Filibuster on US Senate floor over BWCA bill

[0:00] and override tribal rights. [0:02] I urge my colleagues to vote no on this resolution. [0:07] And I yield. [0:14] Mr. President. [0:15] Senator Minassohn. [0:17] Thank you, Mr. President. [0:18] I want to just thank my colleague from Wisconsin [0:22] for her powerful words and her longtime support [0:26] for the Boundary Waters and for treaty rights [0:30] and for American jobs and American-made products. [0:35] And so I just so greatly appreciate you being here today [0:38] and in support of this and appreciate very much. [0:41] I also really appreciate my colleague Senator Heinrich [0:44] from New Mexico being here today as well to talk about how important this is [0:51] and why this matters so much to him. [0:53] I know Senator Heinrich is planning a trip to the Boundary Waters this summer [0:57] and we'll all be able to hear stories of that when you get back. [1:01] Thank you, Mr. President. [1:03] I yield. [1:05] Senator from New Mexico. [1:07] Well, I want to thank my colleague from Minnesota for her endless advocacy [1:14] for this special place, one of America's true gems. [1:21] And I do hope to make it to the Boundary Waters this summer. [1:26] Last July, I was supposed to be in the Boundary Waters. [1:30] I had planned, long planned a trip with my family. [1:35] It was to be our first time exploring the Boundary Waters. [1:39] My family made it. [1:40] I did not. [1:42] We were, my wife, Julie, my sons, Mike and Carter had an incredible time that they will [1:51] always remember. [1:52] They, they paddled their canoes across lakes, they portaged from lake to lake, they slept [1:59] under a blanket of stars that most people in Washington, D.C. could never imagine because [2:03] they can't see it. [2:04] And I was supposed to be part of that trip. [2:09] I was stuck here fighting to strip out the public land sell-off language from the Republican [2:15] budget bill. [2:18] They sent me lots of pictures afterwards, pictures of the Northern Pike here that my son caught, [2:26] my son, Micah. [2:29] My wife, Julie, was able to spend some really quality wilderness time with both of our sons [2:35] before they went off to their respective colleges for the year. [2:41] She basically told me that they ate more food on this trip than most rugby teams. [2:48] And like my family, millions, literally millions of Americans have hunted and fished and paddled [2:58] and traversed the boundary waters. [3:00] And in fact, it has an almost religious connotation among sportsmen in particular. [3:06] And it's somewhat amazing to me to see a Republican party that used to have such fidelity to hunters [3:17] and anglers basically roll all of the organizations that my colleague from Minnesota rattled off who [3:24] said, this is not the right place for this. [3:28] Things like Pheasants Forever and Backcountry Hunters and Anglers and Teddy Roosevelt Conservation [3:32] Partnership and on and on and on. [3:35] But that's where we are today. [3:37] You know, stories from the boundary waters, stories of stalking whitetail and grouse are passed down [3:46] from generation to generation in the Midwest. [3:49] Legendary stories of lake trout and Northern Pike and walleye abound, sometimes with the fish actually [3:57] getting bigger with each telling of the story and the water, as the senator from Minnesota, Senator [4:06] Smith said, is some of the cleanest you will find anywhere in the lower 48. [4:13] It is a bucket list, once in a lifetime destination for so many public land owners. [4:22] And that is precisely what's at risk with this vote. [4:27] One of our nation's true crown jewels. [4:31] So let's back up a little bit for folks who don't have a firsthand knowledge of what the boundary waters is, where it is, and do a little explaining that the boundary waters is one of the most incredible intact wilderness landscapes left in our nation. [4:52] It is an absolute tapestry of lakes and streams consisting of well over 1,000 individual lakes, 2,000 designated campsites, hundreds of miles of rivers and streams. [5:08] The boundary waters contain the largest contiguous landscape of uncut forest remaining in the eastern United States. [5:18] And the 3 million acres superior national forest in which the boundary water sits contains fully 20% of all the fresh water in the entire national forest system. [5:34] An incredible figure. [5:35] And in fact, this wilderness was so important that Teddy Roosevelt himself, President Roosevelt, set it aside as part of the superior national forest all the way back in 1909. [5:49] Almost half a century later, Congress voted overwhelmingly to include the boundary waters as one of the original units of the national wilderness system. [6:02] And in many ways, Minnesotans rely on the boundary waters to support their local economy. [6:11] Every year, the boundary waters canoe area wilderness draws more visitors, more visitors than any other wilderness area in the entire nation. [6:21] This recreation supports 17,000 Minnesotan jobs, and it contributes roughly a billion dollars in annual sales and preserves and shares, more importantly, a way of life. [6:38] A way of life that has been passed down from generation to generation. [6:43] And this is a place, this is an area that is no stranger to threats. [6:46] In addition to containing so many of the natural resources that come with the wilderness, the area also contains copper. [6:56] And I should say, you know, for one, there's a long history of iron mining in this area. [7:03] And I grew up the son of someone who worked for Anaconda Copper, the grandson of somebody who was a gold miner. [7:13] But I want to talk a little bit about the difference between some of these iron range mines that mine ore that is just chemically inert. [7:25] It is chemically stable. [7:27] When you mine for iron, you're basically mining iron oxide. [7:31] You're mining rust. [7:32] And then you're turning that back into iron. [7:35] This is not that kind of mine. [7:38] This is a copper sulfide mine. [7:40] And the company that wants to mine here called Twin Metals, and that sounds so Minnesotan. [7:47] I think they might have picked it to sound Minnesotan. [7:49] It's actually a subsidiary of a Chilean mining company called Antofagasta. [7:56] They want to build this copper nickel mine less than a mile upstream from the boundary waters on a spit of land between two waterways. [8:06] And let me explain a little bit about what it looks like to mine copper in a place like the boundary waters, and particularly when you're mining copper sulfide ore. [8:18] The company will have to dig some very deep shafts to reach these very deep ore bodies. [8:25] They will then remove many millions of tons for processing, millions and millions of tons of copide sulfur ore. [8:38] And after they remove what copper and nickel is economically recoverable in that ore, [8:44] they will dump as much as 100 million tons of waste rock and low-grade ore on the site, never to be removed. [8:55] Now, deep underground, the copper, it's locked up in this ore rich in sulfur. [9:02] But that ore has never been exposed to water. [9:06] It's never been exposed to oxygen or air. [9:08] And when you bring it to the surface and you let it sit out in a pile and you expose it to air and water, [9:17] oxygen bonds with that sulfur. [9:20] And when you bond oxygen to sulfur, you get sulfuric acid. [9:24] Sulfuric acid is one of the hardest waste products you can imagine to try and control. [9:30] The waste rock that has been dumped on the site will naturally form sulfuric acid. [9:37] That acid will then dissolve toxic heavy metals present in the waste rock. [9:44] And then you have this toxic stew of heavy metals along with sulfuric acid. [9:51] Now, there's no plan to remove all this waste from the mine site. [9:55] So it's basically a ticking time bomb of acid and heavy metals. [10:01] Studies by the EPA say that the odds of sulfuric acid polluting the boundary waters under this scenario is highly likely. [10:10] And I'll do you one better. [10:12] It has a perfect track record of polluting water. [10:15] That is according to the peer-reviewed study on sulfide ore copper mining that drove the 2023 decision to ban mining in the area. [10:27] It's also my personal experience as a former natural resources trustee who had to negotiate with copper companies who polluted water with the same technology. [10:37] So it's not just highly likely. [10:40] It is guaranteed sulfide mining in the rainy river watershed will cause certain irreversible pollution to the boundary waters. [10:50] Think again about eating those fish that you caught or drinking that water that you dipped from the middle of the lake. [10:55] Because the thing about sulfuric acid poisoning is it's invisible. [11:00] You can't see it, but it makes water unsafe to drink. [11:04] Sulfuric acid also lowers the pH level of water, changing entire ecosystems. [11:13] At high levels, fish that rely on healthy water to live literally experience respiratory failure in water poisoned by sulfuric acid. [11:21] They literally drown to death. [11:24] They'll not be able to reproduce normally. [11:26] Their food sources will be tainted. [11:29] Meaning entire fish populations of lake trout and smallmouth basque are at risk. [11:35] The sulfuric acid produced by this mine will leach heavy metals like lead or mercury or copper into that same water. [11:46] That will then accumulate in the bodies of fish and wildlife that consume that water. [11:50] And when people eat meat and fish with heavy metals, they accumulate in our bodies too. [11:58] This isn't a myth. [11:59] It's a virtually guaranteed outcome. [12:01] Because we know that plans for the mine include storing over 100 million tons of waste rock, of toxic waste rock, on the edge of the wilderness, upstream of the boundary waters. [12:19] Think about how much that is. [12:20] Let's visualize how much waste rock we're talking about being dumped and never removed from this mine site. [12:27] 100 million tons is like 740,000 Boeing 777 airplanes. [12:34] It's twice the mass of all the living people on earth. [12:37] It's 500 times the weight of the Empire State Building sitting there generating toxic acid. [12:46] And it's the amount of toxic waste that Anapagasta, a foreign mining company, that plans to sell the copper to foreign countries, plans to store on the edge of the largest patch of wild rivers and forests in our country. [13:04] A place that has 20% of all the fresh water in our national forest system. [13:09] The damage is really unthinkable, but it's also irreversible because currently we don't have any technology available that is capable of reversing sulfuric acid contamination. [13:25] This is bad. [13:26] It's so bad that in 2016, even before there was a mineral withdrawal, the Obama administration canceled the mine's lease. [13:36] And in 2023, after years of review and overwhelming public support, a 20-year mineral withdrawal was established in the Rainy River watershed, home to the Boundary Waters. [13:49] And that decision reflects common sense. [13:54] Some places are too valuable to gamble with. [13:58] With today's technology, if it's a gamble, why not wait 30 years when maybe that technology is a sure bet? [14:06] But it's not a sure bet today. [14:07] That decision also reflected the voices of the American people because the assessment that led to the mineral withdrawal was completed by the U.S. Forest Service in 2022. [14:20] And it included hundreds of thousands of public comments, 675,000 public comments, over 95% of which favored the withdrawal area being withdrawn from non-ferrous mining, sulfide mining. [14:38] Today, 70% of Minnesotans oppose mining in the Boundary Waters. [14:44] And instead of listening to Minnesotans and Americans from all over the country who care about this place, Republicans today are using an unprecedented, blunt force legislative method that includes zero public comment, no comment period, to make decisions about our public lands without any input from the people to whom those lands actually belong. [15:10] And we can't talk about the Boundary Waters without also speaking of belonging and tribal communities. [15:19] Three tribes, the Boy's Fort Band, the Fond du Lac Band, and the Grand Portage Band of Chippewa have extensive treaty rights in northeastern Minnesota. [15:29] These are rights to do things like hunt and fish and gather wild rice. [15:35] These rights are guaranteed to them by the 1854 Treaty of La Pointe and have been reaffirmed by federal courts over and over again. [15:45] By overturning the