[Congressional Record Volume 172, Number 14 (Wednesday, January 21, 2026)]
[House]
[Pages H1147-H1155]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
{time} 1510
PROVIDING FOR CONGRESSIONAL DISAPPROVAL OF THE RULE SUBMITTED BY THE
BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT RELATING TO PUBLIC LAND ORDER NO. 7917 FOR
WITHDRAWAL OF FEDERAL LANDS; COOK, LAKE, AND SAINT LOUIS COUNTIES, MN
Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1009, I call
up the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 140) providing for congressional
disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule
submitted by the Bureau of Land Management relating to Public Land
Order No. 7917 for Withdrawal of Federal Lands; Cook, Lake, and Saint
Louis Counties, MN, and ask for its immediate consideration in the
House.
The Clerk read the title of the joint resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 1009, the joint
resolution is considered read.
The text of the joint resolution is as follows:
H.J. Res. 140
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled, That Congress
disapproves the rule submitted by the Bureau of Land
Management of the Department of the Interior relating to
Public Land Order No. 7917 for Withdrawal of Federal Lands;
Cook, Lake, and Saint Louis Counties, MN (88 Fed. Reg. 6308
(January 31, 2023)), and such rule shall have no force or
effect.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The joint resolution shall be debatable for
1 hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority
member of the Committee on Natural Resources or their respective
designees.
The gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Westerman) and the gentleman from
California (Mr. Huffman) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Westerman).
General Leave
Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and
include extraneous material on H.J. Res. 140.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Arkansas?
There was no objection.
Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this Congressional Review Act
resolution, which would overturn the Biden administration's reckless
withdrawal of more than 225,000 acres in the Superior National Forest
from mineral exploration and development.
Mr. Speaker, at issue is the Duluth Complex in northern Minnesota,
one of the largest mineral deposits on the planet, including the
world's largest copper-nickel deposit.
The Federal Government routinely granted and renewed mineral leases
to these deposits beginning in the 1960s. Decades of planning,
exploration, investment, and environmental reviews have gone into the
region, and with good reason.
The minerals in the Duluth Complex include copper, nickel, and
cobalt. They are the ones that make up the 21st century economy and
help it run. They are the essential inputs for telecommunications
devices, cutting-edge defense systems, and much more.
As we are all keenly aware, the Chinese Communist Party has a
stranglehold on far too many mineral supply chains. Mining in the
Duluth Complex was poised to change that. It was going to help usher in
a new era of American mineral dominance and create and support
thousands of American jobs. It was going to help end our dependence on
foreign adversaries and reorder the entire global mineral market,
positioning the United States at the center and driving our rivals to
the margins.
When President Biden abruptly closed off 225,000 acres of Federal
land in the Duluth Complex for mineral development, he threw a future
of American abundance, security, and global leadership into chaos. The
decision undermined America's economic, military, and strategic
interests and those of our allies.
The minerals in the Duluth Complex are called ``critical'' for a
reason. We need them. The whole world needs them. Nations, businesses,
militaries, and individual consumers are going to acquire these
minerals. The only question is whether they will be mined here in the
United States by American workers, protected by American labor laws,
and with the strongest environmental standards and most advanced mining
techniques, or not.
The Duluth Complex is also home to a world-class helium reserve,
which has attracted investment from investors. Specifically, the
withdrawal itself locks up roughly 11,000 acres for helium exploration,
blocking development of one of the largest and most concentrated helium
deposits in the entire world.
Don't let the rhetoric around this issue confuse what is at stake
here. The resolution before us today is about more than just one
project. There are two options, Mr. Speaker: mineral dominance or
mineral dependence. There isn't a third option, and it is long past
time for the Federal Government to act like it.
Our global allies rely on America's leadership. If we are to remain a
leader in the global economy, then domestic mineral abundance is a
strategic necessity, not a political football.
The resolution before us does not mandate projects, mining sites,
firms, or schedules. It simply reverses the Biden administration's
unilateral short-circuiting of the normal permitting process.
[[Page H1148]]
This resolution is a step toward balance and the rule of law. It is a
step toward the mineral abundance that the American people deserve and
that Washington has denied them for too long.
I thank the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Stauber) for introducing
this resolution and for his tireless work on behalf of his
constituents.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the legislation, and I
reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to H.J. Res. 140, a
resolution that would threaten America's beloved Boundary Waters Canoe
Area Wilderness in northern Minnesota.
Mr. Speaker, Boundary Waters draws more visitors than any other
wilderness in the country. Millions of Americans have paddled, fished,
swum, and found solace among its pristine lakes and forests. It
supports a multibillion-dollar outdoor economy, thousands of jobs, and
a way of life that has been passed down for generations.
It is an area that Presidents, reaching back to Teddy Roosevelt, and
Members of Congress on both sides of the aisle have long recognized in
terms of its value, and we have protected it as part of our American
heritage.
Yet, the Boundary Waters have been under threat for years. Twin
Metals, owned by Antofagasta, a Chilean mining company with close ties
to China, has been lobbying for years to set up a mine just outside the
wilderness area, along the banks of waters that flow north, directly
into the wilderness.
The type of mining that Twin Metals has proposed has a 100 percent
track record of toxic pollution. There has never been a mine of this
kind that did not leach toxic pollution.
Despite what the other side of the aisle might say, there is no
guarantee that the precious minerals that were just talked about
produced from this mine would actually stay in the U.S. and benefit the
American economy or American national security at all.
Antofagasta sends most of its minerals to China, where they are then
sold on the global market, likely the same fate for these minerals if
this mine is allowed to happen.
All of this is why, nearly 3 years ago, Secretary of the Interior Deb
Haaland protected the lands surrounding the Boundary Waters and its
headwaters from mining for 20 years through a public land order, a
standard tool and process backed by peer-reviewed science and extensive
public engagement.
The Congressional Review Act resolution on the floor today would
overturn those protections, once again putting our beloved Boundary
Waters at risk of toxic pollution from a foreign-owned mine.
If that weren't enough to convince my colleagues that this resolution
is a terrible idea, I will briefly touch on the abuse of the
Congressional Review Act itself that this resolution represents.
The Congressional Review Act, or CRA, has been used to overturn rules
finalized by administrations of both parties since it was signed into
law in 1996.
This Congress, the Trump administration and Republicans in both
Chambers have been using the CRA to overturn public lands protections
that have never been considered rules in the past. In an entirely
unprecedented move, they are moving forward, even though the Government
Accountability Office hasn't yet ruled on whether they believe this
public land order constitutes a rule that would be subject to the CRA.
This administration and its allies in Congress have just unilaterally
decided that they can do this, despite the fact that the Department of
the Interior has never before considered a land withdrawal like this to
be a rule.
Congress received notice of this withdrawal 3 years ago. If the
resolution's sponsor wanted to pursue a CRA, he should have inquired
then.
If this CRA succeeds, it won't just open the Boundary Waters to
pollution but would set a terrible and dangerous precedent for Congress
to roll back protections for any of our treasured public lands with
little oversight or notice, just because Republicans have decided they
would rather pillage them for profit.
Some places are just worth protecting, and this pristine, one-of-a-
kind place is one of those incredible places.
Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this
backdoor attempt to open our public lands to foreign mining, and I
reserve the balance of my time.
