know if it shows this in this memo that I am referring to, but I can tell you, because I have seen the data, that this is also not a regional thing. Even in Northern Minnesota, even in the Eighth Congressional District where this mine would be, a majority of people in the Eighth Congressional District would agree with this statement: not this mine in this place.

So you can imagine what Minnesotans are thinking about tonight if they are watching me talk here and thinking about what the Senate is doing, and they are asking themselves: Why is the Senate--why did the U.S. House--why are they undoing this protection that we had in place that we wanted? Why are they ignoring what we think should be happening in our State? Why are they ignoring or undermining or undoing the protections we want to see in place for these public lands that matter so much?

I can tell you from the conversations I have been having that it is contributing to their lack of trust in this body, the ability of this body to, you know, produce action and legislation that actually reflect what they want to see happen. It is frustrating to them, and they are asking me: Why is this happening? Why is it even possible that something that was done and done correctly and done legally, you know, years ago is now being undone by a lot of people who have never even been to Minnesota and don't really even know what this is all about?

You know, it is difficult for me to explain exactly why this is happening. That is why I am here tonight to talk about this in all the ways that I can and help to try to change the flow of this debate as I am trying to change the flow of this polluting water through the Boundary Waters.

I would like to take a couple of minutes and talk a little bit about the work that was done to establish this mineral lease withdrawal because I think there has also been some discussion about what was really involved in that and shouldn't we just really let sort of the permitting process play out as it normally would?

I would say I understand that argument that there is a--you know, we have established a permitting process at the State level and at the Federal level, and that should be allowed to play out. But, you know, it is interesting because Congress also, in this Federal Land Policy and Management Act, said that there might be occasions when there are places where we want to be able to withdraw those mineral leases because we can see ahead of time--before all of the work has been done, we can see ahead of time based on our environmental assessment that this is not wise, that this doesn't make sense.

That is exactly what happened with the Rainy River withdrawal environmental assessment, which was done with extensive work.

I have it all right here. I do not think that I will read it all to you tonight, but I want to just highlight some of the pieces of this so that it can give colleagues an idea of how comprehensive this environmental assessment was--I mean, honestly, much more comprehensive than the Congressional Review Act resolution that is before the Senate right now that included, you know, no outreach, no scientific evidence.

There was nothing that was presented in this CRA that says ``Nope, this is all wrong'' that was done in this environmental review. There was none of that at all.

So let me just highlight some of what is in this Rainy River withdrawal, which is the basis for the mineral lease withdrawal, to give you some confidence that it was done with a lot of integrity and a lot of scientific backdrop.

The environmental assessment says this: The purpose of the requested withdrawal is to protect and preserve natural and cultural resources in the Rainy River watershed, including the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness, the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Mining Protection Area, and the 1854 ceded territory.

Let me just let everyone know that that is the ground that is covered by the 1854 treaty between the Federal Government and the Chippewa Tribes of Northern Minnesota that gives them hunting and fishing and wild rice-harvesting rights.

So it is saying basically that the purpose of this requested withdrawal is to protect and preserve natural and cultural resources in the Rainy River watershed from the known and potential adverse environmental impacts arising from exploration and development of federally owned minerals.

The withdrawal is needed because the Forest Service and the BLM have seen and can reasonably anticipate increasing interest within the private sector for developing the copper, nickel, ore mines in the Duluth Complex that may adversely impact the Rainy River Watershed.

This goes on to describe what the decision-making process looks like under the Federal Land Policy and Management Act and describes how this act, written by Congress, of course, signed into law, authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to make and modify and extend or revoke withdrawals, in accordance with the terms of the law. And that is what this is all about.

So what happens in this environmental assessment is that they look at alternatives, they look at an alternative where the leases are withdrawn, for 20 years to be clear, or a second alternative where there is no withdrawal and the leases continue.

And they evaluate what is likely to happen, what is likely to happen to the environment. They also evaluate what is likely to happen to the socioeconomics of the region because, of course, these things are always a balance.

We don't want to live in a world where all we do is to protect environmental resources but there is no way for people to earn a living or to feed their families or to own their own home.

So let me just talk, let me just highlight some of this because I think it is interesting and gets to that point.

It says, the region--this region around the Boundary Waters has a long history of mineral exploration and extraction with mining activity attracting migrants and establishing communities since the 19th century. Similarly, the region's unique natural amenities and recreation opportunities have been a source of recreation and tourism and an amenity-based economy. The relative concentration of jobs in both mining and tourist and related sectors demonstrate these economic dependencies within the region, which I can say from personal experience is very true.

So in 2019, the mining-related employment was estimated at 3 percent of total employment in St. Louis County, Cook County, and Lake County, that is this region. So think about that, 3 percent.

This represents over 40 percent of all mining sector jobs in the State. Sectors associated with recreation and tourism also make up a higher proportion of total jobs in the study area relative to the State average.

In 2019, recreation and tourism-dependent jobs--so that includes retail trade, arts, entertainment, recreation, accommodation, and food services--that was 22 percent of total employment in the three-county analysis plan.

But, of course, job numbers tell only part of the economic picture, average

annual wages vary substantially by sector. The average wage and natural resource extraction sector was generally high compared to wages in many other sectors. That is certainly the case. The Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness--this goes on to say--provides many thousands of visitors with a unique, primitive, and nature-based recreation experience. The wilderness area also provides economic drivers to the local communities and the State of Minnesota. The Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness is surrounded by resorts, outfitters and guides, campgrounds, and other visitor service businesses and hundreds of homes and cabins.

In 2018, visitors to the wilderness area were estimated to contribute between 230 and 570 jobs and 6 million to 14.8 million in labor income all across this region, which we call the Arrowhead Region in Minnesota.

So I like that this is looking at the socioeconomics of this and kind of what are we going to do, how do we kind of maximize the benefit here.

I want to also just say I think it is important, because I always come back to this, the impacts on Tribes in Northern Minnesota. And this assessment points the following out: The lands proposed for withdrawal include the homeland and traditional use areas of the Lake Superior Chippewa Tribe, comprised of multiple independent bands living around Lake Superior and what is the northern parts of Minnesota.

And this, I think, is important. The Ojibwe bands were signatories of key treaties executed by the Federal Government in the 19th century. This withdrawal application area falls entirely within the 1854 ceded territory of the Lake Superior Chippewa from lands deemed to have been under the sole control of signatories at signing.

So every single thing that we are talking about here falls within the 1854 ceded territory, and this is not some historical document that is interesting to know about that has no impact on our daily life. This treaty is still in effect. It still establishes these hunting and fishing and wild rice harvesting rights that exist to this day. It still establishes the right that the Lake Superior Chippewa people, the Anishinaabe people of Northern Minnesota have around moose and deer and fish and berry and wild rice, their sugar bush sites, their maple stands, their white cedar stands, ducks, and other forest resources.

Of course, these resources are available to everybody, but they have a particular legal access point for the folks--for the Tribal nations. It is not known in many parts of the country, but in Minnesota, wild rice, manoomin, is a hugely important food source and also very important culturally to Native people, and it is a very important part of the ecosystem of this part of Minnesota.