public land order with a CRA resolution, Senate Republicans will not only cut tribes out of the conversation, but they disrespect the tribal treaty rights and directly risk those tribes' guaranteed access to their traditional way of life and subsistence use of this place. [16:07] So since my Republican colleagues are refusing to include constituents' voices in this process, I'll bring a few of those from New Mexico to the floor here today. [16:19] Dr. Brown from Santa Fe wrote me in urging that we oppose this vote. [16:24] He said, I canoed the Boundary Waters many times and can attest to its uniqueness. [16:29] With some of the purest water in the United States, these lakes are visited and admired by thousands of Americans. [16:37] Pollution of the Boundary Waters would be a tragedy for the nation and the world. [16:43] Dr. Merriman from Albuquerque said, please vote no on H.R.S. 140. [16:48] Some things are worth more than money. [16:52] Lee in Los Alamos wrote, I am writing to you to ask you to oppose H.R.S. 140. [16:58] The Boundary Waters Canoe Area is a national treasure, not just for Minnesotans, but for me and other New Mexicans as well. [17:07] Nyman in Santa Fe said, this is a hideous giveaway to corporate profiteers and cannot stand. [17:13] Please vote no. [17:13] From Dr. Bagney in Silver City, any short-term economic benefits would clearly not outweigh the long-term risks to the ecosystem and water supplies. [17:27] Although it is in Minnesota, many similar public lands in New Mexico could be threatened by relaxing mining rules. [17:36] Please oppose. [17:37] Judy in Albuquerque wrote, I am aghast. [17:40] Please do all that you can to stop this giveaway of our wonderful public lands. [17:47] This happened despite all of the thousands of citizen signatures against the vote. [17:52] From Roxanne and Rio Rancho, please vote against reversing the ban on mining. [17:58] I am very concerned that the Trump administration is flying under the radar and doing a lot of damage that will be difficult or even impossible to reverse. [18:11] Amy in Albuquerque, please do not allow this to happen. [18:16] The Boundary Waters belong to all Americans, not to a Chilean mining company with contracts to process ore in China. [18:23] Their voices matter because the Boundary Waters are our public lands, all of ours. [18:31] President Teddy Roosevelt, who had the incredible foresight to protect this beautiful place, [18:38] he had it right when he said we should see to it that they are preserved for our children and our children's children forever [18:45] with their majestic beauty all unmarred. [18:49] The way I look at public lands is that they are the closest, most tangible thing we have to being able to represent true Jeffersonian democracy. [19:02] They are the thing, as we saw last June, that often unites us across the political spectrum. [19:08] If you take these public lands away, you tear away the places where we are most free. [19:18] This is an issue of heritage. [19:20] It's an issue of our inheritance. [19:24] And it's an issue for Minnesota, but it's not just an issue for Minnesota. [19:28] It is an issue for our nation. [19:31] It's about something bigger. [19:33] It's a test of whether our public lands, a friend of mine likes to say, [19:39] our public lands that are the anvil upon which we have forged our collective identity. [19:46] Can that be stripped from us? [19:48] Can it be stripped of their protections? [19:51] You know, I'm going to summarize this one more time. [19:53] We're going to allow a foreign mining company to take our minerals, [20:01] to ship those minerals to China for processing and then sell those back to us with a tariff on top. [20:12] Like, how is that America first? [20:15] It's not. [20:17] And to risk this globally incredible rare asset that is the boundary waters for that? [20:30] Boy, that just seems really short-sighted to me. [20:33] And I would urge every one of my colleagues, I would urge you to vote no on this Congressional Review Act resolution. [20:47] Mr. President. [20:48] Senator Minasota. [20:49] Thank you, Mr. President. [20:50] And I want to thank my colleague from New Mexico for laying out the issues that are before us [20:58] with this House resolution on the boundary waters so ably. [21:04] And it's wonderful to have a colleague who not only is really good at being a legislator but also is an outstanding hunter and fisherman. [21:17] And then on top of that is also an engineer so he can explain to us the impacts of this kind of mining on the environment with a scientific expertise that I just really value. [21:30] So thank you so much, Senator Heinrich, for being here tonight to help tell the story of what the impact of this mine would be on this incredible place [21:40] and why it's so important that the CRA be defeated. [21:45] 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. [21:54] Some of my colleagues may know that I was originally born in New Mexico. [22:01] I've lived in Minnesota for over 40 years now, but I was originally born in New Mexico, and New Mexico was a desert climate. [22:07] And so when I first came to Minnesota, I didn't quite know what to make of all the lakes and rivers and streams [22:12] and the beautiful green everywhere. [22:14] But I was married to a man who had spent his high school years up in the Boundary Waters. [22:23] And he went to a camp up there where he would go up for weeks at a time and canoe throughout the Boundary Waters. [22:33] And the Boundary Waters are connected to a big Canadian provincial park called the Quetico. [22:39] And you literally can canoe from surface water in the Boundary Waters and get all the way to Hudson's Bay, which is just remarkable. [22:52] 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. [22:58] And I think in a lot of ways is when I first fell in love with Minnesota, the place of Minnesota, [23:03] because I just couldn't believe all the water and the green and the wildlife and also how wild it was to be able to be out on the water in a canoe [23:17] and feel like you were just so far away from the pressures of modern civilization. [23:24] And yet, the Boundary Waters is really quite accessible to people. [23:27] It is not one of those places that is a wilderness area that is impossible to get to, which is why, as we're talking about tonight, [23:35] people have been, you know, hundreds of thousands of people are able to visit the Boundary Waters each year [23:40] and be able to experience what it's like to be in this place. [23:46] As I said earlier, the last time I was there was at the end of last summer. [23:52] And 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. [24:03] You can imagine in the wintertime when it's so dark in that part of the world, long, long nights, [24:12] the opportunity to see the aurora borealis, the northern lights, is just really phenomenal. [24:20] And in the summertime, the long, long northern summer evenings stretch on until, you know, 9.30 or 10 at night, [24:32] and you have incredible opportunities to go fishing and just be at the camp and just enjoy it. [24:39] It's really amazing. [24:40] When I first went to the Boundary Waters with our kids, I started to get really interested in the history of this place, [24:47] and I found it just fascinating to think about. [24:50] So you've got, you know, what today we think of as the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness, [24:56] which is a million acres of protected wilderness. [25:01] But it's important, I think, as I was diving into the history of this place to understand that historically, [25:07] this has been the home of the Anishinaabe people, Ojibwe people, in northern Minnesota. [25:15] They lived in this place for, you know, generations and generations. [25:22] They canoed and hunted and fished to support themselves and their families and their communities, [25:30] and that was their home. [25:34] Starting in the 18th century, the Boundary Waters got connected up through the fur trade routes [25:42] as the voyageurs came, you know, across all the way from across the Atlantic [25:50] and then in through, you know, what is now northern Minnesota and Canada. [25:56] But it was at that point this just incredible resource for these fur trading routes [26:03] that were a hugely, hugely big deal. [26:06] That fur trade really was, you know, drove what was happening in that part of the country. [26:11] In the 1700s and 1800s, French explorers and traders, they really opened up the area. [26:17] The Northwest Company established a trading post at Grand Portage, [26:21] and that was really kind of the economic driver. [26:24] And in this moment, this part of the country that is now the Boundary Waters [26:28] experienced, you know, huge transitions. [26:30] But I think it's important for us all to understand that even though this is a wilderness place, [26:36] it is a wild place, it has also always been a place where people were, [26:40] where people were a part of what was happening in this country [26:45] and in this particular part of the country. [26:50] Of course, you know, over time as the United States became a, you know, [26:57] became a country and entered into relationships with the tribal nations [27:03] that lived in this part of the country, [27:05] that became sort of what drove a lot of the geopolitics, I guess you could say, [27:11] of this part of the nation. [27:13] In 1857, there was an enabling act of the United States Congress [27:18] which granted land to support schools through the University of Minnesota. [27:25] And then a little bit later, this is right about the time of the statehood for Minnesota. [27:30] Minnesota was admitted into the Union in 1858. [27:34] The, you know, there was additional negotiating that happened [27:42] and Congress granted the right to the state to swap lands [27:47] in order to, you know, pull, you know, big chunks of land together. [27:51] By the time of about 1902, the U.S. Lands Office did, [27:56] what it did is it withdrew half a million acres in what is now the future, [28:01] what was what is the future BWCA wilderness area. [28:05] And they withdrew it from settlement, [28:09] which was a really, really important thing [28:11] because at this time we were seeing massive development in northern Minnesota. [28:15] huge, you know, massive timber resources were present in the state. [28:22] And, of course, mineral resources, including iron. [28:25] In 1904, at the request of the State Forestry Board, [28:29] Congress granted 20,000 acres to the state for the Burnside Forest Reserve [28:35] and said in that situation that state forest reserves should be devoted [28:40] not alone to the business of raising timber, but to the pleasures of all the people. [28:45] It's interesting to me, I think, about how Minnesota was, [28:49] even, you know, back more than a century ago, [28:52] was thinking carefully about how to balance the power [28:57] and the vitality of our economy in northern Minnesota [29:02] with also the understanding that some of that most precious land [29:07] needs to be set aside in a place where people can enjoy it. [29:13] Over time, in 1909, the Superior National Forest was created [29:19] by President Theodore Roosevelt, [29:22] a great conservationist in our country's history. [29:26] I often think of him as the man who really was the leader [29:30] of the powerful Republican conservation movement in this country. [29:36] So in 1909, President Theodore Roosevelt created the Superior National Forest, [29:44] which from previously withdrawn lands that had been set aside, [29:48] including what is now part of the Boundary Waters canoe area. [29:54] There was continuing work both at the state level and at the federal level [29:58] to create sort of game refuges and other places that would be a place [30:07] where the incredible resources of, you know, the moose and caribou [30:11] and other wild creatures would have a place to live, [30:15] even as northern Minnesota was becoming increasingly developed. [30:19] In 1926, the roadless wilderness area in the Superior National Forest [30:26] was established by the Secretary of Agriculture at the time. [30:31] That was 640,000 acres. [30:34] And at that point they said the policy here is to retain as much as possible [30:39] of the land which has recreational opportunities of this nature in the wilderness. [30:43] The efforts of this country to continue to protect this area went forward in the 1930s [30:54] with passage of the Shipstead-Newton-Nolan Act to protect water levels and lake shores. [30:59] There had been some dams and other sort of navigational structures