{time} 1520
Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Facts can be stubborn things. There are some things that we all can
agree on. The Boundary Waters Canoe Area is a wonderful place, but the
Boundary Waters Canoe Area has been protected, is currently protected,
and will be protected even after this CRA is passed.
The Congresses that came long before us made sure this was the case,
long before the Obama administration ever did a lease withdrawal in the
area. They established the Boundary Waters Canoe Area. Then, they set a
buffer zone around the Boundary Waters Canoe Area, and they said this
other part of the Superior National Forest could be used to develop
mining and also used for forestry purposes.
Any deposits that we are talking about are not inside the Boundary
Waters Canoe Area. They are not inside the buffer zone to the Boundary
Waters Canoe Area. They are out in the forest that the Biden
administration said can't be developed anymore, even after Congress had
already said this was the case.
I think what we are doing today is we are exercising our Article I
power where an administration abused it and tried to make rules. The
Government Accountability Office said this bill or this rule is subject
to the Congressional Review Act, so here we are, to right the wrong.
Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman
from Minnesota (Mr. Stauber), the chairman of the Subcommittee on
Energy and Mineral Resources and the lead sponsor of this legislation.
Mr. STAUBER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.J. Res.
140, to reverse Public Land Order 7917, which enacted the Biden
administration's dangerous mining ban in northern Minnesota.
The district I am proud to represent, Minnesota's Eighth
Congressional District, is blessed with an abundance of mineral wealth.
On the Iron Range in northern Minnesota, we have been responsibly
mining for 145 years. We mined the iron ore that won us two world wars
and currently mine the taconite that is used to make 80 percent of this
country's domestically produced steel.
Before Biden's mining ban, we had the opportunity to mine the copper,
nickel, cobalt, and other critical minerals that are necessary for this
country to compete and win in the 21st century. That is because
northern Minnesota is home to the Duluth Complex, the largest untapped
copper-nickel deposit in the entire world. It is home to one-third of
our country's copper reserves, 95 percent of our nickel reserves, 88
percent of our cobalt reserves, and 75 percent of our other platinum
group metals.
Public Land Order 7917 locked up the Duluth Complex and ended this
opportunity that we had. This PLO withdrew 225,504 acres--that is
nearly a quarter of a million acres--in the Superior National Forest,
which is a working industrial forest where timber harvesting and mining
are desired activities. This ban was a 20-year ban, where, I will note,
again, the Forest Service plan states mining and timber harvesting are
desired activities.
This PLO sacrificed thousands of good-paying union jobs that would
support families for generations, along with billions of dollars of
revenue for our schools, State and Federal governments, and, most
importantly, our Nation's mineral security.
It didn't only block our access to precious critical minerals, Mr.
Speaker, it also cut us off from one of the largest and most
concentrated deposits of helium, a gas that is necessary in everything
from medical and manufacturing equipment to state-of-the-art defense
systems. Just like our critical minerals, we are blocked from
responsibly accessing the helium, making the United States more
dependent on foreign imports and increasing Russia's share of global
helium markets.
When issuing this ban, the Biden administration even went so far as
to
[[Page H1149]]
state that its purpose was to prevent mineral and geothermal
exploration and development. When former Secretary of the Interior Deb
Haaland testified before the Committee on Appropriations following the
withdrawal, she stated: I didn't think there were any critical minerals
there.
The Secretary of the Interior had no idea that the biggest copper-
nickel find in the world was in northeastern Minnesota, where she
banned mining. It was a dangerous, purely political decision that
disregarded the science and the facts.
Under the Federal Lands Policy and Management Act, or FLPMA, the
Department of the Interior is required to notify Congress of public
land orders impacting in excess of 5,000 acres. The Biden
administration failed to properly transmit Public Land Order 7917 to
Congress when it was finalized in January 2023.
Public Land Order 7917 implemented a broad policy that hinders access
to American resources and is wholly detrimental to our Nation's
national and mineral security. It is exactly the kind of action
Congress intended to review under the Congressional Review Act.
H.J. Res. 140 would overturn this mining ban under the CRA and allow
important proposed mining and helium development projects to continue
through the regulatory and permitting process, which they will have to
complete at both the State and Federal levels before moving forward.
Mr. Speaker, this CRA will not green-light any proposed project. All
it does is remove the dangerous, misguided ban that stops us from
considering any project. This ban disregarded the science. It
disregarded the facts. Lifting this ban will simply allow the science
and the facts to prevail.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support H.J. Res. 140, and I
include in the Record a copy of Public Land Order No. 7917.
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Bureau of Land Management
[LLES960000.L14400000.ET0000.234; MNES-059784]
Public Land Order No.7917 for Withdrawal of Federal Lands; Cook, Lake,
and Saint Louis Counties, MN
AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management.
ACTION: Public Land Order.
SUMMARY: This Order withdraws approximately 225,504 acres
of National Forest System lands in Cook, Lake, and Saint
Louis counties, Minnesota, from disposition under the United
States mineral and geothermal leasing laws, for a period of
20 years, subject to valid existing rights, to protect and
preserve the fragile and vital social and natural resources,
ecological integrity, and wilderness values in the Rainy
River Watershed, the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness
(BWCAW), the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness Mining
Protection Area (MPA), and the 1854 Ceded Territory of the
Lake Superior Chippewa in northeastern Minnesota from the
potential adverse effects of mineral and geothermal
exploration and development.
DATES: This Order takes effect on [Insert Date of
Publication in the Federal Register]
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: F. David Radford, Bureau
of Land Management (BLM) Eastern States Office, during
regular business hours, 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through
Friday, except holidays. Individuals in the United States who
are deaf, deafblind, hard of hearing, or have a speech
disability may dial 711 (TTY, TDD, or TeleBraille) to access
telecommunications relay services. Individuals outside the
United States should use the relay services offered within
their country to make international calls to the point of
contact in the United States.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The National Forest System Lands
described in this Order are within Lake, Cook, and Saint
Louis counties, Minnesota. This Order does not apply to non-
Federal interests within the boundaries of the area described
herein. If the non-Federal interests within the boundaries of
the area described in this Order are subsequently acquired by
the United States, the non-Federal interests will become
subject to this withdrawal.
ORDER
By virtue of the authority vested in the Secretary of the
Interior by Section 204(c) of the Federal Land Policy and
Management Act of 1976, 43 U.S.C. 1714(c), it is ordered as
follows:
1. Subject to valid existing rights, the National Forest
System lands, and all non-Federal lands that are subsequently
acquired by the Federal government, within the Townships
identified below, as depicted in the attached map, are hereby
withdrawn from disposition under the United States mineral
and geothermal leasing laws, including the Mineral Leasing
Act of 1920 (30 U.S.C. 18 et seq., as amended), the
Geothermal Steam Act of 1970 (30 U.S.C. 1001 et seq.), the
Mineral Leasing Act for Acquired Lands of 1947 (30 U.S.C. 351
et seq., as amended), Section 402 of the President's
Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1946, 16 U.S.C. 520, and 16
U.S.C. 508b, in order to protect and preserve the fragile and
vital social and natural resources, ecological integrity, and
wilderness values in the Rainy River Watershed, the Boundary
Waters Canoe Area Wilderness, the Mining Protection Area, and
the 1854 Ceded Territory of the Chippewa Bands in
northeastern Minnesota from adverse effects of mineral and
geothermal exploration and development. The purpose of the
withdrawal is also to protect the health, traditional
cultural values, and subsistence-based lifestyle of the
Tribes that rely on resources in the region, such as wild
rice, which are particularly susceptible to adverse impacts
associated with mineral exploration and development. The
Federal lands would remain subject to laws authorizing the
disposal of mineral materials, as defined by 36 CFR 228,
subpart C.