And wild rice is a wetland plant that grows in exactly this kind of ecosystem, and it is, again, super important to the Ojibwe people. And this wild rice, it grows in very shallow freshwater marshes on the edges of lakes and rivers, and typically it grows only to about 3 feet high. And it is a very, very important part of what is included in these treaties. I think it is important to understand that.

As I go through this environmental assessment to share what it evaluates in terms of the opportunities in this area, what needs to be protected and what impacts you might see from the mine, I want to just share a little bit of that with you. I just need to find it here. This talks about--let me find it here.

Here we go. This is a good summary, I think, of what the environmental assessment finds. It says: The greatest potential risk to water quality of the wilderness area and lands within the withdrawal area comes from the catastrophic failure of a wet basin tailings storage or impoundment dam. Wet basin tailings storages pose the risk of dam failure and the potential release of a large volume of contaminated sediment or tailings into the water to a nearby water body, the potential transport of that downstream in water bodies and receptors.

Dam failures have the greatest potential of traveling downstream at a volume that could impact receding wilderness area water resources. Impacts would be most severe for streams and wetlands and lakes most adjacent to the failure. Failure would be highly likely to result in increases of total solids, sulfates, metal, or other constituents, exceedance of water quality standards, and observable impacts of aquatic bio and habitat in Birch Lake becoming successively less severe, of course, as the water moves forward.

But it assesses that the risk effects to the Boundary Waters Canoe Area would be significant and can't be--can't be--you know, mitigated in any way.

I think that that is the reason why this environmental assessment forms the basis for the mineral lease withdrawal. And, again, the mineral lease withdrawal is for 20 years, and 20 years seems like a long time. I have been in the Senate for 9 years--half of that time-- but the idea here is that you don't want to lock these minerals up forever. That doesn't seem reasonable. But given what the technology is right now, given what we know about the environmental risks and what this kind of mining would do, something is going to have to change before this makes sense, before this is a risk worth taking.

And I believe that that is really--the message that I take out of this environmental assessment, along with, you know, the many hundreds of thousands of people who wrote in talking about this and saying why-- why this mattered to them.

I think during the course of this discussion when we are talking about the special place that this is, also talking about the unusual precedent, the remarkable and dangerous precedent that the CRA establishes should it pass and also talking about the special consideration that I think that we need to give to Native people who have particular and sovereign treaty rights related to this place.

And I want to just, if I can, take a minute to go over in a bit of detail what some of the Tribes have said about this because I think it gives a good impact--it gives a good sense of why this is important to them.

And let me just find this for you before I--while I am looking for that, I want to share these other things with you because I think they are helpful.

Senator Heinrich spoke about this earlier, and it was really remarkable to me that as we were considering this CRA, as it was coming over from the House to the Senate, that we received here in the Senate an open letter from President Theodore Roosevelt's direct descendants talking about the importance of saving the Boundary Waters. I am going to just read this letter to make sure that people have had a chance to understand what it says.

The letter says: Dear United States Senators, the purpose of this letter is to strongly recommend all Senators vote against House Joint Resolution 140 and to ask you to work with President Trump to seek ways to permanently protect the Boundary Waters and to send a unified message that America is still a land that relentlessly protects its greatest wilderness terrain.

The proposed House resolution erroneously uses the Congressional Review Act to disallow the current withdrawal of over 225,000 acres and the headwaters of the Boundary Waters and would green-light exposure of this national treasure to the highly toxic and destructive impacts of sulfide-ore copper mining.

It is faulty on several key fronts. First, it is the opposite of ``America First.'' The mining company in question is foreign-owned, will use Chinese state-owned smelters, and will then sell the extracted metals on the open market.

Next, it removes the American public from public land decision making. A key priority of American public land policy has always been to have a strong bias towards obtaining robust public input. Hundreds of thousands of Americans have already weighed in on the Boundary Waters, and they overwhelmingly want it protected forever.

Next, it discards sound science. A detailed environmental assessment has already documented the substantial risk copper mining poses to this highly-valued ecosystem.

It sets a very bad precedent for other public lands. Using the CRA in this fashion, which has never been done before, would put at risk other public land withdrawals across America to

similarly irresponsible actions. Finally, the proposed resolution is diametrically at odds with the conservation legacy of President Theodore Roosevelt.

For all these reasons we feel a deep obligation to T.R.--as they call him in this letter--to speak out loudly in support of this exceptional American wilderness area.

As T.R. said at the Grand Canyon in 1903, we now reiterate with the Boundary Waters today ``leave it as it is.'' Vote no on House Joint Resolution 140 or any other similar legislation and seek creative ways to protect the Boundary Waters forever.

Frankly, T.R. would have been appalled at House Resolution 140 and the misguided and harmful effort to revoke sound and necessary mineral withdrawals in the headwaters of the Boundary Waters.

To understand T.R.'s perspective on all of this, it is important to review a little of his history starting with Minnesota.

T.R. had a strong affinity for Minnesota. T.R.'s love of Minnesota emanated directly from Lincoln and Grant's leadership during the Civil War. Minnesota immediately stepped up to support the dire cause.

T.R. had a huge amount of respect for the 1st Minnesota Infantry Regiment, who literally saved the Union at Gettysburg. It is perhaps why, shortly after the Civil War, as a 10-year-old sitting in Germany, T.R. dreamed of proudly going to Minnesota someday. He hoped to get there when he was 14, and he cheered in his diary about the prospect: Hip, hip, hoorah.

In 1880, T.R.'s first extended hunting trip to the West brought him as far as the Red River in Moorhead, MN, way up in the northwestern quadrant of our State, where he briefly ducked into the Dakota Territory for the first time. From then on, T.R.'s strong historical connections and interest in Minnesota accelerated exponentially.

In 1838, he signed his first cattle ranching contract in Saint Paul. In the rest of the 1880s and in the 1890s, he crossed through the State on many memorable occasions.

In 1900, he launched his Vice Presidential campaign in Minnesota. In 1901, he gave his famous ``Big Stick'' speech at the Minnesota State Fair.

These are just a few small samplings of T.R.'s oversized affection for Minnesota, which helped to catapult him toward his destiny.

T.R. worked exceedingly hard to protect Minnesota's forests and water. It should come as no surprise that T.R.'s appreciations for Minnesota translated into an aggressive pursuit of protecting the State's favored forests and water.

In 1902, shortly after taking office, T.R. used scientific forestry to establish the Minnesota Forest Reserve, which was later renamed the Chippewa National Forest. It was the first national forest reserve in America east of the Mississippi River and the first one set aside through an act of Congress, rather than by a Presidential proclamation.

Around the same timeframe, closer to America's northern border, T.R.'s administration withdrew hundreds of thousands of acres in Lake and Cook Counties in the vicinity of the Boundary Waters to get a jump start on protecting this even more pristine source of water.

Finally, in 1909, for the public good, T.R. formally established the much broader Superior National Forest, where the Boundary Waters Canoe Wilderness Area resides.

Based on all of these proactive measures, there is no doubt T.R. wanted Minnesota's greatest natural resource, its most beloved Boundary Waters ecosystem, protected in perpetuity for all future generations to enjoy. It was a central tenet of his balanced approach to conservationism.