that had been built [31:05] that was having an impact on how the water flowed in the Boundary Waters. [31:09] And so here we had kind of a prohibition of those dams [31:14] and logging within 400 feet of this recreational area to sort of protect the natural area. [31:20] And then in the late 1920s and early 1930s, work continued to sort of establish [31:28] what was this special place that was going to be protected. [31:32] In 1938, the U.S. Forest Service established the Superior Roadless Primitive Area [31:38] with boundaries that are today quite similar to what today is the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness. [31:47] In Minnesota, we know a lot about something called Ty Blatnick. [31:52] I can talk more about that. [31:54] But in 1948, Congress passed the Ty Blatnick Area. [31:58] And what happened then is that through the Ty Blatnick Area Act, [32:03] resorts and other private lands in the wilderness were bought up. [32:07] And we established something that is still very important to this day, [32:10] something that I work on all the time, [32:12] that in lieu of the property taxes that might have been achieved through those lands, [32:17] there is a payment in lieu of taxes called Ty Blatnick [32:21] that goes to the counties up in northern Minnesota, [32:24] Cook County and Lake County, St. Louis County, [32:26] in exchange for what was this wilderness area for all of us to enjoy. [32:33] In 1949, President Truman issued an executive order [32:39] for basically an airspace reservation over the wilderness area [32:44] to prohibit planes from flying in on the lakes [32:47] and disrupting the experience of nature that people could have there. [32:53] You were not allowed to fly lower than 4,000 feet over the wilderness. [32:57] And then in 1958, the Forest Service changes the name of this place [33:03] to the Boundary Waters Canoe Area, [33:05] and it becomes a part of what we now know as the Boundary Waters. [33:11] In 1964, another really important milestone happened [33:15] for the protection of this incredible place. [33:17] And that was when Congress passed the Wilderness Act. [33:20] And the Boundary Waters Canoe Area became part [33:23] of the National Wilderness Preservation System [33:26] with a clause that allowed for some logging [33:29] and some use of motorized vehicles to continue in this area. [33:35] In 1965, the Secretary of Agriculture at the time was Orville Freeman, [33:41] who was a Minnesotan. [33:42] And Secretary Freeman issued all sorts of management changes [33:46] that were recommended to kind of further protect this area [33:51] from logging and from motorized boats and zoning [33:55] to make sure that it would stay in its most natural state. [33:59] In 1978, Congress enacts the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness Act, [34:11] which eliminated, which protected this place in perpetuity, [34:17] we would hope, to be the wilderness area that it is. [34:22] This was a very, very important thing. [34:24] It was somewhat controversial in Minnesota at the time, there is no doubt. [34:28] But it has today become one of the most beloved places in Minnesota, [34:34] thanks to the prescience of state and local leaders [34:38] who went forward to protect this place. [34:42] And I'm thinking, as I think about all of the people [34:47] over so many generations who have been in this place [34:51] for sustenance, for their food, for their housing, [34:57] and in more modern times for their ability to get away from it all [35:04] and to enjoy this place in ways that is so difficult. [35:08] I'm thinking about all the people that I have heard from [35:12] who have asked me to make sure that we are protecting this place. [35:15] I think today, with a big thanks to everybody who has reached out to our office, [35:21] I think today we had hundreds of phone calls into the office [35:27] asking me to do everything I can to protect the Boundary Waters wilderness area. [35:35] And honestly, over the last many weeks that this issue has been on the forefront of people's minds, [35:42] we have gotten, I'm sure, just thousands and thousands and thousands of messages from people. [35:47] And what's interesting about these messages is, you know, [35:52] one, how many people have firsthand experience of this incredible place [35:55] and what it means to them, [35:58] and just the diversity of the stories that people have. [36:02] I find this all the time when I go around Minnesota, [36:04] and people will stop me and thank me for the work that I have done [36:10] to protect this place, [36:12] just the way that people want to tell the stories of what it has meant to them. [36:16] I think today, especially in this time when it is so hard, [36:21] especially for our young people to get away from technology [36:28] and to just sort of be centered in that experience of being, you know, out in nature, [36:35] it is causing people to be even more appreciative [36:40] of what it means to have a wilderness area like this. [36:43] So I'm going to just take a moment to read some of the stories [36:47] that have been forwarded to me about the power of this place [36:53] and the lives of people in Minnesota and across the country. [36:57] This is a story from Grand Rapids, Minnesota, [37:00] which is in the kind of northern part of the state, [37:04] still south of the Boundary Waters. [37:06] And it says, [37:07] I am a 53-year-old that has lived in northern Minnesota her whole life. [37:12] My family and I have enjoyed God's great north woods [37:15] and all it has to offer through canoeing and camping, [37:19] water skiing, biking, campfires, hiking, swimming, and much more. [37:25] To see and hear about the Boundary Waters possibly being condemned [37:29] would be beyond a travesty. [37:31] Just think, all of the animals, all of the family trips ended, [37:36] tree growth, the disaster that would happen there, [37:39] not to mention what it would do to the ecosystem [37:41] and whatever else I cannot fathom right now. [37:46] This is a message that was sent in to me from Maramidae, Minnesota, [37:51] which is more in the Twin Cities, [37:54] sort of south-central part of the state in the Twin Cities area. [37:59] This person wrote, [38:02] The Boundary Waters have been a very special place to me for a long time. [38:07] I was first taken there by my father and my uncle, [38:10] and it was the start of my relationship with my uncle, [38:12] who was previously more distant from our family due to work. [38:17] Since then, I have gone to the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness [38:20] once a year for the past few years with my father and my uncle. [38:24] So many of my fondest memories are all from the Boundary Waters, [38:28] and I hope to continue to make more of them, [38:31] not only with my father and my uncle, [38:33] but with my own children in the future as well. [38:39] This is a message from someone from Farmington, Minnesota. [38:42] Farmington is also in the kind of suburban metro area of Minneapolis and St. Paul. [38:48] And this person said, [38:49] Me and my dad take a trip once yearly to canoe the Boundary Waters. [38:54] I am 23 years old, and every year is incredibly special [38:59] because the Boundary Waters are so important to my family. [39:02] My dad proposed to my mom and the Boundary Waters. [39:07] The Boundary Waters represents love, [39:09] the wild, untamed American spirit, and my family. [39:13] I want to be able to show my children pristine wilderness. [39:16] I am begging you to act to protect the Boundary Waters. [39:20] This is a message from Rochester, Minnesota, [39:27] the home of Mayo Clinic and University of Minnesota Rochester, [39:31] an incredible community. [39:32] This person has written this. [39:35] I was 10 years old when I first visited the Boundary Waters [39:39] with my dad and my grandfather. [39:41] I have since visited numerous times, [39:43] including in 2020, when my grandfather, [39:46] who had been going to the Boundary Waters for 40 years, [39:49] made his final visit. [39:51] This place is now to my family, [39:53] not just a tranquil retreat, [39:56] but also a time-honored family legacy [39:59] and an act of remembrance for my grandfather. [40:02] To allow the Boundary Waters to be permanently open for mining [40:06] is to destroy one of the great natural gifts [40:09] God has given Minnesota [40:10] for current generations and generations to come. [40:14] Now, I just want to pause on this [40:16] because I think it's an opportunity [40:18] to talk a little bit more about [40:20] kind of help to locate in colleagues, [40:22] in people's brains, [40:22] like where this mine will be. [40:24] And I have a map which shows how this all flows. [40:29] So the Boundary Waters is this huge area, [40:31] as we've said, [40:32] a million acres of wilderness. [40:36] And I'm going to orient you here. [40:39] The green here is the Boundary Waters [40:41] canoe area wilderness. [40:43] And this is the border between Minnesota and Canada here. [40:49] And this is the Quetico Provincial Park, [40:52] which is this huge Canadian national park. [40:56] It's really quite incredible. [40:59] And then here you see Ely, Minnesota, [41:02] which is a major entry point into the Boundary Waters. [41:05] If you were to go over here, [41:08] you would find, [41:09] oh, I guess it's down here [41:10] as I'm orienting myself on this map, [41:12] you would see there's another, [41:13] I guess it's over here, [41:15] there's another access point [41:16] that is commonly used by people [41:18] going into the Boundary Waters [41:19] through the Gunsland Trail [41:23] and Grand Marais, [41:27] which is right here on Lake Superior. [41:30] And what we're talking about here, [41:33] here you can see, [41:34] I'm going to give you the orientation here. [41:36] The red area, [41:38] this area here, [41:40] the yellow and green stripes, [41:42] which you can see here, [41:44] this is where the Twin Metals deposits are, [41:47] this mine that we're talking about. [41:49] This is the deposits [41:50] that would be developed by Anaphagasta, [41:55] by the Twin Metals mine right here. [41:57] The blue area is, [42:00] the red area shows how the water flows on the map. [42:05] And it gives you an idea of why, [42:07] even though this mine is just slightly outside [42:11] of the actual boundaries of the Boundary Waters, [42:16] that for the practical purposes of the watershed [42:19] and how the water moves, [42:21] it might as well be inside the watershed [42:23] in terms of how the damage to the water would flow. [42:28] Because you can see, [42:29] it's all connected. [42:31] I mean, that's what happens with water. [42:32] It flows. [42:33] And so here you have Birch Lake. [42:37] It flows up this way. [42:38] This is the Namakan River, Namakan Lake. [42:41] Up here is Rainy Lake. [42:43] This is close to where our kids went to camp. [42:47] Kabatagama Lake is up here. [42:50] All of this area is connected. [42:52] And so when you hear colleagues, [42:55] people telling you, [42:57] you don't need to worry about this [42:58] because this mine isn't in the Boundary Waters. [43:03] That is not the point. [43:05] The point is that it is in the watershed [43:07] of the Boundary Waters, [43:08] and that is how the damage is done. [43:15] That Senator Smith's remarks appear [43:18] uninterrupted in the record. [43:20] Senator from Nebraska is recognized. [43:24] Thank you, Mr. President. [43:24] I ask that you now have to consent [43:26] that the Senator Smith's remarks [43:27] be uninterrupted in the record. [43:30] Without objection. [43:32] I ask you now have to consent [43:33] that the Committee on the Judiciary [43:34] be discharged and the Senate now proceed [43:36] to the consideration of SRES 627. [43:39] The Clerk will report. [43:43] Senate Resolution 627, [43:45] designating March 5, 2026, [43:48] as National Slam the Scam Day, [43:51] and so forth. [43:52] Without objection, [43:57] the Committee is discharged [43:58] and the Senate will proceed. [44:01] I ask that you now have to consent [44:04] that the resolution be agreed to, [44:06] the preamble be agreed to, [44:07] and that the motion to reconsider [44:09] be considered made [44:10] and laid upon the table [44:11] with no intervening action or debate. [44:14] Without objection. [44:16] I ask you now have to consent [44:17] that the Senate proceed [44:18] to the consideration of SRES 673, [44:20] which is at the desk. [44:23] The Clerk will report. [44:24] Senate Resolution 673, [44:27] supporting the goals and ideals [44:29] of National Safe Digging Month. [44:34] Without