National Forest System Lands--Superior National Forest
Fourth Principal Meridian, Minnesota; Tps. 61 and 62 N., R.
5 W.; Tps. 60 to 62 N., R. 6 W.; Tps. 59 to 61 N., R. 7 W.;
Tps. 59 to 61 N., R. 8 W.; Tps. 58 to 61 N., R. 9 W.; Tps. 57
to 62 N., R. 10 W.; Tps. 57 to 63 N., R. 11 W. Tp. 59 N., R.
12 W.; Tps. 61 to 63 N., R. 12 W.; Tps. 61 to 63 N., R. 13 W.
Further information on the project is available at BLM's
ePlanning site at https://eplanning.blm.gov/eplanning-ui/
project/2022642/510 or at the USFS Superior National Forest,
Duluth, Minnesota.
2. The withdrawal made by this Order does not alter the
applicability of laws governing the use of National Forest
System lands other than the geothermal and mineral leasing
laws.
3. This withdrawal will expire 20 years from the effective
date of this order unless, as a result of a review conducted
before the expiration date pursuant to Section 204(f) of the
Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, 43 U.S.C.
1714(f), the Secretary determines that the withdrawal shall
be extended.
(Authority: 43 CFR 2310)
Deb Haaland
Secretary of the Interior.
Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, to the claim that Secretary Haaland failed to notify
Congress as required by law, I am holding the notification that went
out 3 years ago to the gentleman from Minnesota, personally, from the
Secretary of the Interior. Maybe there is a misunderstanding there, but
we have the receipts on that one.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentlewoman from Minnesota (Ms.
McCollum).
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the
time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this legislation, which risks
polluting the Boundary Waters Canoe Area, as has been stated, our
Nation's most visited wilderness.
If this resolution passes and the mineral withdrawal is overturned,
toxic sulfide-ore copper mining will contaminate the water and the
habitat in this priceless wilderness.
The BWCA is a huge reserve of the most pristine water in the United
States, so clean you can directly drink from its lakes or streams. This
water is under threat once again.
In 2017, the Obama administration applied for a mineral withdrawal of
the Rainy River Watershed--the watershed is up here--which is the
headwaters that flows into the Boundary Waters Wilderness and Voyageurs
National Park. It started a 2-year environmental study, which included
extensive public input and scientific review.
While the Rainy River Watershed was being studied, Paradise Valley in
Montana and Methow Valley in Washington State were going through the
same exact process. All three of those watersheds were threatened by
sulfide-ore mining.
In Montana and Washington, those studies were able to be completed,
and their mineral withdrawals happened in 2018, protecting their
waters, but the Rainy River Watershed was left unfinished.
When President Trump took office, his administration initially
promised to complete the study. Instead, President Trump honored his
promise from a campaign rally and did not protect the watershed. His
administration canceled the study for Minnesota's watershed without
releasing any of the scientific findings.
This is what we received in the committee instead, and it is an
entirely redacted study--no information, nothing scientific in it,
nothing, all blank. Now, I serve on the Defense Committee. If we needed
to go in a SCIF, I would have been happy to go in the SCIF and get this
if it was so classified
[[Page H1150]]
it had to be redacted. The protection of the headwaters of the BWCA was
abandoned.
The Biden administration decided to finish the study, and they
followed the scientific recommendations and the public input. In 2022,
a comprehensive environmental assessment was finally completed. The
Forest Service recommended a mineral withdrawal to protect the Boundary
Waters of Minnesota, just as it had for the waters in Montana and
Washington.
{time} 1530
Currently, we have 17 years left of a 20-year mineral withdrawal that
is protecting and preserving this water, but today Republicans want to
overturn those protections using, in my opinion, a legislative stunt.
In January 2023, almost 3 years ago, the mineral withdrawal was
completed. It was noticed under the Federal Land Policy and Management
Act. The law was followed. The Department of the Interior notified the
Congress of the withdrawal on January 26, 2023, and as my colleague,
the ranking member from the committee, just pointed out, we all
received those letters. I received one. Mr. Stauber received one. The
chair of the committee received one. Everybody got a letter.
Then Congress had 90 days to adopt a resolution of disapproval.
Republicans have tried to disapprove of the withdrawal, but they
weren't able to bring it to the floor. Congress didn't ask, and the
window of disapproval closed.
Now they are trying to use the Congressional Review Act to get a do-
over. The CRA wasn't created to overturn a public land order,
especially one that is nearly 3 years old. CRA resolutions are for
rules, which public land orders are not, and they are to be used within
60 days of the congressional notice, not 3 years later.
Let me point out another, in my opinion, falsehood about this
legislation. I am the ranking member of the Defense Appropriations
Subcommittee. There is no immediate national security interest that
would be advanced by mining in this watershed.
How do we know this? We know this because Antofagasta, as has been
pointed out, is a Chilean mining company who owns Twin Metals. It is
lobbying to undo the current mineral withdrawal and restore their
leases to extract the copper. Here is what Antofagasta does with the
extracted copper, and we can't say this enough: They send it to China
where it is smelted and then it is sold on the open market or it is
used for its own defense weapons.
This resolution is not about national security. This is about water,
the world's most critical natural resource, and it must be protected
not only for today but for future generations. We have a responsibility
to future generations to have water available.
Also, in my opinion, some places are just too precious to mine. I
urge my colleagues to oppose the resolution.
Mr. Speaker, before I do that, I would like to enter the following
documents into the Congressional Record: The January 2023 notification
to Congress, the letter we all received; the redacted environmental
assessment; and the complete environmental assessment. The links are as
follows:
The combined letter notification to Congress can be found at:
mccollum. house.gov/sites/evo-subsites/mccollum. house.gov/files/evo-
media-document/blm-correspondence_rep-westerman_ rainy-river-
withdrawal-combined.pdf.
The redacted environmental assessment can be found at: Mccollum.
house.gov/sites/evo-subsites/mccollum. house.gov/files/evo-media-
document/sept-2018_fs-ea_fully-redacted.pdf.
The complete environmental assessment can be found at:
mccollum.house. gov/sites/evo-subsites/mccollum.house. gov/files/evo-
media-document/02-rainy-river-withdrawal-ea.pdf.
Mr. Speaker, I also include two letters. The first letter is a letter
dated January 16, 2026, from a group of hunters and anglers opposing
this legislation; and the second letter is a letter dated January 20,
2026, from a group of environmental organizations opposing this
legislation.
January 16, 2026.
Hon. Mike Johnson,
Speaker, House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Hakeem Jeffries,
Democratic Leader, House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Speaker Johnson, Leader Jeffries, and Members of the
House of Representatives: On behalf of the 80 undersigned
organizations and their millions of members, we respectfully
urge you to vote NO on House Joint Resolution 140, which
would revoke critical protections for the watershed of the
Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness--one of the nation's
most visited and expansive wilderness areas.