Saving the Boundary Waters makes common, bipartisan sense. Because of the foresight of America's early Republican leaders, the Boundary Waters has risen, as per the Department of the Interior, to become America's most heavily visited wilderness area. Its greatness goes way beyond Minnesota. It is the fourth pillar of all of America's greatest continental wilderness terrain--Yosemite, Lincoln and Harrison; Yellowstone, Grant; the Grand Canyon, Roosevelt; and the Boundary Waters.

Saving it from the devastating effects of copper mining is, therefore, the conservation imperative of our time and should be bipartisan in nature.

It is certainly bipartisan in Minnesota, as evidenced by the fact that 70 percent of Minnesotans want the Boundary Waters permanently protected. Minnesotans know, aside from the devastating impact on the environment, copper-nickel mining in the Boundary Waters would deal a crushing blow to a great rural American economy. It would kill jobs, dampen growth, decrease affordability, and erase any meaningful prospects for future economic prosperity in the region.

For all of these reasons, we are positive T.R. would want the Boundary Waters protected in a bipartisan fashion. But, sadly, the passage of H.J. Res. 140 in the House puts all of this in grave jeopardy.

Our specific ask of the United States Senators: To America's Senators, please do all that you can to protect this national treasure. On both sides of the political aisle, we strongly ask you to vote no on this resolution and on any other similar legislation proposed in the future.

T.R. was active in the preserving of our greatest wilderness terrain on both the east and west coasts. It became one of the greatest enduring legacies of his life. It is now time for all of you to get in the arena with him.

We implore you to do your own parts to ensure T.R.'s commonsense approach to conservationism is as strong today as it was more than a century ago. There is no better place to do this than to preserve the greatest wilderness terrain in the middle of America's heartland: the Boundary Waters, the greatest ``America 250'' conservation gift, protecting the fourth pillar.

This letter concludes in this way: In conjunction with America's 250th birthday, we ask you to honor President Theodore Roosevelt's conservation legacy.

As T.R.'s Presidential Library formally opens in Medora, ND, on Independence Day, three pillars of T.R.'s life will take central stage: Leadership, conservation, and citizenship.

It is one thing for politicians to say they believe in these three pillars, and it is quite another to see them act that way. We humbly submit it would be hard to gift America a more meaningful fourth pillar, one that better unites these three aspects of his legacy, than a huge enduring present in the form of a permanently protected Boundary Waters.

Finally, it should be noted that the signatories below represent the three branches of Theodore Roosevelt's family, emanating directly from his three sons, who all served in both World War I and World War II.

Quinton Roosevelt was, sadly, killed in action in World War I or he certainly would have risen to the call of service the second time.

The four of us below--this is important. The four of us below have never collectively cosigned a letter together, which should give an indication of how strongly we support voting no on this resolution and then voting yes on permanent Boundary Waters protection.

We greatly appreciate your time and attention to this matter.

This is signed by Theodore Roosevelt IV, Teddy Roosevelt's great- grandson, and cosigned by Tweed Roosevelt, Kermit Roosevelt III, and Mark Roosevelt.

I think this is so interesting because, one, it speaks to the great tradition of conservationism in the Republican Party. And I love also that it highlights these other great pillars of American remarkable places. They talk about, in this letter, America's greatest continental wilderness terrain: Yosemite, protected by Lincoln and Harrison; Yellowstone protected by Grant; the Grand Canyon and Roosevelt.

And, you know, just as it is impossible for us to imagine a big mine right on the doorstep of the Grand Canyon or Yosemite, it is impossible for us in Minnesota to imagine this mine right on the doorstep of the Boundary Waters. The Boundary Waters is the same caliber of national treasure as the Grand Canyon or Yosemite or Yellowstone.

And in this country, we certainly don't say we don't want to do any mining anyplace. But we also acknowledge that there are places that are so special, that that does not need to be the place where we look to meet our needs for precious metals, precious minerals.

I was searching, a moment ago, for--I had mentioned that I wanted to share some of the views of America's indigenous Tribes, talking about why they think that it is important to protect the Boundary Waters.

I have got a few here that I am going to read to you, and I am going to start with the letter from the National Congress of American Indians, which, as you no doubt know, is the oldest and largest organization of sovereign Tribal nations from around the country.

I am going to--this is actually not a letter. Forgive me. This is a resolution that the National Congress of American Indians put forward a few weeks ago, speaking on behalf of all of the Tribes, all of the Tribes that are members.

It is as follows. It is called: Calling on the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs to hold a hearing to consider and take testimony on H.J. Res 140, entitled, ``Disapproving Public Land Order 7917'' due to the impacted Tribal interests contained in the subject public land order.

It goes as follows:

Whereas we the members of the National Congress of American Indians of the United States, invoking the designed blessing of the Creator upon our efforts and purposes, in order to preserve for ourselves and our descendants the inherent sovereign right of our Indian Nations, rights secured under Indian treaties and agreements with the United States, and all other rights and benefits to which we are entitled under the laws and Constitution of the United States, and the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, to enlighten the public toward a better understanding of the Indian people, to preserve Indian cultural values and otherwise promote the health, safety, and welfare of the Indian people, do hereby establish and submit the following resolution:

And whereas the National Congress of American Indians, NCAI, was established in 1944, and as the oldest and largest national organization of American Indian and Alaska Native Tribal governments;

And whereas the Ojibwe people have resided in North America since time immemorial, and before the establishment of the United States, have resided among what has become the border between the United States and Canada and the places now called Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota, and North Dakota;

And whereas the Ojibwe people entered into numerous treaties with the United States, ceding land and reserving rights within those lands in exchange for peace, protection, and services, including the Treaty of La Pointe, September 30, 1854;

And whereas in the 1834 treaty, the Ojibwe reserved rights to hunt, fish, and gather within the territory ceded in the 1854 ceded territory, and such rights remain intact and are presently exercised by the current beneficiaries of the 1854 treaty;

And whereas, over time, the Federal Government took land within the ceded territory for conservation and protection, including the Superior National Forest and the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness, both within the Rainy River Watershed, which runs along the current United States-Canada border and what is now Northeastern Minnesota;

And whereas the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness is a globally unique freshwater ecosystem with some of the world's cleanest water--it comprises 20 percent of the freshwater within the entire National Forest System. And through its interconnected system of lakes, forests, and wetlands, provides irreplaceable habitat for threatened species like the lynx and the loons, and, by doing so, offers invaluable and cultural recreational resources, including resources that the Ojibwe utilize when exercising their reserved treaty rights;

And whereas, as recognized in the NCAI resolution on FDA O2510, wild rice, manomin, is the sacred food of the Ojibwe people, integral to their identity and necessary for their subsistence, and the Federal Government must protect the waters of the 1854 ceded territory from contamination to maintain traditional harvesting of wild rice, which, as the Ojibwe treaty guaranteed, are usufructuary rights;