objection, [44:35] the Senate will proceed. [44:37] I ask you now have to consent [44:38] that the resolution be agreed to, [44:40] the preamble be agreed to, [44:41] and that the motions to reconsider [44:43] be considered made [44:44] and laid upon the table [44:44] with no intervening action or debate. [44:47] Without objection. [44:51] I ask you now have to consent [44:51] to the committee on small business [44:53] and the entrepreneurship [44:54] be discharged from further consideration [44:56] of HR 2066, [44:58] and the Senate proceed [44:58] to its immediate consideration. [45:00] The Clerk will report. [45:04] HR 2066, an act to amend [45:08] the Small Business Investment Act [45:09] of 1958 and so forth [45:11] and for other purposes. [45:15] Without objection, [45:16] the committee is discharged. [45:18] I ask you now have to consent [45:19] and the Senate will proceed. [45:21] I ask you now have to consent [45:22] that the bill be considered read [45:24] a third time and passed, [45:25] and that the motion to reconsider [45:27] be considered made [45:28] and laid upon the table. [45:30] Without objection. [45:33] I ask you now have to consent [45:34] that when the Senate completes [45:36] its business here today, [45:37] it stands in recess [45:38] until 10 a.m. on Thursday, [45:39] April 16th, [45:41] that following the prayer [45:42] and the pledge, [45:43] the journal of the proceedings [45:44] be approved to date, [45:46] the time for the two leaders [45:47] be reserved for their use [45:48] later in the day, [45:49] and the Senate resume consideration [45:51] of HJ Res 140, [45:53] and at 11 a.m. [45:55] all time be expired [45:56] on the joint resolution. [45:57] It be read a third time [45:59] and the Senate vote on passage [46:02] and following disposition, [46:03] the Senate proceed [46:04] to executive session [46:05] and resume consideration [46:06] of calendar number 671, [46:09] Andrew Davis, [46:10] and notwithstanding Rule 22, [46:12] the Senate vote on the motion [46:13] to invoke cloture at 1.45 p.m. [46:16] Further, if cloture is invoked, [46:17] all time be expired [46:18] and the Senate vote [46:19] on the confirmation [46:20] at a time to be determined [46:22] by the majority leader [46:23] in consultation with the Democratic leader [46:25] no earlier than Monday, [46:27] April 20th. [46:29] Without objection. [46:31] If there is no further business [46:33] to come before the Senate, [46:35] I ask that it stand in recess [46:36] under the previous order [46:37] following the remarks [46:38] of Senator Smith. [46:40] Without objection. [46:46] Mr. President. [46:48] The Senator from Minnesota. [46:50] Thank you, Mr. President. [46:52] I was showing colleagues [46:56] this map [46:57] because I wanted to make [46:58] a couple of points [46:59] about how this works, [47:02] how the water flow works. [47:04] One is that [47:05] even though the mineral deposits [47:07] and how they're going [47:08] to be developed [47:09] are just barely outside [47:10] of the Boundary Waters canoe area, [47:14] the impact of the mine [47:17] and the impact on the water [47:20] spreads not only [47:22] through the Boundary Waters, [47:23] but it also flows up [47:25] through these rivers [47:26] that essentially form the border [47:28] between Minnesota and Canada, [47:32] the United States and Canada, [47:33] and then into Voyagers National Park. [47:36] I think sometimes [47:36] we don't talk enough [47:37] about the impact on Voyagers, [47:39] which is an incredible park. [47:42] Together, Boundary Waters [47:43] and Voyagers offer people [47:46] so many different ways [47:47] of experiencing this wilderness, [47:50] and the impact on both of them [47:52] is really significant. [47:54] I think sometimes also [47:56] it's hard for folks [48:00] to fully understand [48:02] and appreciate [48:03] what is the impact [48:05] on water quality [48:06] of this kind of mine. [48:08] So I want to just share [48:10] some of that with you [48:11] as well as you think about [48:13] what is the risk [48:14] that is actually posed by this. [48:16] I'm going to get into this [48:18] a bit more in some detail, [48:20] but I think it's important [48:21] as you're considering this [48:23] to understand that [48:24] during the mineral lease [48:27] withdrawal process [48:29] that happened, you know, [48:32] in, well, really, you know, [48:34] stretched over time [48:36] between roughly 2016 and 2021 [48:41] when it was brought to conclusion, [48:43] there was a massive amount [48:44] of effort, [48:46] scientific research, [48:47] study that was done, [48:49] huge amounts of public comment [48:53] to gather information [48:54] about what people thought [48:55] about this [48:56] that became the basis [48:57] for the decision [48:59] to do this mineral withdrawal. [49:01] The mineral withdrawal process [49:02] is defined [49:03] in the Federal Land Management [49:05] Policy Act, [49:06] I believe it's the FLIPMA, [49:07] as people call it around here, [49:09] and that was followed to a T. [49:11] And it allows, [49:13] that law written, [49:15] that congressional law [49:16] allows for mineral withdrawals [49:19] when it is determined [49:20] that the potential risks [49:22] of mines [49:23] or other kind of [49:24] natural resources development [49:26] pose two greater risks [49:27] to the public resource [49:30] that belongs to it all. [49:31] So I'll talk about that [49:32] in a little bit more detail, [49:33] but I wanted to just share [49:35] with colleagues [49:35] this background [49:38] on why sulfide ore [49:40] copper mining [49:41] poses such a unique risk [49:43] to the boundary waters [49:45] of Minnesota. [49:46] So the background here [49:48] is that a Chilean mining company [49:50] operating under the name [49:51] of Twin Metals, [49:53] Senator Heinrich said [49:54] it sounds like a nice [49:55] Minnesota name, [49:55] and it is, [49:57] but it is essentially [49:58] a wholly owned subsidiary [50:00] of Antofagasta. [50:02] So this Chilean mining company [50:04] has proposed this mine, [50:06] a large copper nickel mine, [50:08] immediately upstream [50:09] of the Boundary Waters [50:10] canoe area wilderness, [50:13] and this proposed mine [50:16] would extract copper [50:18] from a geological formation [50:19] called the Duluth Complex. [50:21] The Duluth Complex, [50:23] you know, [50:23] really runs kind of this way. [50:26] It runs from northeast [50:27] to southwest across Minnesota. [50:31] This is important [50:32] because there are lots [50:32] of places [50:33] where the Duluth Complex [50:34] can be developed [50:35] in addition to [50:36] this particular place [50:38] where these leases [50:39] in question are [50:40] right on the border [50:41] of the Boundary Waters. [50:42] There's huge resources [50:43] all across the way, [50:45] and in fact, [50:45] there are other mines [50:47] under development [50:48] down in this part [50:50] of the state [50:51] that are going through [50:53] the process [50:53] of getting developed. [50:55] But anyway, [50:56] so this Duluth process, [50:57] which has a specific type [50:59] of sulfide ore [51:00] that interacts with water [51:01] in ways that can create, [51:04] that do create, [51:05] permanent contamination risks. [51:07] And so the question is, [51:09] you know, [51:09] how does this mechanism work? [51:11] What exactly happens? [51:12] And why is this [51:14] so particularly difficult [51:15] to manage in this watershed? [51:19] And part of why [51:20] water quality [51:21] is of such a big concern [51:22] in this area [51:23] is that the baseline condition [51:24] here is just so outstanding. [51:27] A 2017 report [51:30] by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency [51:32] describes the water [51:34] within the Boundary Waters watershed [51:36] as exceptionally clean [51:37] and immaculate. [51:39] That's a quote. [51:40] And concludes [51:41] that the majority [51:42] of the water bodies [51:43] within this watershed [51:44] have exceptional [51:45] biological, chemical, [51:47] and physical characteristics. [51:49] So the water [51:49] in the Boundary Waters [51:50] is so clean [51:51] that visitors frequently drink [51:53] right out of the lakes. [51:54] There's no need [51:55] for any purification. [51:57] I've done this myself. [51:58] When you're canoeing, [52:00] you, [52:00] now you're not going [52:02] to want to drink the water [52:02] right next to the shore [52:03] because that's where [52:04] the wild animals are, [52:05] but you can go out [52:06] into the middle of the lake [52:07] and dip your, you know, [52:10] your mug into the water [52:12] in the middle of the lake [52:13] and the water is incredible. [52:16] So the fundamental hazard here [52:18] is the hazard [52:19] of sulfide ore mining [52:20] is this acid mine drainage [52:22] that happens. [52:23] When sulfide-bearing rock [52:25] is excavated [52:26] and exposed to oxygen [52:27] and water, [52:28] a chemical chain reaction begins. [52:31] And what happens [52:31] is that the sulfide minerals [52:34] here primarily, [52:35] I might not say this [52:36] exactly right, [52:37] pyrotite, [52:40] which is in the Duluth Compact, [52:42] it oxidizes upon exposure [52:44] and then you have sulfuric acid. [52:47] And sulfuric surrounding rock [52:51] and leaching out heavy metals, [52:53] including copper and arsenic [52:55] and lead and cadmium [52:56] into the water. [52:58] And the resulting contaminated water, [53:00] which is the acid mine drainage, [53:02] is very acidic. [53:04] And it is also laden [53:06] with heavy metals [53:07] and that, of course, [53:08] is toxic to aquatic life. [53:10] And the mining operations [53:12] are going to dramatically increase [53:13] the surface area of this rock [53:16] as it is exposed to water and oxygen [53:18] and that accelerates the oxidation [53:20] by many orders of magnitude [53:23] compared to what you would see [53:25] with natural weathering rates. [53:27] And once this process is started, [53:30] once this acid mine drainage has started, [53:34] it is incredibly difficult to stop it. [53:36] And it can continue for centuries [53:38] or in perpetuity after the mine closes, [53:42] a problem that is sometimes called [53:43] perpetual treatment. [53:44] So, you know, [53:45] if you think about it, [53:46] this mine, [53:47] the mining company itself [53:49] says that they think [53:51] that the mine would probably [53:52] be in operation for, [53:54] I think, 10, 15 years, [53:56] you know, in that area. [53:58] Yet you're going to have centuries [54:00] of impact [54:01] from this so-called [54:03] perpetual treatment issue. [54:06] Secondary chemical hazard, [54:08] when you are doing sulfide ore mining [54:10] in this particularly damp environment [54:13] of the Boundary Waters watershed, [54:16] was that it would also substantially [54:17] increase sulfite loading in the water. [54:20] So elevated sulfate [54:22] triggers a separate [54:24] but related chemical reaction [54:26] with serious consequences [54:27] for human health. [54:29] Sulfite reducing bacteria [54:31] and sediment [54:32] can convert sulfate to sulfide [54:35] under low oxygen conditions [54:37] and then the sulfide [54:38] can react with inorganic mercury, [54:40] which is naturally present [54:41] in the environment [54:42] to produce methylmercury. [54:45] And methylmercury bioaccumulates [54:47] in the food chain, [54:49] concentrating in fish [54:50] at levels that can be dangerous [54:52] for human consumption. [54:54] Sulfate discharges [54:55] from existing disturbed areas [54:57] of sulfide ore [54:58] in the watershed [54:59] have already elevated sulfate levels [55:03] in the BWCA headwaters. [55:05] An analysis of monitoring data [55:07] indicates that there's [55:08] a measurable water quality degradation [55:10] that is already occurring. [55:12] So this is important [55:13] because the Boundary Waters fisheries, [55:15] particularly walleye, [55:17] the most beloved fish in Minnesota, [55:20] are central to the recreational [55:22] and economic value of this place. [55:25] And, of course, [55:26] mercury contamination [55:27] resulting in consumption advisories [55:31] would have a significant impact [55:33] for the sport fishing industry, [55:36] certainly for tribal subsistence rights, [55:39] and overall for the negative impacts [55:42] on the regional tourism economy. [55:46] So I think as you think about this, [55:49] I mean, you've got to sometimes think, [55:51] wow, like that sounds bad, [55:53] but like is that really going to happen? [55:55] Do we really have to worry about that? [55:57] Won't there be a