The Boundary Waters and downstream Voyageurs National Park
are currently protected by Public Land Order 7917, the 20-
year mineral withdrawal banning copper mining on federal
public lands in the headwaters of these beloved wild lands.
This mineral withdrawal was 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 ecosystem and
downstream Voyageurs National Park. The analysis completed by
the Forest Service in 2022 included 675,000 public comments,
over 95% of which favored protecting the Boundary Waters and
Voyageurs from sulfide-ore copper mining.
In early January, this Public Land Order (7917) was
challenged under the Congressional Review Act (CRA), despite
Public Land Orders having never been deemed a rule subject to
the law. Instead, statutory requirements for Public Land
Orders have always been dictated by the Federal Land
Management and Policy Act of 1976. Using the CRA to attack
these protections also creates a reckless precedent that
would allow Congress to retroactively target virtually any
public land action as a `rule.'
Beyond setting a dangerous precedent, removing Boundary
Waters protections by passing this CRA would blatantly ignore
the voices of the American people and prioritize the profits
of a foreign mining company--Chilean conglomerate
Antofagasta--over the interest of this nation's citizenry and
beloved public lands. 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, and a strong,
sustainable local economy. Generations of Midwesterners and
Americans from across the country have formed deep
connections to nature through hunting, fishing, camping,
canoeing, and hiking in the Boundary Waters.
Allowing copper mining to proceed by overturning the
mineral withdrawal puts at risk not only the environment but
also the regional economy. The outdoor recreation economy in
northeastern Minnesota supports over 17,000 jobs and
contributes more than $1 billion in annual sales. Studies
consistently show that protecting the Boundary Waters
generates stronger and more sustainable economic benefits
than short term and toxic sulfide-ore copper mining.
We urge you to vote no on H.J.R. 140. Do not sell out our
wilderness and public lands against the will of Americans who
want these special places preserved.
Sincerely,
Alaska Wilderness League; Allegheny-Blue Ridge Alliance
(ABRA); American Bird Conservancy; American Hunters &
Anglers; Big Mountain Dreams; BlueGreen Generation; Bolder
Options; Californians for Western Wilderness; Cascade Forest
Conservancy; Center for Biological Diversity; Change the
Chamber; Clean Water Action Minnesota; Colorado Mountain
Club; Colorado Wild Public Lands; Conservation Colorado;
Conservation Lands Foundation; Conservation Minnesota;
Conservation Northwest; Conservatives for Responsible
Stewardship; Crow River Trail Guards.
CURE; Earthjustice Action; Earthworks; EcoFtight; Elders
Climate Action; Endangered Species Coalition; Environment
America; Environment Minnesota; Environmental Action;
Environmental Law & Policy Center; Environmental Law & Policy
Center; Friends of the Boundary Waters Wilderness; Giniw
Collective; Great Old Broads for Wilderness; Healthy Ocean
Coalition; Inland Ocean Coalition; Izaak Walton League of
America; John Muir Project; League of Conservation Voters;
Living Rivers Colorado Riverkeeper; Lutefisk Technologies,
Inc.
MN Center for Environmental Advocacy; mtn bio; National
Parks Conservation Association; Natural Resources Defense
Council; Nebraska Division IWLA; New Mexico Wild; New York
State Division IWLA; Next 100 Coalition; Nimiipuu Protecting
the Environment; Ocean Defense Initiative; Ohio Division
IWLA; One Mississippi; Outdoor Alliance; Presbyterians for
Earth Care; Quiet Use Coalition; Rivers Without Borders;
Rocky Mountain Wild; San Juan Citizens Alliance; Sanitas
Sales Group; Save Lake Superior Association; Save Our Sky
Blue Waters.
Save the Boundary Waters; Sheep Mountain Alliance; Sierra
Club; Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance; Standing Trees;
Student Public Interest Research Groups; The Conservation
Alliance; The Wilderness Society; Vet Voice Foundation;
Voyageurs Conservancy; Washington Wild; WaterLegacy; West
Virginia Division IWLA; Western Slope Conservation Center;
Western Watersheds Project; Wild Montana; Wilderness Watch;
Wilderness Workshop; Wisconsin Division IWLA.
[[Page H1151]]
____
January 20, 2026.
Dear Members of Congress: On behalf of the undersigned
hunting and fishing conservation organizations representing
hundreds of thousands of members and supporters, we write to
share our concern regarding H.J. Res. 140, a Congressional
Review Act (CRA) resolution which would revoke critical
protections for the watershed of the Boundary Waters Canoe
Area Wilderness, a world-class fishing and hunting
destination averaging over 150,000 visitors annually, and
overturn existing precedent for the management of our
nation's public lands.
The Boundary Waters and downstream Voyageurs National Park
are currently protected by Public Land Order 7917, the 20-
year mineral withdrawal placed in 2023, banning sulfide-ore
copper mining on over 225,000 acres of federal public lands
in the Rainy River Watershed of Northeast Minnesota. This
mineral withdrawal was 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 this sensitive ecosystem. The
Forest Service's 2022 analysis included 675,000 public
comments, over 95% of which favored protecting the withdrawal
area from non-ferrous mining.
At nearly 1.1 million acres, the Boundary Waters spreads
across the northeastern tip of Minnesota, containing over
1,100 lakes, 2,000 designated campsites, hundreds of miles of
rivers and streams, and the largest contiguous areas of uncut
forest remaining in the eastern United States. The three-
million-acre Superior National Forest, which includes the
Boundary Waters, contains 20 percent of all the fresh water
in the entire National Forest System.
The Boundary Waters offers unparalleled opportunities for
fishing, hunting, camping, and paddling. It's a haven for
hunters and anglers who come to the region to pursue walleye.
smallmouth bass, northern pike, whitetail deer, grouse, black
bear, and one of the largest selfsustaining populations of
native lake trout in America. The potential loss of these
unique recreational opportunities is a stark reminder of the
stakes involved in protecting this irreplaceable natural
resource.
H.J. Res. 140 would overturn the 20-year mineral
withdrawal, which complied fully with the Federal Land Policy
and Management Act (FLPMA), including extensive public review
and comment. Mineral withdrawals have never been considered
``rules'' eligible to be overturned by the CRA, which is why
Public Land Orders such as this have never been submitted to
Congress.
This CRA resolution is an entirely unprecedented maneuver
that ignores the foundation of our public lands management
system and threatens not only the future of the Boundary
Waters, but how all federal public lands are managed going
forward. Attempting to revoke this mineral withdrawal through
this unprecedented manner completely sidelines the
environmental analysis and public process required under
FLPMA to amend or rescind mineral withdrawals.
Further, the CRA is a blunt legislative tool that has
historically been used only in rare instances. In the first
twenty years after enactment, the CRA was used to overturn a
federal rulemaking only once. Again, public land orders have
historically not been submitted to Congress under the CRA--
setting this precedent could open the door for overturning
any public land order since 1996.
Further, this would open the door for Twin Metals MN, a
subsidiary of the Chilean mining company Antofagasta, to
permit the Twin Metals MN copper-nickel mine less than a mile
upstream from the Boundary Waters. More importantly,
Antofagasta plans to ship its metal concentrates from the
Twin Metals project to China for processing and sale, and
already has contracts in place with Chinese smelters. This
mine will not directly supply critical minerals domestically,
as the minerals will be funneled to a strategic adversary of
the United States.