And whereas, on January 31, 2023, then Secretary of the Interior Deb Haaland issued Public Land Order 7917, withdrawing approximately 225,504 acres of National Forest System lands from disposition under the United States mineral and geothermal leasing laws for a period of 20 years to protect and preserve the 1854 ceded territory of the Lake Superior Chippewa in Northern Minnesota from the political adverse effects of mineral and geothermal exploration and development;

And whereas the order further provides that the purpose for the withdrawal is also to protect the health, traditional cultural values, and subsistence-based lifestyle of the Tribal nations that rely on resources in the region, such as wild rice, which are particularly susceptible to adverse impacts associated with mineral exploration and development;

And whereas NCAI acknowledges that any threats to Tribal rights and treaty rights of one Tribal nation erodes the reserved Tribal and treaty rights of all Tribal nations, thereby eroding Tribal sovereignty;

And whereas H.J. Res. 140, introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives on January 12, 2026, authorizes the disapproval of Public Land Order 7917;

And whereas the U.S. House of Representatives enacted H.J. Res. 140 without a hearing and without soliciting input from the impacted parties, including from the Tribal nations whose treaty rights are impacted by the disapproval;

And whereas pursuant to the rules of the Congressional Review Act adoption and enactment of H.J. Res. 140 would permanently preclude any future consideration or action by the executive branch, forever stripping the impacted Tribal nations of their right to be consulted prior to Federal actions that materially impact their lives, lands, and interests;

And whereas H.J. Res. 140 has been transmitted to the U.S. Senate and because disapproval of the underlying public land order directly impacts more than one federally recognized Tribe's treaty guaranteed rights, the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs should hold a hearing on Public Land Order 7917 in order to solicit testimony from the impacted Tribal nations before Senate floor consideration;

Now therefore be it resolved that NCAI urges the U.S. Senate Indian Affairs Committee to expeditiously schedule a hearing regarding the contents of Public Land Order 7917 and the potential detrimental impact adopting H.J. Res. 140 would have on treaty rights by soliciting testimony from the Tribal nations impacted.

And be it further resolved that NCAI insists that the administration and the Congress protect the unique ecosystems of the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness from contamination and encroachment, which is the underlying purpose of Public Land Order 7917.

And be it finally resolved that this resolution shall be the policy of NCAI until it is withdrawn or modified by any subsequent resolution.

Now, I think this is important for a couple of reasons.

One, this is such an important organization reflecting so many Tribal nations. It is important also that they are saying clearly that they believe that the public land order in place right now is protecting their Tribal sovereignty and treaty rights as they should be protected.

The resolution is also saying, if you are going to take such a dramatic step, U.S. Senate, you ought to at least have a hearing in the Senate Indian Affairs Committee to create an opportunity for Tribal nations to express their views on this.

Of course, that hearing hasn't happened. Because the CRA came before the Senate as a privileged resolution, it was not possible to refer this to the committee during these processes that were going on. There are so many things that the Senate is limited from doing because of the form in which the House sent this resolution over to the Senate; but I think it is a travesty that, at the very least, a hearing exploring the impacts on Tribal nations will not have been held before Members of the Senate are to make a decision that has such a significant impact on treaty rights and Tribal nations in Minnesota. As this letter says, what impacts one Tribal nation impacts all Tribal nations in this environment, in this situation.

Having the support of the National Congress of American Indians is extremely important, but I also want to just note that the Minnesota Chippewa Tribes--that all of the Chippewa Tribes in Northern Minnesota have also expressed their strong disapproval of this action that the Senate is contemplating tonight. So I am going to read the letter that the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe sent to Senator Klobuchar and me so that everyone will--so that it will also be in the Record.

Here is the letter, which was written on March 4, my birthday. It's to Senator Tina Smith and Senator Amy Klobuchar. Re: Vote No on Mining in and around the Boundary Waters: Dear Senators Smith and Klobuchar, I write at the direction of the leadership of the six bands of the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe--otherwise MCT--all of which are federally recognized Indian Tribes under the umbrella of the MCT.

As you know, in January, H.J. Res. 140 passed the House and rolls back the 20-year ban on mining in and around the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness and within the Superior National Forest in Minnesota. The MCT strongly opposes any mining in that area and asks that you vote no on any companion bill in the Senate, and we thank you both for your public statements to date in opposition of this destructive measure.

Members of those MCT bands who were signatories to the 1854 Treaty of La Pointe, which encompasses the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness, retain the right to enter millions of acres in the Arrowhead region of Minnesota to exercise their treaty reserved rights to hunt and fish and gather.

The entire area is Ojibwe homeland. In fact, one of the key purposes of the Bureau of Land Management order withdrawing the Superior National Forest lands from potential mineral and geothermal leasing was to protect and preserve the fragile and vital socio-natural resources, ecological integrity, and wilderness values from the potential diverse effects of mineral and geothermal exploration and development. The 1854 ceded territory was expressly called out as one of the areas that must be protected.

The letter includes a map of the ceded territory, and the letter concludes by saying: Again, we appreciate your opposition to lifting the mining ban and your support of Tribes in this region. Thank you.

I have here also letters from the White Earth Indian Reservation expressing their opposition to mining in or near the Boundary Waters Wilderness.

I have a letter from the Midwest Alliance of Sovereign Tribes, and all of the Anishinaabe Tribes across Minnesota and Wisconsin are all relatives.

This is another letter basically saying: We are writing to you today on an issue of utmost importance to all of our members. It is our understanding that the House joint resolution may soon be brought to the floor. This resolution is a measure brought under the Congressional Review Act to repeal a current rule banning copper-sulfide mining. We urge you and your colleagues to vote no on this measure.

I have here a letter from the Eastern Shoshone Tribe, which is a Wyoming Tribe, sent to Senator Lummis, Senator Thune, and also to Senator Schumer and Senator Barrasso. It includes opposition, saying clearly, on behalf of the Eastern Shoshone Business Council, it urges the Senate to oppose H.J. Res. 140.

I have a letter from the Prairie Band Potawatomi Nation urging opposition to this resolution.

I have a letter from the Rosebud Sioux Tribe from Rosebud, SD, urging opposition to this CRA.

I have here a letter from early February to all of the Members of the Senate, and I am just going to read you a bit of it, but I think what I want you to know is that, at the end of this letter, it is signed by--I mean, my word. I would have to count them all up--I would guess, 40 or 50 small businesses in Minnesota. Many of them are from the area--you know, they benefit so much from the natural resources of Northern Minnesota and from the outdoor recreation economy of Northern Minnesota.

They are urging the U.S. Senate to oppose H.J. Res. 140, and I am just going to read you a bit of it.

It says: The Boundary Waters and downstream Voyageurs National Park are currently protected by Public Land Order 7917--the 20-year mineral withdrawal banning copper and nickel mining on Federal public lands in the headwaters of these beloved wildlands. This mining ban is based on the U.S. Forest Service's comprehensive environmental assessment, which concluded that sulfide-ore copper mining near the Boundary Waters would cause irreversible harm to the region's watershed, fish, and wildlife, treaty and Tribal rights, and robust recreation economy.