way of avoiding this? [55:59] And I just want to point out [56:00] that we can see, [56:03] we can look at the precedence [56:04] of what has happened [56:05] in other places around the country [56:06] to help answer that question. [56:08] The chemical risks [56:10] that I've just described [56:11] are not theoretical. [56:13] In fact, there are two sites [56:14] in the United States [56:15] where this AMD [56:18] from sulfide ore mining [56:20] has caused serious [56:22] and long-lasting harm. [56:24] This is the, let's see, [56:26] this is the acid mine drainage, AMD. [56:29] So the first site [56:31] is the Gold King Mine in Colorado. [56:33] This is from 2015. [56:36] In August of 2015, [56:38] an EPA contractor crew [56:40] working at the abandoned Gold King Mine [56:42] near Silverton, Colorado, [56:44] accidentally breached a plug, [56:47] releasing approximately [56:48] 3 million gallons [56:49] of acid mine drainage [56:52] into Cement Creek, [56:53] which is a tributary [56:55] of the Animas River. [56:56] So this plume, [56:58] which was literally visible orange [57:00] from dissolved iron [57:02] and heavy metals, [57:03] it traveled more than 100 miles [57:06] downstream through Colorado [57:08] and New Mexico. [57:09] It crossed into the Navajo Nation. [57:11] The Navajo Nation relies [57:13] on the San Juan River [57:14] for irrigation [57:15] and for drinking water. [57:17] And three states [57:19] had to declare emergencies. [57:21] The Navajo Nation [57:23] had to shut down [57:24] all water withdrawals [57:26] from the river. [57:27] Farmers lost crops [57:28] and were forced [57:29] to sell their livestock. [57:30] And some metals [57:31] were measured [57:32] at hundreds of times [57:34] the legal limits [57:34] for drinking water. [57:36] Now, a treatment plan [57:38] costing 1.5 million [57:40] to build, [57:41] a treatment plant, [57:42] pardon me, [57:43] costing 1.5 million [57:44] to build [57:45] and 2.4 million dollars [57:47] per year to operate [57:48] was still running [57:49] as of 2024, [57:50] nine years after the spill. [57:53] This treatment plant [57:56] is treating [57:56] an estimated 300 gallons [57:59] of contaminated water [58:00] per minute, [58:02] draining continuously [58:03] from the mine. [58:05] Local communities [58:06] have declined [58:07] Superfund designation [58:08] for years [58:09] out of concern [58:10] for tourism, [58:11] but the spill [58:12] forced their hand [58:13] and victims [58:14] have filed [58:14] hundreds of millions [58:15] of dollars in claims. [58:16] None has been paid [58:17] because the EPA [58:19] evoked sovereign immunity. [58:21] So this was a breach [58:23] in this gold metal mine [58:27] in Silverton [58:27] talking about [58:28] a plume [58:29] of this polluted acid drainage [58:32] that is traveling [58:33] more than 100 miles. [58:35] And, you know, [58:36] I know my Minnesota [58:37] pretty well, [58:38] but I would say that, [58:40] I mean, [58:40] certainly from Birch Lake [58:41] to Voyages National Park [58:43] is less than 100 miles. [58:45] So it gives you an idea [58:46] of how far [58:47] this polluted water [58:49] can spread [58:50] in these kinds [58:53] of dangerous environments. [58:56] I want to tell colleagues [58:58] about another example [59:00] of this kind of failure, [59:03] and that is [59:04] the Summitville mine [59:05] in Colorado. [59:06] At the Summitville gold mine [59:08] in southern Colorado, [59:09] acid and metal-laden runoff [59:11] killed all biological life [59:13] in a 17-mile stretch [59:15] of the Alamosa River. [59:17] The operator declared [59:18] bankruptcy in 1992 [59:19] and abandoned the site [59:21] mid-operation, [59:23] leaving EPA [59:24] to manage [59:24] the ongoing emergency. [59:26] And the site [59:26] was designated [59:27] a federal superfund site, [59:28] and federal cleanup costs [59:30] have exceeded [59:31] $210 million. [59:33] The Alamosa River [59:35] has never fully recovered. [59:37] I think it's important [59:38] that we think [59:39] about these things [59:40] as we consider [59:41] the risks [59:42] of this kind of mine. [59:43] And again, [59:44] I want to remind colleagues [59:46] that that's one [59:47] of the reasons [59:47] why this mineral withdrawal [59:49] was done, [59:50] because the Forest Service [59:52] considered these risks. [59:53] They did an environmental [59:55] assessment, [59:56] and they concluded [59:57] that this risk [59:58] was not, [1:00:00] was too great [1:00:01] to bear. [1:00:04] When we weigh [1:00:06] these substantial risks [1:00:08] of mining [1:00:08] near the boundary waters, [1:00:09] it's important for us [1:00:10] to ask, [1:00:11] like, what is the benefit? [1:00:14] What might we see here? [1:00:15] Where might we benefit? [1:00:17] And this is, I think, [1:00:18] really important [1:00:19] to understand, [1:00:20] because where would [1:00:21] these minerals go? [1:00:22] There has been [1:00:22] an argument made [1:00:23] that this is [1:00:24] an America first [1:00:26] national security priority [1:00:27] to develop these minerals. [1:00:29] But the question is, [1:00:30] who would own [1:00:31] the minerals [1:00:31] that are brought up [1:00:33] from this piece of land [1:00:35] right here [1:00:36] near Birch Lake [1:00:37] in northern Minnesota? [1:00:38] And the answer [1:00:40] to that question [1:00:41] is, these minerals [1:00:42] are going to go to China. [1:00:44] Anapagasta, [1:00:45] the Chilean company [1:00:46] that is wanting [1:00:47] to develop these leases, [1:00:49] operates a number [1:00:50] of copper mines [1:00:51] in South America, [1:00:52] and it sends [1:00:52] the majority [1:00:53] of the ore [1:00:54] that it pulls [1:00:55] out of the ground [1:00:56] to Chinese state-owned [1:00:58] refineries [1:00:58] for processing. [1:01:00] This year, [1:01:01] in fact, [1:01:01] these Chinese refineries [1:01:03] have agreed [1:01:03] to an unprecedented [1:01:04] zero-dollar contract [1:01:06] for processing [1:01:08] anapagasta ore. [1:01:10] So if you think [1:01:11] about it, [1:01:11] what this means [1:01:12] is that China [1:01:12] is in such great need [1:01:14] of copper ore [1:01:15] to develop their energy [1:01:17] and their AI infrastructure [1:01:19] and all of the reasons [1:01:20] that they need copper ore [1:01:21] that they have agreed [1:01:21] to directly subsidize [1:01:23] anapagasta's copper production [1:01:26] by providing free processing [1:01:28] of its ore. [1:01:29] So what this means, [1:01:31] of course, [1:01:32] is the copper nickel [1:01:35] that is pulled out [1:01:36] of these deposits [1:01:37] is going to probably [1:01:38] travel by train [1:01:39] to the Pacific coast [1:01:42] where it's then [1:01:43] going to be transported [1:01:44] to China [1:01:46] where it will be smelted [1:01:48] in China [1:01:49] and it will be used... [1:01:52] It's not... [1:01:53] Those minerals [1:01:53] aren't going to then [1:01:54] be sent back to us free. [1:01:56] They're going to be... [1:01:56] It may be at best [1:01:57] sold back to us [1:01:58] in iPhones [1:01:59] or other kinds of, [1:02:01] you know, [1:02:01] consumer products, [1:02:02] but they're not ours [1:02:04] to develop. [1:02:05] We're going to have [1:02:05] to buy them back. [1:02:07] So I question, colleagues, [1:02:09] what is the advantage here? [1:02:11] Where is the national [1:02:12] security advantage? [1:02:13] Where is the America [1:02:14] first advantage [1:02:16] that we're looking for [1:02:18] when, with a critical [1:02:19] minerals trade war [1:02:21] already underway, [1:02:23] shipping American minerals [1:02:24] to China [1:02:25] seems to run counter [1:02:26] to so much of the work [1:02:27] that Congress [1:02:28] is trying to do [1:02:29] to onshore critical minerals [1:02:31] and critical mineral [1:02:32] supply chains? [1:02:34] So I think that [1:02:35] this shows... [1:02:36] As I've been looking [1:02:38] at this, [1:02:39] I think it shows us [1:02:41] that the proposed risks [1:02:42] of this mine [1:02:43] are substantial. [1:02:45] They arise [1:02:45] from the chemistry [1:02:47] of the ore itself [1:02:48] and specifically [1:02:50] the chemistry [1:02:51] in this very [1:02:52] particular climate [1:02:54] and here, [1:02:56] the particular rock [1:02:57] and the particular climate [1:02:58] in Minnesota, [1:02:58] you've got [1:02:59] the inevitability [1:03:01] of AMD, [1:03:02] this acid mine drain-off [1:03:05] from this sulfide-rich rock. [1:03:07] You have the absence [1:03:07] of any natural acid-buffering [1:03:10] capacity in the watershed [1:03:11] and then you have [1:03:13] this sort of sulfate-driven [1:03:15] methylmercury pathway [1:03:17] that's developed. [1:03:18] These chemical realities [1:03:20] combined with the connectivity [1:03:22] of this water [1:03:23] across so many miles [1:03:25] between the mine site [1:03:27] and the mine site here, [1:03:30] the BWCA immediately adjacent to it [1:03:32] and then all of this watershed [1:03:34] means that the consequences [1:03:36] of contamination [1:03:38] would be really severe, [1:03:40] they would be long-lasting [1:03:41] and they would be [1:03:42] effectively irreversible. [1:03:45] And as we consider the risks [1:03:46] that come from this mine proposal, [1:03:48] I think we really have [1:03:49] to ask ourselves [1:03:50] if it is worth endangering [1:03:52] one of our most beloved [1:03:53] wilderness areas [1:03:55] so that American minerals [1:03:56] can be processed [1:03:57] and used in China. [1:03:59] Colleagues, [1:04:08] I want to turn to an issue [1:04:11] that is a little bit geeky [1:04:13] and nerdy. [1:04:15] If you're in Congress, [1:04:18] though, [1:04:18] you appreciate the value of it [1:04:20] and this has to do [1:04:22] with sort of [1:04:22] what is the process [1:04:23] that we're using [1:04:24] right here, [1:04:26] right now [1:04:26] to pass this CRA. [1:04:31] And let me just [1:04:32] kind of talk about that [1:04:34] a little bit [1:04:34] because I think it's important [1:04:35] for us to understand [1:04:36] the precedent [1:04:37] that we will be setting [1:04:38] if we pass this resolution. [1:04:41] So we have before us [1:04:44] House Joint Resolution 140 [1:04:47] which would essentially [1:04:51] apply the Congressional [1:04:55] Review Authority process [1:04:57] with all of the privileges [1:04:58] of that process [1:05:00] to something that is not a rule, [1:05:06] which is what the Congressional [1:05:07] Review Authority is all about, [1:05:09] but is a public land order. [1:05:11] And this is important [1:05:12] to understand. [1:05:14] The mineral withdrawal [1:05:19] that was done here [1:05:20] was done under the authorities [1:05:22] of the Federal Land Policy [1:05:24] and Management Act, [1:05:26] which is, [1:05:26] and in that Federal Land Policy [1:05:28] and Management Act, [1:05:29] there are processes [1:05:30] that Congress defined [1:05:32] for, [1:05:34] if they don't like [1:05:35] what happened, [1:05:38] if they don't like [1:05:39] what the executive branch did, [1:05:41] there's processes [1:05:42] for congressional disapproval [1:05:44] of a public land order. [1:05:46] And so under this [1:05:48] Federal Land Policy [1:05:50] and Management Act, [1:05:51] I'm going to call it FLIPMA [1:05:52] because that's what everyone [1:05:53] calls it around here, [1:05:54] there's an existing process [1:05:56] for Congress [1:05:56] to express its disapproval [1:05:58] with a public land order [1:06:00] like the 2023 mineral withdrawal, [1:06:03] which is under consideration [1:06:04] here on the Senate floor tonight. [1:06:08] And in that process [1:06:10] that's described, [1:06:11] Congress is given 90 days [1:06:13] to adopt a concurrent resolution [1:06:16] of disapproval. [1:06:17] So what's interesting [1:06:19] is that following [1:06:20] the 2023 mineral withdrawal, [1:06:23] which was done, [1:06:24] you know, [1:06:25] completed in 2023, [1:06:27] a resolution of disapproval [1:06:29] on that mineral withdrawal [1:06:31] was actually introduced. [1:06:33] It was introduced [1:06:34] on the House floor [1:06:36] and it passed [1:06:37] out of the House [1:06:38] Natural Resources Committee, [1:06:39] all done sort of [1:06:40] under the rules [1:06:41] of sort of what FLIPMA establishes. [1:06:45] But it was never brought [1:06:46] to the House floors, [1:06:48] never brought [1:06:49] to the Senate floor. [1:06:50] And in fact, [1:06:51] Congress never acted on it. [1:06:53] And what happened, [1:06:54] of course, [1:06:54] is that, you know, [1:06:55] under FLIPMA, [1:06:56] you have 90 days [1:06:57] to review [1:06:59] or