Notably, the Boundary Waters withdrawal area includes only
four out of eighteen known mineral deposits in the Duluth
Complex, the mineral rich formation found in northern
Minnesota. Neither does the withdrawal affect other mineral
deposits in the region, such as the Tamarack Intrusion, where
the electric vehicle manufacturer Tesla committed to
purchasing 75,000 metric tonnes of nickel from Talon Metals's
Tamarack Nickel Project. Furthermore, recent research from
the Colorado School of Mines, By-product recovery from US
metal mines could reduce import reliance far critical
minerals, concluded that 90% recovery of these minerals/
metals as by-products at active U.S. mines now could meet
nearly all our critical mineral needs as a nation. In other
words. we don't need to put the Boundary Waters at risk to
meet domestic critical mineral demands.
Overturning the Boundary Waters watershed mineral
withdrawal jeopardizes not only the environment but also the
regional economy. The outdoor recreation economy in
northeastern Minnesota supports over 17,000 jobs and
contributes more than $1 billion in annual sales. Studies
consistently show that protecting the Boundary Waters yields
stronger, more sustainable economic benefits than short-term,
toxic sulfide-ore copper mining.
As hunters, anglers, and outdoor enthusiasts who rely on
places like the Boundary Waters, we find this legislation
troubling. Removing existing safeguards by passing H.J. Res.
140 would ignore the voices of the overwhelming majority of
the American sporting community, prioritize the profits of a
foreign mining company, and set a dangerous precedent for
similar protections across the country.
We respectfully request that you uphold protections for the
Boundary Waters that ensure generations of incredible
hunting, fishing, and paddling opportunities. Our sporting
heritage and the outdoor economy of Northeast Minnesota rely
on an intact and water-rich backcountry habitat that millions
of Americans have visited. Please oppose H.J. Res 140 and any
similar actions taken in the Senate.
Sincerely,
American Fisheries Society; American Fly Fishing Trade
Association; Angler Action Foundation; Backcountry Hunters &
Anglers; Bass Anglers Sportsman Society (B.A.S.S.); Fly
Fishers International; Izaak Walton League of America;
Minnesota Trout Unlimited; Minnesota Wildlife Federation;
National Deer Association; National Wildlife Federation;
North American Falconers Association; North American Grouse
Partnership; Pheasants Forever; Quail Forever; Sportsmen for
the Boundary Waters; Theodore Roosevelt Conservation
Partnership; Trout Unlimited; Whitetails Unlimited; Wildlife
Management Institute.
Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to
the gentleman from Montana (Mr. Zinke).
Mr. ZINKE. Mr. Speaker, as a former Secretary, I don't think anyone
in this body has spent more time on Twin Metals reviewing the science
than I have, so I think we should separate the hype from the science
and the bull from fact.
First of all, why are we here and why is it important at all?
Well, this behind me are a few things we need critical minerals for:
particularly our military, medical, and supply chain.
What do all these have in common? The MQ-9 Reaper, the Javelin
missile system, the Virginia-class submarine, the Tomahawk, the night
vision, and Amron, what do they have in common? Those minerals are
found in Twin Metals in the great State of Minnesota.
Now, is it in the boundary waters? Is it in the area that is
protected around it? No, it is not.
I have seen these wonderful pictures of canoeing, of waters, of
streams, of lakes, and they are absolutely beautiful. The problem is
that is in the boundary waters. That is not where the mine is.
Then, oh, Deb Haaland--I respect Deb Haaland. I had her in committee,
Mr. Speaker. I asked her one question after a few: What minerals were
in the mine area which she rescinded and put a moratorium on? I was
amazed at her answer. She couldn't name one. So let's follow the
science.
I agree. There is a place to mine, and there is a place not to mine.
I think probably I stand on the conservation side as much as any
Member, but I have actually read the documentation. I have actually
read the mining plans. I have a degree in geology and looked closely at
it. Do you know what. There are good projects, and there are bad
projects. We don't mine like we used to.
In Montana we have Virginia City. They took a paddleboard up the
river stream, took everything, turned it around. We don't mine like
that anymore.
We use science now, and when you look at the science and
documentation on this mine, it uses the best technology.
Oh, by the way, water, it is a closed-circuit. What does that mean?
That means effluent doesn't travel outside. Its reuse is compressed.
When you do mine, what you do is you put core samples in. That core
sample will tell you how much overburden you have to remove. After the
core samples, then you have a mining plan that tells you where the
material is moved. In this case it is not an open-pit mine. It is
subsurface.
I would invite my colleagues to look at the science and look at the
water tables. They say 100 percent of the mines in the past were
pollutants. They are not pollutants if you have a mining plan that
undergoes the scrutiny that this one has.
Lastly, I will speak about the law. Notification and memo are not the
same thing as a rule. Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that people actually
look at the mining plan and read it, just like reading the law, what
the law says. It is not a trick. I am not here tricking anyone.
What I am saying is this: Once again there are good places to mine,
and
[[Page H1152]]
there are bad places to mine, but you have got to go with the science
and not the hype. When a mine is not located in the wilderness, it is
not located in the buffer, it is located in a Forest Service holding,
which by nature, which by law is multiple use, then mining is an
appropriate use in it.
Mr. Speaker, on the basis of this, we are facing a crisis in our
country because foreign adversaries hold our critical minerals, which
are critical to everything we do in medical and in our military.
Secondly, follow the science and not the hype. I understand political
gerrymandering and fundraising and showing pictures of wonderful canoes
going across, and, oh, we are going to mine right in the middle of the
wilderness area, but that is not the case.
Mr. Speaker, I ask and I urge my colleagues to support this. It is a
good mine. It is a good project.
By the way, it doesn't approve anything. You still have to go through
the process. So approving this act today you are not going to start the
mine tomorrow. They still have to go through the process. It is about
process, and that is what makes decisions good or bad is going through
the process.
Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I appreciate that the gentleman from Montana is suddenly so
forthcoming about all of the analysis that has gone into this
particular mining project because that wasn't always the case. When he
was Secretary, we asked to see that analysis, and what we got back was
page after page of redaction. We got zero information.
I appreciate the newfound candor from the gentleman, but I have to
question his scientific credentials when he assures us that this will
be the first ever copper mine of its kind to have no toxic pollution,
even though 100 percent of mines using this particular method have
leeched toxic pollution. Somehow, we are told this will be the first
one to not do that because of all the extra scrutiny it has received.
Well, this series of black pages tells you a lot about the
transparency and the scrutiny we have come to expect from the folks
across the aisle.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Minnesota (Ms.
Morrison).
{time} 1540
Ms. MORRISON. Mr. Speaker, today I rise in strong opposition to H.J.
Res. 140. This resolution would permanently allow copper sulfide mining
in the watershed of the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness.
Copper sulfide mining is the most toxic industry in America, and it
is particularly ill-suited to water-rich environments because it
acidifies the water. It leaches heavy metals like arsenic, lead, and
mercury into that water, which is part of the reason it has never been
done in Minnesota before. Remember, Mr. Speaker, we are the Land of
10,000 Lakes. Minnesotans do not want a toxic mine on the watershed of
the Boundary Waters. In fact, 70 percent of Minnesotans want permanent
protection for the Boundary Waters, our State's crown jewel.