The analysis completed by the Forest Service in 2022 included 675,000 public comments, over 95 percent of which favored protecting the Boundary Waters and Voyageurs from sulfide-ore copper mining. Overturning the mining ban puts at risk the forests and the clean waters of the region as well as its town's indigenous communities and the regional economy.

The love for the Boundary Waters powers a strong and enduring recreation economy in Northeastern Minnesota--responsible for 17,000 jobs and over $1 billion in sales annually in the region. This includes the many businesses many of us have created and grown which will be seriously damaged if sulfide-ore copper mining were allowed in this fragile environment.

The wilderness is also a crown jewel of Minnesota and important to the State's growing $13.5 billion outdoor economy. Economic studies show that protecting the Boundary Waters would be better for the economy than opening the area to copper mining.

The letter goes on to say: Once compromised, the Boundary Waters cannot be restored. This region is much more than a beautiful place. It embodies the best of our public lands: clean water, expansive habitat, world-class recreation, vibrant wilderness communities, and sustainable local economies. Generations of Midwesterners and Americans from across the country have formed deep connections to nature through hunting and fishing and camping and canoeing and hiking in the Boundary Waters.

We urge you to vote no on H.J. Res. 140. Do not sell out our wilderness, our way of life, and our businesses.

This letter is signed by--and I won't read all of the people who have signed it--Ely Outfitting in Ely, MN; Freedom Explorer; the Lodge of Whispering Pines; River Point Resort; Wilderness Cabins; Piragis Northwoods Company; Voyager Outward Bound School; North of North Resort; Ely Cabin Collective; Final Touch Proofreading and Editing.

I am sure there are, you know, advertising and marketing jobs connected to the Boundary Waters.

White Pine Productions. All of these are in Ely, MN.

Then there are many others: North Shore Adventure Park in Silver Bay; Big City Mountaineers in Tower; Granite Gear in Two Harbors; Madison Elyse, LLC, in Alexandria; Littlbug Enterprises in Bemidji; Java Moose in Grand Marais; the Fisherman's Daughter in Grand Marais.

I mean, there are dozens of businesses that are listed here, and I think this just goes to show how the outdoor recreation economy powers these small businesses. They are the employers and the drivers of Minnesota's economy. So listening to them and hearing what they have to say as we make this decision is just so important.

The hour grows late, and I know we have people who have been here all day long, so I am going to take a couple of--a bit more of the time that I have--5 hours all in--on this extremely important topic just to talk a little bit more about some of the feedback that I have gotten from Minnesotans before I wrap up tonight.

Here is something that I think is really an important and interesting note that I have gotten from Lakeville, MN.

This person says the following: I moved to Minnesota over a decade ago from Chicago. As someone born in Iowa, I visited Minnesota often. When making the decision to move to Minnesota, a huge draw for us was outdoors. We visit the Boundary Waters Canoe Area every year, and my kids know the feeling of a great hike and the beautiful scenery to go with it. If this resolution passes Congress, not only will my grandchildren not be able to enjoy this beautiful place, but my kids will watch it disappear before

their eyes. Please protect this land, protect beauty, and protect the feeling of a great hike.

This is a letter from Lake Elmo, MN. It is very short.

She says: I am a 79-year-old woman who goes to the BWCA with my kids and grandchildren. Chilean mining in the area will hurt the tour industry.

Thank you for sending that.

I will read a couple more here before I close.

This is from St. Augusta, MN, and it says: I am a 45-year resident of Minnesota. I am an Eagle Scout, husband, and father of three daughters. I have been an outdoor enthusiast from a very early age--deer hunting with extended family and camping with the Scouts. When my daughters were old enough, I began planning annual trips into the BWCA for 4 to 6 days, acquiring all of the equipment necessary and passing on my knowledge and appreciation of the outdoors, hoping that, one day, they will take up the mantle with our children and help protect these critical ecosystems. I also require that no phones or electronic devices accompany us on our BW adventures--something my daughters label as a technology detox and, in my opinion, provides a type of reset against an increasingly technological existence.

Here is a note from somebody from Big Lake, MN: I am Minnesota born and raised. I grew up in a Republican household with a father who showed me all the true beauty and wonder of this State through fishing, hunting, foraging, and camping. The land that makes up this State and all the creatures and features within it have given me a purpose and a mission. I went to college at Gustavus Adolphus, where I studied the environment, and I got a job there guiding others on how to enjoy the outdoors and invest in protecting the wonderful State that gives them these opportunities.

I have seen the impact firsthand on how countless times people's whole worlds have changed when they are introduced to the beauty and recreation of the Land of 10,000 Lakes, of which you are representing me.

If I could sit down with you face-to-face, Mr. Emmer, you would see the absolute fear in my eyes at the prospect of losing more wild areas than we already have. And I can assure you that sentiment is shared by a vast majority of Minnesotans. No matter what side of the aisle people are on, they can unite over the unique beauty and foundational importance that our ecosystems have, not only on the very water we drink and the air that we breathe but in the foundation for pride in our chest when we beam that we are from Minnesota.

I sincerely urge you to consider this deeply, to talk to those you represent about the impact that this would have, and to take heed to science. This isn't about me. This is about every little kid who is growing up or who is about to be born in this great State. Will they still hold that pride in their chest when they declare where they are from if the very thing that makes us Minnesotans is ripped away from them?

Already I have taught young people who have never seen an unobstructed night sky or know what it is like to catch a firefly. I have taught young people who know what it is like to fish at a lake their grandfather recommended and to catch nothing because the fish are gone and hear nothing but machinery instead of loon calls while they are out. Please, I am begging you on behalf of all our legacies, please fight for us.

Mr. President, I think I wanted to just clarify that this letter was forwarded to me, but it was sent to Congressman Emmer of Minnesota, and this Minnesotan is begging him to listen and fight.

Here is a letter from a Minnesotan that says: I am devastated to learn that the U.S. House of Representatives has voted to repeal the longstanding ban on mining near the Boundary Waters. I have been going on yearly BWCA trips with my mom since 2009, when I was 10 years old. I am now 27, and she is now 70, and we plan to continue our annual tradition for as long as we can. Though I haven't yet started a family, my mom has always hoped she will be around to introduce her future grandchildren to this beautiful wilderness. I now fear, though, that the Boundary Waters themselves won't be around for my children to enjoy.

My mom raised me to care for nature, to leave each BWCA campsite cleaner than I found it, and it grieves me that I am powerless to preserve the Boundary Waters beyond these small actions.

When we go on our 2026 trip, I will continue to treat each campsite and portage and lake with respect and love. I can only hope that those with power in this country can, from afar, do the same.

I don't think I could possibly read all of the letters and messages that have come from Minnesota to me over the last many months about this, and you may be wondering why I am standing here at nearly midnight keeping everybody up, and here is why: because I know there are so many people in Minnesota who are wondering--excuse me. I am losing my voice. I know there are so many people in Minnesota who are wondering whether anybody in this building cares about what they think, and the one thing that I can do is to be here, speaking to this mostly empty room, making sure that, to the best of my abilities, that their voices will be heard. Their voices will be heard, regardless of what the Senate does.