disapprove [1:07:00] of an action. [1:07:01] And that 90-day window [1:07:02] opened and closed [1:07:04] closed and it passed. [1:07:08] But so now, [1:07:09] what's happening? [1:07:10] You might be asking, [1:07:10] well, so like, [1:07:11] why are we dealing [1:07:11] with this now? [1:07:12] This was in 2023. [1:07:16] It actually came up [1:07:17] on the House floor [1:07:18] and nothing ever came of it. [1:07:20] Why are we dealing [1:07:21] with this now? [1:07:22] Well, so the reason [1:07:23] for that is that [1:07:25] Republicans in the House [1:07:27] are trying to use [1:07:29] the Congressional Review Authority [1:07:30] basically to get a do-over. [1:07:34] They're ignoring the fact [1:07:35] that the Congressional CRA [1:07:37] wasn't created [1:07:38] to overturn [1:07:39] a public land order, [1:07:42] especially one [1:07:43] that was three years old. [1:07:45] The CRA was designed [1:07:48] by Congress to say, [1:07:49] if the federal government [1:07:50] passes a rule [1:07:50] that we don't like, [1:07:52] within 60 days, [1:07:54] we have the right to say, [1:07:55] nope, that's not [1:07:56] what we meant. [1:07:57] We want to drop back again. [1:08:00] But of course, [1:08:01] that's not what's going on. [1:08:02] We're talking about [1:08:03] not 60 days, [1:08:05] not 90 days. [1:08:06] We're talking about [1:08:07] three years. [1:08:09] We're not talking about [1:08:10] a federal regulation. [1:08:14] We're talking about [1:08:15] a public land order [1:08:16] that has been standing [1:08:18] for three years. [1:08:20] And I just think [1:08:21] we have to think about [1:08:23] what are the impacts [1:08:25] of this precedent [1:08:27] if this is the step [1:08:29] that the Senate [1:08:31] decides to take. [1:08:32] because if we're allowing [1:08:34] these public land orders [1:08:35] to be rescinded [1:08:37] under the Congressional [1:08:38] Review Act, [1:08:39] I mean, [1:08:39] this is a really [1:08:40] dangerous precedent. [1:08:42] Public land orders [1:08:43] have never previously [1:08:45] been submitted [1:08:46] by any administration, [1:08:48] including the first [1:08:49] Trump administration. [1:08:50] They've never previously [1:08:52] been submitted [1:08:54] as rules subject [1:08:55] to the Congressional [1:08:57] Review Authority. [1:08:57] This is the first one [1:08:59] submitted three years [1:09:02] after the public land order [1:09:03] was issued [1:09:04] by the Department [1:09:04] of the Interior. [1:09:05] And in fact, [1:09:07] as I've just said, [1:09:08] Congress set up [1:09:09] a completely different [1:09:10] set of procedures [1:09:11] specifically to [1:09:12] reconsider public land orders [1:09:14] under the Federal Land [1:09:15] Policy and Management Act. [1:09:17] So what we're seeing here [1:09:20] is using the CRA [1:09:21] to undo this [1:09:23] public land order [1:09:24] would establish [1:09:25] an entirely new precedent. [1:09:27] and it would allow [1:09:28] future Congresses [1:09:30] to undo [1:09:30] public land orders [1:09:33] with no time limit [1:09:34] on any public land order. [1:09:37] And potentially, [1:09:39] based on this precedent, [1:09:40] it could allow [1:09:41] future Congresses [1:09:42] with a simple partisan [1:09:43] majority vote [1:09:45] to undo [1:09:46] any administrative action. [1:09:48] So what would that [1:09:49] look like? [1:09:50] What would that mean? [1:09:51] Because I think [1:09:52] as we're making [1:09:53] this decision, [1:09:54] college, [1:09:54] you always have to think [1:09:55] about sometimes [1:09:55] you're in power, [1:09:56] sometimes you're out [1:09:57] of power, [1:09:58] but you have to think [1:09:59] about what are the [1:10:00] long-term implications [1:10:01] of your decisions. [1:10:02] So if this precedent [1:10:04] is set, [1:10:05] if we say, [1:10:06] yep, CRA can be used [1:10:08] to undo a public land order [1:10:09] like we have here [1:10:10] in the Boundary Waters, [1:10:12] well, then I would think [1:10:13] that some future [1:10:15] Democratic Congress [1:10:17] might think, [1:10:19] let's use the CRA [1:10:20] to undo a fossil fuel lease [1:10:22] or a mining lease [1:10:24] or a timber lease [1:10:26] that we don't think [1:10:27] makes sense [1:10:28] in South Dakota. [1:10:30] Maybe we could use, [1:10:31] there's no, [1:10:32] this precedent would suggest [1:10:33] that you could use [1:10:34] the CRA [1:10:34] to undo a permit [1:10:37] or undo a permit denial. [1:10:39] In fact, [1:10:40] it seems so broad, [1:10:41] this precedent, [1:10:43] that it could probably undo, [1:10:44] you know, [1:10:45] any determination [1:10:46] on an administrative law matter. [1:10:49] So that seems to me [1:10:50] to be really risky [1:10:51] because one of the things [1:10:54] that matters [1:10:55] in this country [1:10:56] is you might not always [1:10:57] agree with what happens, [1:10:58] but there has to be [1:10:59] some continuity, [1:11:00] some consistency. [1:11:01] If we're constantly [1:11:02] doing something [1:11:03] and then undoing it [1:11:04] and then doing it again, [1:11:06] I mean, [1:11:06] like, [1:11:07] I can tell you [1:11:07] from my business background [1:11:08] that that's a disaster [1:11:11] because how do you decide [1:11:12] to make investment decisions [1:11:14] if you think that [1:11:15] willy-nilly, [1:11:16] depending on who's in power [1:11:18] and what the environment is, [1:11:22] what the political environment is, [1:11:24] and an investment [1:11:25] that you made [1:11:26] in one area [1:11:28] under one administration [1:11:29] is going to be undone [1:11:31] by another administration [1:11:34] at another time [1:11:35] because that's exactly [1:11:36] what's happening here. [1:11:38] One administration, [1:11:41] one party [1:11:42] is undoing [1:11:43] what was done [1:11:44] perfectly legally [1:11:45] three years ago. [1:11:46] Now, it makes sense to me, [1:11:47] right, [1:11:47] that if something [1:11:49] is done [1:11:50] that Congress [1:11:51] just disagrees with, [1:11:53] that you would have [1:11:54] a window of time [1:11:55] to undo it. [1:11:57] Like, I think, [1:11:57] you know, [1:11:58] 60 days, [1:11:59] 90 days, [1:11:59] as we have [1:12:00] with the CRA [1:12:01] and with the Federal Land [1:12:03] Management Practices Act, [1:12:04] that makes sense. [1:12:05] Congress says, [1:12:06] no, that's not what we want, [1:12:07] that's not what we intended, [1:12:08] that was not our legislative intent [1:12:10] when we wrote this. [1:12:12] Let's, [1:12:13] we're going to undo it, [1:12:14] and that makes sense to me. [1:12:17] If an administration [1:12:19] does a mineral withdrawal [1:12:21] like we did here, [1:12:23] like the Biden administration [1:12:25] did here, [1:12:26] and Congress says, [1:12:27] that was a mistake, [1:12:28] that doesn't comply [1:12:29] with the laws [1:12:30] as we wrote them, [1:12:31] we're going to change it, [1:12:32] then, like, [1:12:32] by all means, [1:12:33] go ahead and try to change it, [1:12:35] but not three years later [1:12:37] and not in this way, [1:12:38] not using a tool [1:12:40] that was not, [1:12:42] the CRA tool [1:12:43] was not built for this. [1:12:45] it was built [1:12:46] to change a regulation [1:12:48] that Congress disagreed with. [1:12:51] I think that it is [1:12:52] a very dangerous, [1:12:54] very, very dangerous precedent, [1:12:56] and I think it's [1:12:57] the kind of precedent [1:12:57] that, honestly, [1:13:00] you know, [1:13:00] when the shoe is [1:13:00] on the other foot, [1:13:02] it creates problems, [1:13:05] and I know, [1:13:06] Mr. President, [1:13:07] that I've spoken [1:13:08] with my colleagues [1:13:10] on both sides of the aisle, [1:13:11] Republicans and Democrats, [1:13:12] who are concerned [1:13:13] about this precedent [1:13:14] and wonder [1:13:15] what it might mean, [1:13:17] and, you know, [1:13:20] you and I both [1:13:21] have experience [1:13:22] in the private sector, [1:13:25] and I think we could relate [1:13:26] to the idea [1:13:27] that capital likes certainty, [1:13:31] capital likes to minimize risk [1:13:33] by knowing [1:13:34] what is going to, [1:13:35] you know, [1:13:35] what they can count on, [1:13:37] and that is, [1:13:39] I think, [1:13:39] one of the gravest dangers [1:13:42] of this action [1:13:44] that the Senate [1:13:45] seems poised to take. [1:13:48] In a world where the, [1:13:50] you know, [1:13:50] the Senate is always [1:13:51] going to be a place [1:13:52] where people disagree [1:13:52] with one another, [1:13:53] where we are not always [1:13:55] going to see things [1:13:57] the same way, [1:13:58] where a project [1:13:59] that I might think [1:14:00] shouldn't be permitted, [1:14:02] somebody else might think [1:14:03] is reasonable [1:14:03] to, you know, [1:14:04] to be permitted, [1:14:05] those disagreements [1:14:07] will always be there, [1:14:09] but if we get [1:14:12] into a situation [1:14:13] where different parties, [1:14:15] depending on whether [1:14:16] they're in power or not, [1:14:17] are just sort of [1:14:18] kind of randomly undoing [1:14:21] what has been in place [1:14:23] for several years, [1:14:24] I think it is, [1:14:26] I just think it furthers, [1:14:29] undermines the need for, [1:14:31] it adds to chaos, [1:14:32] it undermines certainty, [1:14:34] and it certainly [1:14:34] doesn't contribute [1:14:35] to the kind of [1:14:36] the problem-solving mentality [1:14:39] that I think [1:14:40] that we need around here. [1:14:41] And of course, [1:14:44] for my precious [1:14:45] boundary waters, [1:14:46] it has potentially, [1:14:47] you know, [1:14:49] really significant impacts, [1:14:51] as I've described here [1:14:53] with the likely impact [1:14:57] of water pollution [1:14:58] on this precious place. [1:15:01] And it also just leads [1:15:02] to more lawsuits [1:15:03] and more sort of legal wrangling [1:15:08] that in my mind, [1:15:10] I wish we could just avoid. [1:15:16] You know, [1:15:16] in my life [1:15:20] as a political leader, [1:15:24] I've always found [1:15:26] that the best ideas [1:15:27] usually come from [1:15:29] the people that are [1:15:30] closest to the ground [1:15:31] and closest to the work [1:15:32] and do, you know, [1:15:34] understand best [1:15:34] what's going on. [1:15:36] And so I'm going to just [1:15:37] take a few more minutes [1:15:40] to read about, [1:15:42] read some of the comments [1:15:43] that have come my way [1:15:45] from people [1:15:46] who have first-hand experience [1:15:47] with the boundary waters [1:15:49] and know what [1:15:53] an incredible place it is. [1:15:56] This is a note [1:15:57] from a constituent of mine [1:15:59] from Edina, Minnesota, [1:16:00] which is, again, [1:16:01] in the Twin Cities metro area. [1:16:04] And this person writes, [1:16:07] they write, [1:16:07] I know all the facts [1:16:10] and arguments below [1:16:11] are important, [1:16:12] but for someone [1:16:13] who went on [1:16:13] Boundary Waters trips [1:16:14] growing up [1:16:15] to bring my own girls [1:16:16] starting at ages 5 and 8, [1:16:18] it is truly a place [1:16:20] like no other. [1:16:21] It is my dad's happy place. [1:16:24] He has led [1:16:24] and gone on [1:16:25] hundreds of BWCA trips [1:16:27] over his lifetime, [1:16:29] and at the young age of 72, [1:16:31] he continues to go. [1:16:32] This is what I was talking [1:16:34] about earlier, [1:16:34] about how even though [1:16:35] this is a very wild place, [1:16:37] it is also so accessible [1:16:39] to people. [1:16:42] This person goes on to write, [1:16:44] he told myself [1:16:46] and my husband [1:16:47] when we were packing up [1:16:48] for our first trip ever [1:16:49] with the girls [1:16:50] that from the moment [1:16:51] that they were born, [1:16:52] he has dreamt of this moment. [1:16:54] The girls love it there. [1:16:56] We've gone every year since. [1:16:58] They adore being [1:16:59] in the wilderness, [1:17:00] seeing nature [1:17:01] and disconnecting [1:17:01] from a world [1:17:02] that can be so overwhelming. [1:17:05] They look forward [1:17:05] to it every year. [1:17:07] As a mom, [1:17:08] I am truly proud [1:17:09] that my two girls [1:17:10] are getting these opportunities. [1:17:12] They are learning [1:17:12] valuable life skills [1:17:14] while being up there, [1:17:15] and it doesn't hurt [1:17:16] that we all get to disconnect [1:17:17] from technology [1:17:18] for a few days. [1:17:20] I beg you [1:17:21] to work as hard [1:17:22] as you can [1:17:23] to save this special place [1:17:25] so that my daughter's kids [1:17:27] will be able [1:17:27] to enjoy it all [1:17:28] in its splendor [1:17:30] for years to come. [1:17:31] This is a message [1:17:36] that came to me [1:17:37] from Waconia, Minnesota, [1:17:39] and this is what [1:17:41] this person writes. [1:17:43] I first visited the BWCA [1:17:45] on a church retreat [1:17:47] in 2001, [1:17:49] and it's been [1:17:50] a magical place [1:17:51] for me since then. [1:17:53] As someone [1:17:53] with a wildlife biology degree [1:17:55] who also happens [1:17:56] to have conservative [1:17:58] political beliefs, [1:17:59] I believe [1:18:00] that protecting [1:18:01] our country's [1:18:02] pristine wilderness [1:18:03] should take precedence [1:18:04] over any financial partnerships [1:18:05] with other countries. [1:18:07] While it may momentarily [1:18:09] create jobs [1:18:10] for people in the Iron Range, [1:18:12] those benefiting [1:18:13] the most [1:18:13] will be in Chile [1:18:14] and China. [1:18:16] Let's protect [1:18:17] one of our country's [1:18:18] last natural treasures [1:18:20] so it will be around [1:18:21] for generations to come. [1:18:23] I have a close group [1:18:24] of nine girlfriends [1:18:26] from high school, [1:18:27] and we've been making [1:18:28] an annual trip [1:18:29] to the BWCA [1:18:30] just outside Ely. [1:18:32] Oopsie, well, this is it. [1:18:33] This is what it looks like. [1:18:34] Just outside of Ely. [1:18:35] For 23 years now, [1:18:39] I am now [1:18:40] a 41-year-old mother, [1:18:41] and it is still [1:18:42] my favorite weekend [1:18:43] of the year. [1:18:44] Please vote no [1:18:45] to protect the environment, [1:18:47] the animals, [1:18:48] and my own personal sanity. [1:18:50] I need the BWCA [1:18:51] to remain protected. [1:18:53] Remember, [1:18:54] take nothing but pictures, [1:18:55] leave nothing but footprints, [1:18:57] kill nothing but time. [1:19:00] I love that. [1:19:01] This is making me think [1:19:04] that there's been [1:19:05] some things written, [1:19:09] some things said [1:19:10] about what is it [1:19:12] that Minnesota wants [1:19:14] when it comes [1:19:14] to this mine [1:19:18] and this place [1:19:19] and protecting this place. [1:19:21] my stories that I'm reading [1:19:24] give wonderful anecdotes [1:19:27] about what people think about it, [1:19:30] but I think I'm just going [1:19:31] to bring some polling [1:19:32] into this here [1:19:33] because this is polling [1:19:35] that shows what Minnesotans [1:19:36] think about this broadly [1:19:38] across different parties. [1:19:40] And I think it's important [1:19:41] to know that this was research [1:19:42] that was done [1:19:42] just in December of 2025. [1:19:45] It is quite recent. [1:19:46] This research shows us [1:19:49] that Minnesotans [1:19:51] are deeply connected [1:19:53] to the Boundary Waters [1:19:54] canoe area wilderness [1:19:55] and intensely support [1:19:57] its protection. [1:19:58] Multiple polls [1:19:59] over the last 10 years [1:20:01] have consistently shown [1:20:02] this deep connection [1:20:04] amongst voters [1:20:05] across all political alignments. [1:20:08] And so this connection [1:20:09] drives opposition [1:20:10] to sulfide ore, [1:20:12] copper mining [1:20:12] within the Boundary Waters watershed [1:20:14] by double-digit margins. [1:20:16] Minnesota voters [1:20:17] are generally pro-mining [1:20:19] as I talked about earlier. [1:20:22] They're pro-mining [1:20:22] for iron ore, [1:20:23] for taconite, [1:20:24] and for copper nickel [1:20:25] with one important exception. [1:20:27] They overwhelmingly oppose [1:20:29] sulfide ore copper mines [1:20:31] that would be located [1:20:32] in the watershed [1:20:33] of the Boundary Waters. [1:20:35] So this is, [1:20:36] I'm going to give you [1:20:37] some of the data [1:20:38] in a minute, [1:20:38] but I think this is something [1:20:40] I was saying earlier [1:20:41] and I want to return to. [1:20:42] Minnesota is a pro-mining state. [1:20:44] We are so proud [1:20:45] of our mining heritage [1:20:46] and we're very, very proud [1:20:48] of the continuing contributions [1:20:51] that we make [1:20:52] to the nation's economy [1:20:54] through iron ore. [1:20:56] We are the number one producer [1:20:58] of iron ore [1:20:59] in the whole country. [1:21:02] It is a crucial part [1:21:05] of our economic foundation. [1:21:08] And we're excited [1:21:12] about the opportunity [1:21:13] to develop new precious metals [1:21:14] mining in Minnesota [1:21:16] as these new deposits [1:21:19] in the Duluth complex [1:21:21] are being explored. [1:21:23] But this is, [1:21:23] but Minnesotans' view [1:21:24] is not this mine [1:21:27] in this place. [1:21:28] That is the issue here [1:21:29] because they understand [1:21:31] how popular, [1:21:32] how they understand [1:21:33] how precious this place is. [1:21:35] So here's some of the data [1:21:37] that I think is interesting. [1:21:39] So the Boundary Waters [1:21:40] is uniquely popular [1:21:41] and voters across [1:21:42] all political parties, [1:21:44] all political parties, [1:21:45] say protecting it [1:21:47] is an important priority. [1:21:49] 60% of Minnesotans [1:21:51] say that they have been [1:21:52] to the Boundary Waters. [1:21:53] That's kind of incredible. [1:21:55] The Boundary Waters [1:21:56] is viewed favorably [1:21:57] by nearly all Minnesotans [1:21:59] across the state. [1:22:00] 86% of Minnesotans [1:22:02] have a favorable view [1:22:04] and 67% of Minnesotans [1:22:06] have a very favorable view [1:22:08] of the Boundary Waters. [1:22:10] Now, I don't know [1:22:11] what your state is like, [1:22:12] Mr. President, [1:22:14] but to find something [1:22:16] that 60% of people [1:22:19] say they have done [1:22:20] and what is it? [1:22:23] What was it here? [1:22:25] 86% of people [1:22:26] have a favorable view of. [1:22:28] That's a pretty big deal [1:22:29] in our state, [1:22:29] that everybody agrees on this. [1:22:33] And I think that it's important [1:22:35] to understand, [1:22:36] like, kind of break that down [1:22:37] a little bit [1:22:38] because you might be thinking, [1:22:39] is this something [1:22:41] that is driven [1:22:42] by party politics? [1:22:43] And I can tell you [1:22:45] as a senator from Minnesota [1:22:46] that there is nothing political [1:22:48] about people's love [1:22:49] of the Boundary Waters. [1:22:50] It is not a Democratic love [1:22:52] or a Republican love [1:22:54] or an independent love. [1:22:55] And you can see that [1:22:56] in this data. [1:22:59] When you ask Minnesotans [1:23:01] how much of a priority [1:23:02] do you think it should be [1:23:04] for Minnesota elected officials [1:23:05] to protect the Boundary Waters [1:23:07] from mining pollution, [1:23:08] overall, 68% say [1:23:12] it's a priority. [1:23:15] 87% of Democrats say this. [1:23:19] 66% of independents say this. [1:23:23] And 50% of Republicans [1:23:25] say this. [1:23:28] So it is not, again, [1:23:30] it is not a partisan issue. [1:23:33] By more than a two-to-one margin, [1:23:35] Minnesota voters oppose [1:23:36] sulfide or copper mining [1:23:38] in the Boundary Waters [1:23:39] watershed. [1:23:40] And opposition is consistent. [1:23:43] It has been consistent [1:23:44] over quite a few years [1:23:46] because this issue [1:23:46] has been very much [1:23:47] on Minnesotans' minds [1:23:49] for quite a few years. [1:23:51] This has been, like, [1:23:52] in the works [1:23:53] for nearly 10 years. [1:23:55] And so I think [1:23:56] it's important [1:23:57] to understand [1:23:58] that this is consistent. [1:23:59] And it's also interesting, [1:24:01] support for sulfide ore, [1:24:02] copper mining, [1:24:03] and the Boundary Waters [1:24:04] watershed [1:24:05] has actually dropped [1:24:06] eight years [1:24:07] over the last three years. [1:24:09] So, you know, [1:24:11] strong support [1:24:12] for the Boundary Waters, [1:24:13] strong opposition [1:24:14] to developing mine [1:24:16] right in the watershed [1:24:18] of the Boundary Waters [1:24:19] and actually [1:24:20] a growing concern [1:24:21] for what this might mean. [1:24:24] It says, [1:24:25] I'll just read this, [1:24:27] it says, [1:24:28] this is consistent [1:24:29] with the view [1:24:30] that Minnesotans [1:24:31] generally support mining [1:24:32] outside the Boundary Waters [1:24:34] watershed [1:24:34] by a 14% margin. [1:24:37] 40% favor, [1:24:39] only 26% oppose. [1:24:40] And they strongly oppose [1:24:42] sulfide ore, [1:24:43] copper mining [1:24:43] within the Boundary Waters [1:24:44] watershed. [1:24:45] So this, I think, [1:24:46] I love this [1:24:47] because it sort of shows [1:24:48] that Minnesotans, [1:24:50] I guess no surprise, [1:24:51] as a Minnesota senator, [1:24:52] I should be reflecting [1:24:53] the views of my constituents. [1:24:56] And I think [1:24:56] that that's the case here, [1:24:58] being pro-mining, [1:25:00] wanting to see [1:25:01] that opportunity, [1:25:02] wanting to see [1:25:02] that develop, [1:25:03] but not this mine [1:25:04] in this place. [1:25:06] If you look [1:25:11] at the biggest differences [1:25:14] in opposition [1:25:16] between mining [1:25:18] in Minnesota [1:25:19] versus mining [1:25:20] in the Boundary Waters watershed, [1:25:21] it's really quite interesting. [1:25:23] There's a, [1:25:23] the difference [1:25:24] amongst independents [1:25:26] is plus 62. [1:25:28] That's a very big number [1:25:29] for people [1:25:29] who look at, [1:25:30] look at polling [1:25:31] across the board. [1:25:34] And I don't know [1:25:35] if it shows this [1:25:36] in this memo [1:25:36] that I'm referring to, [1:25:38] Mr. President, [1:25:38] but I can tell you [1:25:40] because I've seen the data [1:25:41] that this is also [1:25:42] not a regional thing. [1:25:43] And even in northern Minnesota, [1:25:45] and even in [1:25:46] the 8th Congressional District [1:25:48] where this mine would be, [1:25:51] a majority of people [1:25:53] in the 8th Congressional District [1:25:54] would agree with this statement, [1:25:56] not this mine [1:25:57] in this place. [1:25:59] So you can imagine [1:26:00] what Minnesotans [1:26:01] are thinking about tonight [1:26:03] if they are watching me talk here [1:26:06] and thinking about [1:26:07] what the Senate is doing, [1:26:10] and they're asking themselves, [1:26:11] like, why is the Senate, [1:26:14] why did the U.S. House, [1:26:16] you know, [1:26:17] why are they undoing [1:26:18] this protection [1:26:19] that we had in place [1:26:20] that we wanted? [1:26:21] Why are they ignoring [1:26:22] what we think [1:26:23] should be happening [1:26:25] in our state? [1:26:26] Why are they ignoring [1:26:28] or undermining [1:26:30] or undoing [1:26:31] the protections [1:26:31] that we want to see in place [1:26:33] for these public lands [1:26:35] that matter so much to them? [1:26:39] I mean, [1:26:39] I think it's, [1:26:40] I can tell you [1:26:41] from the conversations [1:26:42] that I've been having [1:26:43] that it is contributing [1:26:45] to their lack of trust [1:26:47] in this body, [1:26:48] the ability of this body [1:26:50] to produce action [1:26:53] and legislation [1:26:54] that actually reflects [1:26:56] what they want to see happen. [1:26:58] and it's frustrating to them [1:27:03] and they're asking me, [1:27:05] you know, [1:27:05] why is this happening? [1:27:06] Why is it even possible [1:27:09] that something that was done [1:27:11] and done correctly [1:27:13] and done legally, [1:27:14] you know, [1:27:14] years ago [1:27:15] is now being undone [1:27:17] by a lot of people [1:27:20] who've never even been [1:27:21] to Minnesota, [1:27:22] don't really even know [1:27:23] what this is all about. [1:27:25] and I, [1:27:27] you know, [1:27:27] it's difficult for me [1:27:28] to explain exactly why [1:27:31] given this is happening. [1:27:33] And that's why I'm here tonight [1:27:34] to talk about this [1:27:35] in all the ways that I can [1:27:37] and help to try to change [1:27:43] the flow of this, [1:27:45] of this debate [1:27:45] as I'm trying to change [1:27:47] the flow of this polluting water [1:27:49] through the boundary waters. [1:27:50] I would like to take [1:27:57] a couple of minutes [1:27:58] and talk a little bit [1:28:01] about the work [1:28:04] that was done [1:28:05] to establish this [1:28:07] mineral lease withdrawal [1:28:11] because I think [1:28:12] there's also been [1:28:14] some discussion about [1:28:16] like what was really involved [1:28:17] in that [1:28:18] and shouldn't we just really [1:28:19] let sort of the permitting process [1:28:21] play out [1:28:22] and the, [1:28:22] you know, [1:28:23] as it normally would. [1:28:24] And I mean, [1:28:24] I would say, [1:28:25] Mr. President, [1:28:26] and