Antofagasta, owned by a Chilean billionaire who is a crony of
President Trump's, is the foreign mining company that wants to extract
minerals from this watery wilderness. They have contracts set up to
send copper they extract to China for processing, and from there, it
will be sold on the open market. Allowing a Chilean mining company to
extract copper from our public lands, destroy the Boundary Waters, and
send minerals to benefit billionaire owners and China will not protect
our national security. Some sacred places should be off-limits from
this kind of mining, and the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness is
clearly one of those places.
Mr. Speaker, remember too that 22,000 outdoor recreation jobs and the
$13.5 billion outdoor recreation economy in Minnesota will all be in
serious jeopardy if this resolution passes. The Boundary Waters is a
national treasure, the most visited wilderness area in the United
States. There is no place like it on Earth, and once it is destroyed,
it will be gone forever.
Like many Minnesotans, people around the country and the world, my
husband and I have paddled and camped with our kids on the Boundary
Waters every year since they were small. We share magical and life-
changing memories from our adventures there that we all cherish.
Preserving this wilderness for future generations should be our goal,
not its destruction.
This resolution is an existential threat to our beloved Boundary
Waters. I implore my colleagues to reject this resolution. Mr. Speaker,
you have the opportunity to stand up for public lands and the Boundary
Waters and prevent the inevitable water, air, noise, light, and land
pollution that will destroy this unique wilderness.
Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Speaker, again, I can't emphasize this enough:
There is not going to be any mining in the Boundary Waters Canoe Area.
There is not going to be any mining in the boundary area around the
Boundary Waters Canoe Area. If there is ever a project approved, it
would be in the land set aside by Congress in the Superior National
Forest for mining and timber harvesting.
Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman
from Minnesota (Mr. Stauber).
Mr. STAUBER. Mr. Speaker, it won't surprise you that the
Representative from that area supports this resolution. My colleagues
and friends across the aisle, even from my great State of Minnesota,
mention mining in the Boundary Waters.
Mr. Speaker, for the umpteenth time: There will be no mining in the
Boundary Waters. There will be no mining in the buffer zones around the
Boundary Waters.
Mr. Speaker, that was settled in 1978. Then-Democratic Congressman
Jim Oberstar said: Okay, if you are going to make the wilderness area,
do not take our livelihoods away, which was timber harvesting and
mining.
These are good mining job. Mr. Speaker, according to 2023 statistics,
the average miner in the State of Minnesota makes $115,000, and the
seasonal tourist employee makes $35,000.
Unions, LIUNA, NABtu, operating engineers, the Iron Range, and
building and construction trades all support this project. These are
good union jobs. By the way, there is a project labor agreement. Three
million work hours, Mr. Speaker, are going to go into any proposed
mine. This is all union work for all my constituents in northeastern
Minnesota so we can keep our schools open, so we can keep our economy
going.
By the way, every school district benefits from mining in the State
of Minnesota. These acquired Federal lands, through the life of any
proposed mine, will bring $1.8 billion, Mr. Speaker, $1.8 billion in
Federal royalties. Over the life of the mine, that is about $800
million in Federal taxes.
When my colleagues across the aisle say that it is not going to do
anything, I just named a great portion and a benefit.
By the way, I go up to the Boundary Waters. I canoe there, I fish
there, and I recreate there. We are not mining in the Boundary Waters.
That is a falsity. That is not true. That has been misrepresented for a
lot of years. Mr. Speaker, in the State of Minnesota, we have a saying:
It is better in our backyard. It is better in our backyard.
We are not going to use child slave labor like over in Congo. One-
third of the world's cobalt comes from child slave labor, forced slave
labor. We have 88 percent of the reserves right in that complex.
By the way, Mr. Speaker, this Congressional Review Act doesn't
approve or disapprove any mining. It reverses the mining ban, the
dangerous mining ban, that the Biden administration put forward under
Secretary Haaland. By the way, Mr. Zinke said she couldn't name one
critical mineral in the mine, yet it is the biggest untapped copper-
nickel find in the world.
We will not rely on China or other adversarial nations. We can do it.
This can be a win-win-win. If anybody knows how to mine, it is the
Minnesota miner. It is better in our backyard than China, Russia, or
other adversarial nations.
Minnesota has been mining for 145 years. We know how to do it. Mr.
Speaker, it is better in our backyard where our environmental and our
labor standards are met or exceeded and our State permitting is met or
exceeded.
Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Speaker, just for clarification, we are well aware
that the Twin Metals mine is proposed just
[[Page H1153]]
outside of the border of the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness. We
have been very clear on that. However, it is very much within the
watershed of the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness. In fact, it is
right on the edge. It is just a couple of miles upstream on a river
that flows right into this area. Let's stop kidding ourselves. To try
to say that it is outside the border on this map and, therefore, the
Boundary Waters have nothing to worry about when this mine leaks--
because it will, because every mine of this kind, 100 percent in the
past, have leaked and have caused toxic pollution--when it happens,
that pollution is going straight into America's most popular
wilderness. That is a fact.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Arizona (Mr. Gosar).
Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Speaker, we have heard this song and dance over and
over again: No mining. That is big key because my State of Arizona has
taken the brunt of this.
This CRA needs to be done away with because we have to have that
ability. The predecessor of the gentleman across the way advocated no
mining. In fact, he used a national monument, disgracefully, to
actually bring in a tin-silver mine. Yes, that is bad, but we can have
our cake and eat it too. That is technology.
Mr. Speaker, if you look at the Boundary Waters that everyone is
debating, we have Canada actually doing gold mining up here with more
toxic chemicals.
Have they had a break?
I don't think so.
I am wondering what makes the difference here. It is not in my
backyard.
I sit on the Natural Resources Committee. We kept asking the other
side, the opposition: Where would you like to have it? Have you been to
a mine? Yes.
Guardians actually made that comment.
I said: Which mine did you go to? They actually said: Resolution
Copper. I said: Really? How did you like the information and the
precautions that you have to take going down in the pit that takes 20
minutes on an elevator?
Obviously, they had to rescind it because they didn't go down there.
There have been problems from way past, but that has been 100 years
ago. We have technology like this I am holding in my hand that will
actually take away any oil and anything that comes out. That is where
our future is, but to bind this up where you don't have a future is the
wrong answer. This CRA needs to go back and get serious about mining.
{time} 1550
Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Speaker, now we hear about a gold mine on the
Canadian side of the Boundary Waters watershed that has been producing
minerals without incident. I am beginning to worry that my colleagues
don't understand basic hydrology and how water flows and moves. To
begin rebuttal, I include in the Record two articles on New Gold:
https://www.northernontariobusiness.com/
industry-news/mining/new-gold-fined-
for-2016-discharge-772366
https://www.tbnewswatch.com/local-news/new-gold-inc-fined-100000-
after-sediment-spill-from-dam-988742
Mr. Speaker, the mine was fined nearly $200,000 for discharging 19
million liters of pollution into the watershed. New Gold was fined
again in 2018 after a sediment spill from a dam.
The only reason that that wasn't catastrophic for the Boundary Waters
is because that mine is on the north side of the wilderness, where the
water flows away from the protected areas.