I dearly hope that the Members of this body will think about their legacy in protecting the great places in this country, to think about the risks--there are risks in this time that you must take, but then there are other risks like the risk of polluting this beautiful place that is not necessary. It is not necessary to take.

And I hope that my colleagues will also think about the precedent that taking this action will take and the ways in which other politicians down the road will look back on the actions that this Senate is taking right now and saying: They gave us permission to do the same thing because they said it was OK. And that will have impacts not only on the Boundary Waters, this precious place, but it will have impacts on precious places all over the country, and it will have impacts on the overall integrity of our government if actions that are taken that are legal can just be undone willy-nilly. And that just seems to me to be so bad for this body, to be bad for the public lands that we all love, and to be bad for this country that we all love so much.

So I stand here tonight with a mostly gone voice to give voice to all of those people in my home State and in States all over this country who feel like what they think doesn't really matter, and I am here to tell you that it does. And the power of the organizing that has happened over the last many weeks to raise up this issue in the face of a time in our country when there are so many issues that demand so much attention: a war in Iran, the brutal attacks on my home State of Minnesota by Federal agents, so many worries, so many worries that so many people have in this country right now--worries, fundamentally, about how they are going to put food on the table and how they are going to pay rent and how they are going to hold their lives together. But they organized to make sure that their voices were heard on this thing that they care so much about, and so it has been my honor and also my responsibility and my obligation to help to lift those voices up tonight.

Tomorrow, I believe the Senate will vote on this, and I hope that the Senate makes a good decision--a good decision not only for my home State of Minnesota and for this precious place but also for the good of the whole, for the good of the whole country, and the protection of our public lands and the integrity of our democracy.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to discuss a Congressional Review Act resolution H.J. Res. 140 that could come before the Senate any time over the next 2 weeks, and I want to speak directly to my Republican colleagues about this CRA and why you should vote against it.

This CRA would roll back protections for the Boundary Waters Wilderness in Northeastern Minnesota. It would allow copper-nickel sulfide mining in the watershed of the Boundary Waters, which would be devastating to the wilderness.

The decision that the Senate makes--that we will make--in the coming weeks will have long-term implications for the Boundary Waters, certainly, but it will also have long-term implications for how we go about protecting public lands around the country going forward.

So I want to start with the core point being a Minnesota Senator, that Minnesota is a mining State. We support mining, just not this mine in this place. Minnesota is a mining and natural resources State. We have a wealth of natural resources, and mining is a really important part of our economy.

We are proud to be the No. 1 source of iron for the whole country. We produced three-quarters of the iron that went into the tanks and planes that led us to victory in World War II, and we are still producing most of the Nation's iron ore today.

And it is also true there are other potential mines in Minnesota that are currently under consideration and development that would produce copper and nickel and other precious metals.

Responsible mining is an economic driver in Minnesota; and it is part of our history; and it is part of our future.

So why oppose this CRA which would pave the way for developing a copper-nickel sulfide mine on the doorstep of the Boundary Waters?

Colleagues, I want to give you three reasons why this is a bad idea. The first is this is an incredibly special place. It is beloved by Minnesota and beloved by people around the country, and this mine in this place poses an unacceptable risk.

For those of you who haven't been to the Boundary Waters, I want you to picture a million acres of pristine lakes and bogs and rivers. There is a wealth of hunting and fishing resources. People canoe everywhere. I was there last summer just on a day trip into the Boundary Waters, and I saw two wolves just on that one day.

You will find here some of the cleanest, freshest water any place in the world. You can go out into the middle of lakes and dip your cup into the water and drink the water right from the lake. You see lake trout and northern pike and walleye. I mean, there is no place in the world that is better to be than this.

That is why over 150,000 people visit the Boundary Waters every year in the mosquito season of the summertime and in the ice and freezing cold of the wintertime. It is one of the most visited national wilderness areas in the whole country.

As a result of that, the outdoor recreation economy in Northern Minnesota generates thousands of jobs. The Boundary Waters supports hundreds and hundreds of small, local businesses, and it generates millions of dollars in economic activity for Minnesota. Outdoor recreation is a significant economic driver in the region around the Boundary Waters Wilderness Area.

What this mine would do is to put all of that at an unacceptable risk. This kind of mine has been built in other places around the country and around the world, and in 100 percent of the instances, this mine has caused pollution.

What happens is you mine the rock underground; you bring it up to the surface. This is copper sulfide ore, and as soon as it is exposed to the air and to water, the sulfide in the rocks turns into basically what is battery acid. And then because this mine is right on the edge of the Boundary Waters in the watershed of this incredible place, that water flows into the Boundary Waters ultimately into Voyageurs National Park at great risk--at great risk--to the wildlife and also to the humans that are using this incredibly special place.

Basically, you are putting sulfuric acid into the water and watching it flow into this place. And this reason--the dangers of this mine, which I should say have been widely studied--the moratorium that is in place on mining in the Boundary Waters is the result of years of scientific evaluation; it is the result of hundreds of thousands of public comments saying: Nope, the risks to this in this particular place are just too great.

This is why my Republican colleagues would appreciate: Backcountry Hunters & Anglers, sportsmen's groups, Trout Unlimited, Pheasants Forever, and many other outdoor groups, people of all kinds from all over the country have weighed in and said: No, this is simply the wrong mine in the wrong place.

Even descendants of the great President Theodore Roosevelt have said that we should protect this national treasure and ``leave it as it is,'' as they said. This is also why this mine is so unpopular in Minnesota.

A recent poll showed that 70 percent of Minnesotans across the political spectrum--where this is not a political-partisan issue, I should say--agree that protecting the Boundary Waters from sulfide- based mining pollution is a very important thing for elected officials to consider. And 61 percent of Minnesotans expressed support for establishing a permanent State-level--permit protections for this incredible piece of public land.

That is the first reason why this CRA does not make sense because this is an incredibly special place, and this mine poses an unacceptable risk to the resources of this place.

The second reason that I want to talk to you about, colleagues, is more of an internal Senate issue, but it is extremely important. You should oppose this CRA because it would be an unprecedented and dangerous use of the Congressional Review Act.

Now, within the Senate, we know what the CRA is. It is a way for Congress to doublecheck the actions of the executive branch. If Congress feels that the executive branch has passed a regulation that goes too far, that doesn't follow the intent of Congress, the CRA, the Congressional Review Authority, gives Congress the power to say: Wait. Hold the phone. We are going to say: No, you can't do that. We are going to vote to say that regulation goes too far.

Now, you have to do that within 60 days. That makes sense, right? Because you can't have future Congresses clawing back the decisions that have been made years and years ago.

OK. But that is not what is happening here with this CRA, colleagues. What is happening here is for the first time ever that I am aware of, they are applying the CRA process not to a rule, but to a completely different public land order, a different statute. What they want to do with the CRA is to clawback a public land order that was put into place 3 years ago.

This was never the intention of the Congressional Review Act. The Congressional Review Act has never been used in this way before to overturn a mineral withdrawal, especially not a withdrawal that was finalized 3 years ago.

Now, I think, probably, many of my Republican colleagues are thinking as they contemplate is this a good idea or not, you always have to think in this body: What is going to happen when the shoe is on the other foot?