That is how it works: Water in a watershed flows downhill in whatever
direction that watershed takes it. I don't know why that basic
principle seems so hard to understand, but apparently we have some
hydrology problems across the aisle.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time is remaining.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Meuser). The gentleman from Arkansas has
8 minutes remaining. The gentleman from California has 14 minutes
remaining.
Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to
the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Stauber).
Mr. STAUBER. Mr. Speaker, I said it: Would it surprise you that the
Representative from the district supports the resolution?
I talked about jobs and the economy. I am going to reiterate: NABTU,
the Operating Engineers, Teamsters, and the Iron Range Building and
Construction Trades have 3 million work hours, with an average mine
salary of $115,000. This is good for my constituents.
As we go forward, I want to reiterate to my colleagues: This CRA does
not approve any mine. The CRA simply removes the withdrawal. It
reverses the dangerous withdrawal that the Biden administration put
forth for purely political reasons. They stated in their reasoning that
it was to prevent mining. The Secretary, again, when asked said: I
didn't think there were critical minerals there.
In the biggest copper-nickel find in the world, she signs the PLO
that removes mining in the Superior National Forest, where timber
harvesting and mining are desired activities.
Democratic Congressman Jim Oberstar was so far ahead of his time.
When the wilderness was enacted, he said: Okay, if you are going to
enact the wilderness, don't take our livelihoods away. He was so far
ahead of his time.
Today, we are fighting that fight. I am fighting for my constituents.
I am fighting for our economy. I am fighting for our community, our
technology, and our national security. It is worth it. It is deeply
worth it.
Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Again, Mr. Stauber said it, I have said it, and others have said it.
This CRA simply reverses the withdrawal that the Biden administration
put out. It takes us back to Congress' original intent to allow
somebody to propose to develop a project. It doesn't change any of the
permitting laws. They still have to go through every permitting law.
There seems to be a lot of scare tactics on what this mine, which
hasn't even been permitted or approved yet, is going to do, but we know
one thing. It will have to stand up to all the rigorous permitting
requirements that the U.S. has to offer. It will also have to stand up
to the labor, health, and safety requirements that we have here in the
U.S., unlike many of the places around the world where these critical
minerals are mined.
This gives somebody a chance to develop a project to provide the
things that we need here in America, to provide jobs for northern
Minnesota, and to provide a stronger sense of national security, as we
all saw the equipment that these critical minerals go into that
Representative Zinke showed in the poster.
Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time. I am prepared to
close, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, we have been told time and again by our friends across
the aisle that we have nothing to worry about here because this mine,
even though it is proposed right next to the Boundary Waters wilderness
on a river that flows directly into the wilderness with a type of
mining that has a 100 percent track record of leaching toxic pollution,
that, in spite of all that, we have all these wonderful environmental
standards that will protect America's most popular wilderness.
That is pretty cold comfort, Mr. Speaker, coming from lawmakers who
are working overtime to gut every single one of those bedrock
environmental protections.
It may not be in this particular bill, but do I have to remind my
colleagues that, just a few weeks ago, we were here on the floor
debating their legislation to gut the National Environmental Policy
Act. In our markup the same week, Republicans led the charge to
eviscerate the Endangered Species Act. Separately, in other committees,
they are going after the Clean Water Act.
Every one of these safeguards that we are told will be a backstop
against anything going wrong in the Boundary Waters is under
unprecedented attack
[[Page H1154]]
from the same folks who are pushing this legislation right now.
Don't be fooled that everything will be fine because of our
environmental laws and standards. Those are under an unprecedented
attack.
Mr. Speaker, I strongly oppose this resolution for both the extreme
danger that it poses to the Boundary Waters and the outrageous abuse of
the Congressional Review Act that it represents.
As you have heard today, the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness is
an American treasure with a strong, nonpartisan history of protection,
dating back to 1909 through treaties with Canada and to 1964 with the
Wilderness Act, which passed with overwhelming bipartisan support back
when we had great conservation champions in both parties.
Americans from across the country who have experienced the serenity
of this wilderness know exactly what is at stake. Passing this
resolution would pave the way for toxic mining that would, without a
doubt, cause permanent and irreparable harm, mining that wouldn't even
benefit the U.S. economy.
This move is deeply unpopular in Minnesota and does not put American
critical mineral security first. This material will go to China.
It would also have far-reaching consequences for the future of public
lands management, making beloved, protected lands across the country
vulnerable to exploitation with very little oversight.
At the end of the day, some places really are worth protecting, and
this is one of those places. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on
H.J. Res. 140, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
I include in the Record a coalition letter from over 140
organizations in support of H.J. Res. 140. These groups include the
Minnesota Chamber of Commerce, Minnesota Power, MiningMinnesota,
Minnesota State Building and Construction Trades Council, Ely Public
School District, Jobs for Minnesotans, Laborers' International Union of
North America, and more.
January 20, 2026.
Hon. Mike Johnson,
Speaker, House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Hakeem Jeffries,
Minority Leader, House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Hon. John Thune,
Majority Leader, U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Charles Schumer,
Minority Leader, U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Speaker Johnson, Majority Leader Thune, Minority
Leader Jeffries, and Minority Leader Schumer: Our
organizations represent a broad range of Americans who care
deeply about advancing opportunities for individuals and
families across the country and fostering a stronger nation.
We represent vital industries such as mining, manufacturing,
transportation and energy; we represent hundreds of thousands
of union workers; we include economic development
associations; we are business leaders and much more.
We are writing to express our strong support for Congress'
efforts to utilize the Congressional Review Act to disapprove
of the mineral withdrawal that was enacted in northeast
Minnesota by the Department of the Interior (DOI) in January
of 2023 on more than 225,000 acres of federal lands.
Minerals are fundamental to everything in our modern world,
from wiring in homes, to energy technologies and
infrastructure, medical technologies, transportation, defense
capabilities, smartphones and laptops and more. Simply put,
critical minerals are vital for a safe, secure and prosperous
America.
Currently, China and other adversarial nations dominate the
globe in critical mineral production and processing, while
U.S. dependence on foreign sources for these materials has
recently reached an all-time high. The ban on mining across a
significant portion of Minnesota only set us further behind
as a nation.
As a result, this mineral withdrawal, an administrative
action which forbids any mining or exploration activity on
these lands for 20 years, was enacted in an area of the
United States that contains enormous amounts of the critical
minerals our nation needs to achieve its goals of energy
independence, stronger domestic supply chains and American
job creation. These are goals our organizations collectively
work to advance.
Northeast Minnesota is home to the world's largest known
undeveloped deposits of copper, nickel, cobalt, platinum
group metals and more. The area contains 95 percent of
domestic nickel resources, almost 90 percent of domestic
cobalt and about a third of our nation's copper. Industries
pursuing the responsible development of these resources, from
the mining companies who have invested in the region to the
suppliers to the high-skilled workers seeking employment,
have been negatively impacted by the enactment of the mineral
withdrawal, as have the communities in the region that want
to see mining projects move forward for the betterment of the
local and statewide economy.
Congress now has the opportunity to correct a detrimental
action that ran contrary to our national interest, and to do
so assures that these minerals will be produced domestically
according to some of the world's most rigorous environmental
standards.
Minnesota and the federal government have already put in
place comprehensive rules and a framework to ensure the
environment is protected and that any proposed industrial
activity in the area meets stringent regulatory standards.
The U.S. also has some of the most robust safety standards
for workers. To ignore the opportunity to produce
domestically for materials we use in our everyday lives means
that we are relying upon nations with low-to-non-existent
worker protections.
Disapproving the withdrawal in Minnesota will undo an
unnecessary and damaging action. It will also correct a
course in which industries seeking to generate jobs and
revenue for generations to come, were simply no longer
allowed to propose mining projects in the area and forbidden
to go through the law and science-based environmental review
process to prove they can meet the high standards in place
before earning permits to construct a mine.
We collectively support the use of the Congressional Review
Act to overturn the mineral withdrawal currently under
consideration in Congress, as it is an essential step forward
in unlocking the resources that our nation needs to reduce
our dangerous reliance on China and other adversarial
nations.
Signed,
Laborers' International Union of North America (LIUNA);
Minnesota State Building and Construction Trades Council; The
National Association of Manufacturers; International
Brotherhood of Teamsters; MichAuto; Indigenous Business
Advisors; Better in Our Back Yard; Iron Range Building
Trades; Minnesota Pipe Trades Association; LIUNA Minnesota
and North Dakota; Northern Midwest Regional Council of
Carpenters; Minnesota Power; Whitebird Services Inc.; Duluth
Seaway Port Authority; Citizens for Responsible Energy
Solutions; Minnesota Chamber of Commerce; Women's Mining
Coalition; ClearPath Action; International Union of
Operating Engineers Local 49; Plumbers and Pipefitters
Local 589; Area Partnership for Economic Expansion (APEX).
Range Association of Municipalities and Schools (RAMS);
Mining Minnesota; Jobs for Minnesotans; American Exploration
and Mining Association; Society for Mining, Metallurgy &
Exploration; National Mining Association; United Way of
Northeastern Minnesota; American Chemistry Council; Teamsters
Joint Council 32; Teamsters Local 346; Laborers Local 1097
``Iron Range''; Sprinkler Fitters Local 417; UA Plumbers
Local 15; Local 6 Plumbers and Pipefitters; International
Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Minnesota State Council;
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 242;
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local Union
110; International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local
31; International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local
Union 1426; International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers
Local 160.
Up North Jobs Inc.; Minnesota Conservative Energy Forum;
Green Bridge Metals; City of Babbitt, MN--Mayor Andrea
Zupancich; Duluth Area Chamber of Commerce; Laurentian
Chamber of Commerce; Hermantown Area Chamber of Commerce;
Copper Development Association; Mt. Iron-Buhl School Board,
MN--Lisa Kvas; Grand Rapids Area Chamber of Commerce;
American Coal Council; Industrial Township, St. Louis County,
MN--Don Carlson; Northeast Technical Services; Grand Itasca
Clinic and Hospital; Lakehead Constructors; Ely Public School
District--Anne Oelke; Fight for Mining Minnesota; Road
Machinery & Supplies Co.; Feeley Township, Itasca County,
MN--Deb Langanki; Lake Country Power; Encampment Minerals,
Inc.
Giant; B.R. Clark Consulting LLC; RMS Tritec; Global
Minerals Engineering; Wyoming Mining Association; American
Peat Technology; Millcreek Engineering Company; Mine
Development Management LLC; Borell Consulting Services LLC;
StarPoint Resources, LLC; Geobrugg North America; Clementine
Exploration; Idaho Mining Association; Agnico Eagle; Pebble
Limited Partnership; Archkey--Parsons Electric; Superior Rock
Bit; Innate North; GEOTEMPS/GEOPROS, Inc.; Superior Marine
Charters.
American Peat Technology; Wescom Inc; Furin & Shea Welding
& Fabricating, Inc.; Sandvik Mining and Rock Processing; City
of Hibbing, MN--Mayor Pete Hyduke; City of Kinney, MN--Mayor
Patrick E. Haley; APi Group Inc.; ME Global Inc; A Martin
Consulting, LLC; Malton Electric Co.; Quick Supply Co.; North
Star Manganese Inc & Electric Metals (USA) Limited; GR
Engineering Services; Amvest Capital Securities; Twin Metals
Minnesota; Kalenborn Abresist Corporation; Larkin Hoffman
Attorneys; ME Elecmetal; City of Biwabik, MN--Mayor Steven
Biondich; Solenis LLC.
[[Page H1155]]
Kirscher Transport; General Equipment & Supplies Inc; JBW
Consulting Engineers; PX4 Software; Gerdau Amersiteel US Inc;
QT Environmental; Wolverine Fuels; Alaska Miners Association;
Furin & Shea Welding & Fabricating, Inc.; Universal Polymer
And Rubber; TJR Technical Services, Inc.; Beaver Bay, Inc.;
AMIGOS; Hayday; Tidal Health; Northeast Title; Marshall Area
Chamber of Commerce; Timberline Drilling; Ziegler Cat;
Kalenborn Canada Inc.
Superior Fuel Company; Baldwin Supply Company; Dodge
Industrial; Baldwin Supply; Avivid Global Water; Vics Crane &
Heavy Haul; Hamilton Monroe & Co; Electric Power Door; Duncan
Co.; Victaulic; General Equipment and Supplies, Inc.; LRL
Construction; Contour Inc.; Borealis Fuels & Logistics;
Cenovus Energy Superior Refinery; Hibbing Taconite Co.;
Snowbird Willies Boat Canvas; Hamilton Monroe; MHE
Consulting; Salem Republic Rubber; Enbridge.
Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Speaker, the letter states: ``Disapproving the
withdrawal in Minnesota will undo an unnecessary and damaging action.
It will also correct a course in which industries seeking to generate
jobs and revenue for generations to come were simply no longer allowed
to propose mining projects in the area and forbidden to go through the
law and science-based environmental review process.''
Mr. Speaker, I will just say that I actually have taken hydrology
courses. I am a professional engineer. It has been a long time ago, but
I remember something very distinct from those hydrology and hydraulic
engineering courses, and that is that water flows downhill. If it
doesn't, you can get a pump. That is an engineering joke. It is
probably not very funny.
{time} 1600
The thing about these mines in Minnesota is, they are below-grade
mines. They are not pit mines. They are actually digging tunnels down
into the earth to pull this ore out to take it to the top to refine it.
If there are tailings, these tailings will be placed in a secure area
where there is no way they can be leached back into the watershed.
Don't let the scare tactics influence the way you vote on this
legislation because the inputs we need to sustain our fast-growing
electricity grid are right under our feet. We should be leading the
world in technological innovation and AI infrastructure.
The only reason we are mired in mineral dependence today and not
enjoying or sharing the benefits of American mineral dominance is
because of outdated or misguided policies like the one we are
overturning today.
The resolution before us would correct these policies by reopening
mineral-rich land to exploration and reducing our reliance on China for
minerals.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Stauber) for
his leadership on the issue. I urge my colleagues to support this
resolution, and I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
Pursuant to House Resolution 1009, the previous question is ordered
on the joint resolution.
The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the joint
resolution.
The joint resolution was ordered to be engrossed and read a third
time, and was read the third time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on passage of the joint
resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further
proceedings on this question will be postponed.
____________________