We might do this now, but then if this tool has been sharpened to be used in this different way, how might the Members of the other party use this tool in ways that we don't approve of, that we don't like?

I can tell you, as I have had many conversations with my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, this is something that is a big concern to folks. What would this do? What would this mean if we take this action? What would it look like if Congress gets into the business of repealing administrative actions that have been in place for years?

I think many people look at that and say: Well, that would just be chaos.

The third reason that I think it is important to oppose this CRA is that it would violate Tribal treaty rights. This is why it has been so strongly opposed by the Tribal Nations who have lived in the borderlands of Minnesota for time immemorial. And their rights--their rights to hunting and fishing, and for the Minnesota Chippewa Tribes, their rights to harvest wild rice or manoomin, those rights are enshrined in a treaty with the Federal Government. And this treaty would ban this kind of mining in this area without the Tribe's approval.

But today, the Tribes have not approved this. They have not been consulted on this. I mean, they were consulted during the mineral withdrawal process that happened several years ago. Over many, many government-to-government meetings and consultations, they were consulted, but not on this.

That is why the Grand Portage Band and the Minnesota Chippewa Tribes that have treaty rights here have written letters expressing their strong opposition to this effort. It is why the National Congress of American Indians passed a resolution urging the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs to at least hold a hearing on the treaty implications of this CRA before moving forward and also why they oppose this CRA.

It is also why in solidarity with the Minnesota Anishinaabe people, the Chippewa people, the Tribal Nations from across the country have spoken out--the Midwest Alliance of Sovereign Tribes, the White Earth Nation, Rosebud Sioux Tribe, Prairie Band of Potawatomi Nation, the Eastern Shoshone--they have all come together and said: No, we reject this CRA.

Minnesota Tribal leaders and Minnesota Tribal members feel the same way that other Minnesotans do. We are not anti-mining, but this mine in this place poses too great of a risk.

Before I wrap up, I want to address one question that I have heard quite a bit about in terms of sort of what would be in favor of voting for this CRA, and I want to just give my perspective on it.

So some would say that passing this CRA is important for national security. They would claim that this mine would provide a much-needed domestic source of critical minerals.

I will give it to you that we need to think about this. Everybody's cell phone--I mean, so much of our modern life relies on these critical minerals. But here is the question that needs to be considered as you are making this decision. The question is: Who is going to own these minerals? And who is going to benefit? And where is the money going to go?

That is why this is really not an ``America First'' issue to vote for this CRA.

Just because the minerals are mined on American--United States-- forest land does not mean that they will be reserved for an American market. In fact, any copper or nickel that would be mined in the Duluth Complex, which is where this mine would be, would immediately be sent to our strongest global competitor of China.

The rock would be pulled up. The ore would be sent by train most likely to the Pacific Coast where it will be loaded onto big boats and taken to China where it will be smelted. And then it will be used either in China for their infrastructure and defense technologies, or it will just be sold to the highest bidder.

So the mine in Minnesota--it is important to understand--is a wholly owned subsidiary of Antofagasta, which is a massive Chilean conglomerate with billionaire owners. This is one of the largest foreign mining conglomerates in the whole world.

And Antofagasta, OK, has deep ties with the Chinese government and its mineral processing operations. In fact, most recently, Antofagasta that would be building this mine in Northeastern Minnesota has secured a recordbreaking, zero-cost--meaning, that is free--processing agreement with Chinese copper smelters, all of which are state-owned, either in whole or in part.

So what we are doing here with this mine is we are creating a pathway--a pipeline--for this foreign company to build a mine almost certainly polluting the Boundary Waters to take the copper to send it to China where they then have a sweetheart deal for smelting and then sell it back out on the open market.

This is not an ``America First'' strategy, so I would encourage my Republican colleagues as you consider this to take a look at who is benefiting from this mine, and it certainly is not going to be Minnesotans whom this land belongs to, along with the rest of this country. No. The real winners of this deal are the Chilean billionaires who will further line their pockets with profits from this mine.

Should this resolution come before the Senate, I urge my colleagues to vote no on rolling back protections for the boundary waters wilderness area.

We can support mining but not this mine and this place. We can be good stewards of our natural resources, and we can support mining but not this mine. These public lands belong to all of us, and we should not allow them to be exploited by a foreign mining company for our loss and for their gain.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that two fellows from my office Nina Christie and Amanda Anzovino be granted floor privileges until the end of this Congress.

Mr. President, I rise today with a solemn heart to honor the life of U.S. Army Reserve MSG Nicole Amor from White Bear Lake, MN. Master Sergeant Amor was assigned to the 103rd Sustainment Command based in Kuwait when she, along with five other servicemembers, lost her life serving our Nation on March 1, 2026, during a drone attack.

The State of Minnesota is wrapping its arms around Master Sergeant Amor's family and friends as we grieve. Nicole's husband Joey beautifully described her as ``a rare and special light in this world.'' Along with being a committed solider and true patriot, Master Sergeant Amor is remembered as ``an amazing wife, mother, and friend . . . who loved with all her heart.'' In addition to that deep love, she is remembered for her wit and willingness to be friends with anyone.

Nicole is survived by her husband Joey; son Owen; daughter Adeline; parents Deborah and Todd; siblings Derek, Tony, and Dillon, Alyssa; and their mother Janelle; grandma Patrecia; and many other extended family members and countless friends. She was deeply loved by many friends and family for her spirit, warmth, humor, and strength. Nicole's husband Joey says she will always be the love of his life, and her spirit will continue to shine through in her children and many friends.

Nicole loved to garden, an activity in which she found peace and an expression of her nurturing love. So it is fitting that Joey and Nicole's family are planning to build a greenhouse and community garden to keep her spirit growing, as they grieve her loss.

As Nicole's family said, ``We will carry Nicole with us forever. She was loved so greatly by so many people, and she loved each and every one of you right back.''

May a portion of the prayer from her obituary bring us closer to her spirit:

Lord, hold Nicole close in Your eternal peace. Watch over

her as she rests in Your presence. Please comfort our hearts

as we carry the weight of missing her. Give us strength for

each day, and help us honor her life by loving each other the

way she loved us. May the memories we share keep her spirit

alive in our home, and may the work of our hands continue the

goodness she brought into this world.

Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleagues to talk about the 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act and why it is so important.

I want to start with core principles. Without a safe, decent, affordable, comfortable place to call home, nothing in your life works--not your job, not your family, not your education or your health. That is because a home is more than just four walls and a roof; it is a source of stability and comfort and dignity. It gives you the freedom and the opportunity to build the life that you want.

I think that every Member of this Chamber knows this: Every day, Americans are trying to figure out how to afford their lives, and millions--in big cities and suburbs, in small towns and rural communities--are stretching to pay their rent. And the dream of owning your own home--that American dream--feels like a pipedream to many millions of our constituents. It is hard for working families, and it is hard for young people starting out, to even imagine being able to put the money together for a downpayment or a mortgage.

So why is this happening? It is interesting. Across political parties and across the country, most people who have looked at this question agree: We have a supply problem in this country. Basically, there are more people who need a place to live than there are houses people can afford to rent or to buy, and then we are losing affordable homes and we aren't building enough homes at prices that people can afford. That is a supply problem. The result is housing costs soaring out of reach.

Over 22 million people in this country are paying more than 30 percent of their income on rent. So what that means is that they don't have enough money for the other necessities in their life, like school or healthcare or hopefully saving a little money. So that is 22 million people who are struggling to hold it together because of the cost of their rent.

Over 12 million people are paying more than 50 percent of their income on rent. For those folks, their life just basically isn't working. They are drowning. They are struggling to pay their bills. They are not paying the bills that they need to.

I can tell you that in Minnesota there are just 41 affordable and available places for people to rent for every 100 people with extremely low incomes. So the rental market is very tight--not enough supply. But the story for people who want to own their own home is also really challenging. Mortgage payments are roughly 40 percent higher than they were in 1990, even after you adjust for inflation. And in the past few years, the median home price has reached $400,000. As a result, the age of first-time home buyers is now 40 years old in this country.

Now, Archie and I were about 30 when we bought our first home. We were newly married and had a boatload of school debt, but we could afford the mortgage on our first home, which was about $85,000. Today, that home would cost over $300,000.

So all of this is why the 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act is so important. This is landmark legislation to build more homes, to bring down housing costs, and to rein in corporate landlords. This is the biggest housing supply bill to move through Congress in 30 years. It has remarkably broad bipartisan support in Congress and the support of people across the country who have been working hard on this issue for so many years--from the United States Conference of Mayors to the National Association of REALTORS, the National Low Income Housing Coalition, the National Association of Affordable Housing Lenders, the Enterprise Community Partners. All of these are supporting this legislation.

What this bill does is it boosts housing supply by cutting redtape, by making it easier and cheaper to build good places for people to live, and by preserving the existing supply of very affordable homes in rural communities.

I have been working on this issue since I first came to the Senate. When I first was here, we went around Minnesota, and we organized listening sessions on housing in communities all across the State. I can tell you, I got an earful. People told me that they couldn't find an affordable place to live. Businesses told me that the housing shortage was making it impossible for them to recruit talent into their communities. Mayors were telling me that a lack of housing was hurting their community housing vitality. And developers told me it was too complex and expensive to build new homes.

So as chair of the Housing Subcommittee with Senator Mike Rounds, my wonderful ranking member, we dug into this. We dug into the challenges especially around the Rural Housing Service. Now, the Rural Housing Service has been a vital link in the chain to provide very affordable places for people to live in rural communities. Think of the elders who live on a fixed income who want to stay in the communities where they raised their families or people who are living with disabilities or working poor families.

Most of the properties in the Rural Housing Service were built in the 1960s with the help of Federal mortgages to finance them, and often, they were the only affordable places to call home in rural communities. Today, many of these homes are in disrepair, and the Rural Housing Service is in desperate need of reform and modernization. And if we don't take action, we are at risk of losing 400,000 very affordable places for people to live in rural communities.

So I am so excited to say that our bill has been included in the 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act. Here is what it does: It makes some really simple, commonsense reforms. It cuts redtape to make it easier for nonprofits to assume the mortgages of these properties and to fix them up and preserve them for low-income renters to use for years to come. It simplifies the foreclosure process, and that saves the government money and also protects tenants so properties can be transferred more easily. And it gives the Rural Housing Service more capacity to work with local banks on financing by helping them modernize how their computer systems work.

Here is what that looks like in realtime. Last August, I visited Maplewood Apartments in St. Peter, MN, which is a small and wonderful community in southern Minnesota. This apartment complex needed a lot of TLC to be a decent place for people to live. Local nonprofits and public partners joined together to fix it up, and I had a chance to see what that work had resulted in, to see what it meant, particularly to one resident, Lisa Gallegos, who welcomed me into her new home. She told me about what a difference this place made in her life--this apartment--where she finally had the space to be able to focus on her life and making her life work rather than

worrying every single month about how she was going to hold it together, how she was going to pay the rent and pay her other bills. This example is why it is so important that we preserve these rural apartment units and why my bill with Mike Rounds is so important.

Now, none of this happened overnight. Mike and I held hearings. We put out a request for comment. We had leaders from the USDA and housing advocates from around the country come in and tell us what needed to happen. And we listened, and we went to work. And with the 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act, we are going to get it done.

I want to especially thank Senator Rounds for being such an excellent partner and friend in this work, and I also want to thank Senators Daines, Warner, Crapo, Fetterman, Cramer, Warnock, Shaheen, Moran, Cortez Masto, Ricketts, King, Risch, and Heinrich, all who joined in this effort as cosponsors.

Overall, the 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act takes many important steps to boost supply for housing. It creates the first ever incentives for cities and towns to build more housing. It removes regulatory barriers and helps streamline environmental reviews to speed up affordable housing construction, and it makes it less expensive. It boosts financing options for modular housing and also for manufactured housing and affordable homes. It removes unnecessary requirements for manufactured housing to have the chassis on them--the wheels on them-- that are not necessary. This is going to save thousands of dollars.

This bill focuses on increasing housing supply, but it also is ensuring that homes that are built end up in the hands of families and not corporations. In Minnesota, I often hear stories from people who are trying to buy a home and then an anonymous corporate actor swoops in with an all-cash offer and they just can't compete with it. A young couple looking to buy their first home can't compete with an all-cash offer from a hedge fund.

Out-of-State landlords have also gobbled up homes, turning them into rentals, leaving these properties in disrepair, leaving tenants in the lurch, and jacking up the rent all at the same time. One of the worst actors in Minnesota bought up more than 600 homes and then failed to meet even the most basic expectations as a landlord. The city of Minneapolis found code violations at 58 percent of their properties, with tenants reporting long periods of not having any hot water or a working furnace or having bats in their place or literally having to use buckets of water to get the toilets to flush. The Minnesota attorney general Keith Ellison filed a lawsuit against the firm and settled for more than $4 million.

Now, this firm in Minneapolis isn't alone, and it is not just happening in Minnesota. Many of us in this Chamber have worked for years to hold corporate investors accountable and to stop the American dream of home ownership from being bought up by private equity. So I am so glad that language addressing the role of institutional investors in home ownership is included in this package because homes should be for people, not for corporations.

The 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act does a lot of good. There is going to be more work to do to make it possible for every American to have a safe, decent place to live, but this bill is an important start. I have spent almost 9 years in the Senate, working with anyone who wants to work with me, to improve the capacity of Americans to afford a decent, affordable place to live. So I am proud to support this legislation, and I am very proud that the Rural Housing Service Reform Act is an important part of this bipartisan bill.

I want to particularly thank Senator Scott and Senator Warren and their staff for their creativity and diligence and optimism to put this bill together at a time when Congress needs more bipartisan work. And I also want to thank my partners on the Housing Subcommittee: Senator Rounds, Senator Lummis, and now Senator Britt, who is the chair of the subcommittee. Each of you have been serious about working together to tackle problems and to find solutions and to put aside the partisanship that too often defines our work.

Passing the 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act will help people afford a decent place to live, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

I yield the floor.

(Mr. LEE assumed the Chair.)