I understand [1:28:27] that argument [1:28:28] that there is a, [1:28:30] you know, [1:28:30] we have established [1:28:32] a permitting process [1:28:33] at the state level [1:28:34] and at the federal level [1:28:36] and that should be allowed [1:28:39] to play out. [1:28:41] But, you know, [1:28:41] it's interesting [1:28:42] because Congress also [1:28:44] in this, you know, [1:28:46] Federal Land Management Policy Act [1:28:48] said that there might be occasions [1:28:50] when there are places [1:28:53] where we want to be able [1:28:56] to withdraw those mineral leases [1:28:58] because we can see ahead of time [1:29:01] before all of the work [1:29:02] has been done, [1:29:03] we can see ahead of time [1:29:04] based on our environmental assessment [1:29:06] that this is not wise, [1:29:07] that this doesn't make sense. [1:29:09] And that is exactly what happened [1:29:12] with the Rainy River [1:29:16] withdrawal environmental assessment [1:29:18] which was done [1:29:20] with extensive work. [1:29:22] I've got it all right here, [1:29:25] Mr. President. [1:29:26] I do not think [1:29:26] that I will read it all [1:29:27] to you all tonight. [1:29:29] But I want to just highlight [1:29:31] some of the pieces of this [1:29:32] so that it can give colleagues [1:29:34] an idea [1:29:35] about how comprehensive [1:29:37] this environmental assessment was. [1:29:40] I mean, honestly, [1:29:42] much more comprehensive [1:29:43] than the Congressional Review Authority [1:29:46] resolution [1:29:49] that is before the Senate right now [1:29:52] that included, you know, [1:29:54] no outreach, [1:29:58] no scientific evidence. [1:30:00] Certainly, no, [1:30:01] there was nothing that's presented [1:30:02] in the CRA [1:30:02] that says, [1:30:03] nope, this is all wrong [1:30:04] that was done [1:30:06] in this environmental review. [1:30:08] It was none of that at all. [1:30:12] So let me just highlight [1:30:13] some of these, [1:30:15] some of what is in this [1:30:17] Rainy River withdrawal [1:30:18] which is the basis [1:30:20] for the mineral lease withdrawal [1:30:21] to give you some confidence [1:30:22] that it was done [1:30:23] with a lot of integrity [1:30:26] and a lot of scientific backdrop. [1:30:30] So the environmental assessment [1:30:35] says this, [1:30:36] that the purpose [1:30:37] of the requested withdrawal [1:30:38] is to protect and preserve [1:30:40] natural and cultural resources [1:30:42] in the Rainy River watershed [1:30:43] including the Boundary Waters [1:30:45] Canoe Area Wilderness, [1:30:47] the Boundary Waters Canoe Area [1:30:48] Mining Protection Area [1:30:49] and the 1854 Ceded Territory. [1:30:53] Just, [1:30:54] let me just let everyone know [1:30:56] that that is the, [1:30:57] that is the ground [1:30:58] that is covered [1:30:58] by the 1854 treaty [1:31:00] between the federal government [1:31:01] and the Chippewa tribes [1:31:04] of northern Minnesota [1:31:05] that gives them hunting [1:31:07] and fishing [1:31:07] and wild rice harvesting rights. [1:31:10] So it's saying, [1:31:12] basically, [1:31:14] the purpose of this requested withdrawal [1:31:16] is to protect and preserve [1:31:17] natural and cultural resources [1:31:19] in the Rainy River watershed [1:31:20] from the known [1:31:22] and potential adverse [1:31:23] environmental impacts [1:31:24] arising from exploration [1:31:25] and development [1:31:26] of federally owned minerals. [1:31:28] The withdrawal is needed [1:31:29] because the Forest Service [1:31:31] and the BLM [1:31:31] have seen [1:31:32] and can reasonably anticipate [1:31:34] increasing interest [1:31:36] within the private sector [1:31:37] for developing [1:31:37] the copper nickel ore mines [1:31:39] and the Duluth complex [1:31:41] that may adversely impact [1:31:43] the Rainy River watershed. [1:31:45] This goes on [1:31:46] to describe [1:31:47] what the decision-making process [1:31:49] of the, [1:31:51] what looked like [1:31:52] under the Federal Land Policy [1:31:54] and Management Act. [1:31:55] It describes how the, [1:31:56] this act, [1:31:57] written by Congress, [1:31:58] of course, [1:31:59] signed into law, [1:32:00] authorizes the Secretary [1:32:01] of the Interior [1:32:01] to make and modify [1:32:03] and extend [1:32:04] or revoke withdrawals [1:32:05] in accordance [1:32:06] with the terms [1:32:07] of the law. [1:32:09] And that's [1:32:09] what this is all about. [1:32:12] So, [1:32:13] what happens [1:32:13] in this [1:32:14] environmental assessment [1:32:16] is that [1:32:17] they look at alternatives. [1:32:20] They look at an alternative [1:32:21] where there is a, [1:32:22] where the leases are withdrawn [1:32:24] for 20 years, [1:32:26] to be clear, [1:32:28] or a second alternative [1:32:29] where there is [1:32:30] no withdrawal [1:32:32] and the leases continue. [1:32:35] And they evaluate, [1:32:36] like, [1:32:37] what is likely to happen, [1:32:39] what's likely to happen [1:32:40] to the environment. [1:32:42] They also evaluate [1:32:44] what is likely to happen [1:32:46] to the socioeconomics [1:32:48] of the region [1:32:48] because, of course, [1:32:49] these things are always [1:32:50] a balance. [1:32:51] You know, [1:32:51] we don't want to live [1:32:52] in a world [1:32:52] where all we do [1:32:54] is to protect [1:32:55] environmental resources, [1:32:57] but there's no way [1:32:58] for people to earn a living [1:32:59] or to feed their families [1:33:00] or to, you know, [1:33:02] own their own home. [1:33:04] And so, [1:33:05] let me just talk a bit of, [1:33:06] let me just highlight [1:33:07] some of this [1:33:08] because I think [1:33:09] it is interesting [1:33:11] and gets to that point. [1:33:12] This is the region, [1:33:13] this region around [1:33:14] the Boundary Waters, [1:33:16] has a long history [1:33:17] of mineral exploration [1:33:18] and extraction [1:33:19] with mining activity, [1:33:21] attracting migrants, [1:33:22] and establishing communities [1:33:23] since the 19th century. [1:33:25] Similarly, [1:33:26] the region's unique [1:33:27] natural amenities [1:33:28] and recreation opportunities [1:33:30] have been the source [1:33:30] of recreation and tourism [1:33:32] and amenity-based economy. [1:33:35] The relative concentration [1:33:36] of jobs [1:33:37] in both mining [1:33:38] and tourism-related sectors [1:33:39] demonstrate [1:33:40] these economic dependencies [1:33:42] within the region, [1:33:43] which I can say [1:33:43] from personal experience [1:33:44] is very true. [1:33:46] So, in 2019, [1:33:48] the mining-related employment [1:33:50] was estimated [1:33:51] at 3% of total employment [1:33:54] in St. Louis County, [1:33:55] Cook Counties, [1:33:56] and Lake Counties. [1:33:57] That is this region. [1:33:57] So, think about that. [1:33:58] 3%. [1:33:59] This represents [1:34:03] over 40% [1:34:04] of all mining sector jobs [1:34:06] in the state. [1:34:07] Sectors associated [1:34:08] with recreation [1:34:09] and tourism [1:34:10] also make up [1:34:11] a higher proportion [1:34:12] of total jobs [1:34:13] in the study area [1:34:14] relative to the state average. [1:34:16] In 2019, [1:34:18] recreation and tourism-dependent jobs, [1:34:20] so that includes [1:34:21] retail trade, [1:34:22] arts and entertainment, [1:34:24] recreation, [1:34:24] accommodation, [1:34:25] and food services. [1:34:26] That was 22% [1:34:28] of total employment [1:34:29] in the three-county [1:34:30] analysis plan. [1:34:32] But, of course, [1:34:33] job numbers tell only [1:34:34] part of the economic picture. [1:34:36] Average annual wages [1:34:37] vary substantially [1:34:38] by sector. [1:34:39] The average wage [1:34:40] in natural resource extraction [1:34:41] sectors is generally high [1:34:43] compared to wages [1:34:44] in many other sectors. [1:34:46] That is certainly the case. [1:34:48] The Boundary Waters [1:34:49] Canoe Area Wilderness, [1:34:50] this goes on to say, [1:34:52] provides many thousands [1:34:53] of visitors [1:34:53] with a unique, [1:34:54] primitive, [1:34:55] and nature-based [1:34:55] recreation experience. [1:34:57] The wilderness area [1:34:58] also provides [1:34:59] an economic driver [1:35:00] to local communities [1:35:01] and the state of Minnesota. [1:35:03] The Boundary Waters [1:35:04] Canoe Area Wilderness [1:35:05] is surrounded [1:35:06] by resorts [1:35:07] and outfitters [1:35:07] and guides [1:35:08] and campgrounds [1:35:09] and other visitor [1:35:10] service businesses [1:35:11] and hundreds [1:35:12] of home and cabins. [1:35:13] In 2018, [1:35:15] visitors to the wilderness [1:35:16] area were estimated [1:35:17] to contribute [1:35:18] between 230 [1:35:21] and 570 jobs [1:35:23] and $6 million [1:35:24] to $14.8 million [1:35:26] in labor income [1:35:27] all across this region, [1:35:29] which is what we call [1:35:29] the Arrowhead region [1:35:30] in Minnesota. [1:35:31] So I like that this is [1:35:33] looking at the [1:35:33] socioeconomics of this [1:35:35] and kind of [1:35:36] what are we going to do, [1:35:38] you know, [1:35:38] how do we kind of [1:35:39] maximize the benefit here. [1:35:40] I want to also just say [1:35:42] I think it's important [1:35:43] because I always [1:35:44] come back to this, [1:35:45] the impacts on tribes [1:35:48] in northern Minnesota [1:35:49] and this assessment [1:35:51] points the following out, [1:35:53] that the lands [1:35:54] proposed for withdrawal [1:35:55] include the homelands [1:35:57] and traditional use areas [1:35:58] of Lake Superior [1:36:00] Chippewa Tribe [1:36:01] comprised of multiple [1:36:03] independent bands [1:36:04] living around Lake Superior [1:36:05] in what is the northern [1:36:06] parts of Minnesota. [1:36:08] And this is, [1:36:09] I think, important. [1:36:09] the Ojibwe bands [1:36:11] were signatories [1:36:12] of key treaties [1:36:13] executed with the [1:36:15] federal government [1:36:16] in the 19th century. [1:36:18] And this withdrawal [1:36:19] application area [1:36:20] falls entirely [1:36:22] within the 1854 [1:36:24] ceded territory [1:36:25] of the Lake Superior [1:36:26] Chippewa [1:36:26] from lands [1:36:28] deemed to have been [1:36:29] under the sole control [1:36:30] of the signatories [1:36:31] at the time of signing. [1:36:32] So every single thing [1:36:33] that we're talking about here [1:36:35] falls within the 1854 [1:36:37] ceded territory. [1:36:38] And this is not some [1:36:39] like historic document [1:36:40] that is interesting [1:36:40] to know about [1:36:41] but has no impact [1:36:42] on our daily life [1:36:44] because this treaty [1:36:45] is still in effect. [1:36:46] It's still established. [1:36:49] It still establishes [1:36:51] these hunting and fishing [1:36:52] and wild rice [1:36:53] harvesting rights [1:36:54] that exist to this day. [1:36:57] It still establishes [1:36:58] the right [1:36:59] that the Lake Superior [1:37:01] Chippewa people, [1:37:03] the Anishinaabe people [1:37:04] of northern Minnesota [1:37:05] have to around moose [1:37:09] and deer [1:37:09] and fish [1:37:10] and berries [1:37:11] and wild rice [1:37:12] their sugarbush sites [1:37:13] their maple stands [1:37:15] the white cedar stands [1:37:16] ducks [1:37:17] and other forest resources. [1:37:18] Of course these resources [1:37:19] are available [1:37:20] to everybody [1:37:21] but they have [1:37:22] a particular legal [1:37:23] access point [1:37:26] for the folks [1:37:27] for the tribal nations. [1:37:31] It's not known [1:37:32] in many parts [1:37:33] of the country [1:37:33] but in Minnesota [1:37:34] wild rice, [1:37:37] manumen, [1:37:37] is a hugely important [1:37:39] food source [1:37:41] and also very important [1:37:42] culturally [1:37:43] to native people. [1:37:45] And it's a very important [1:37:46] part of the ecosystem [1:37:47] of this part of Minnesota. [1:37:49] and wild rice [1:37:51] is a wetland plant [1:37:53] that grows [1:37:54] in exactly [1:37:55] this kind [1:37:56] of ecosystem. [1:37:59] And it is, [1:38:00] again, [1:38:00] super important [1:38:01] to the Ojibwe people. [1:38:04] And this wild rice [1:38:04] grows in very shallow [1:38:06] freshwater marshes [1:38:08] on the edges [1:38:09] of lakes and rivers. [1:38:11] It typically grows [1:38:12] only to about [1:38:13] three feet high. [1:38:16] And it is a super, [1:38:17] it's a very, [1:38:18] very important part [1:38:19] of what is included [1:38:22] in these treaties. [1:38:23] I think it's important [1:38:24] to understand that. [1:38:27] As this, [1:38:29] as I go through [1:38:32] this environmental assessment [1:38:34] to share [1:38:35] what it evaluates [1:38:38] in terms of [1:38:39] the opportunities [1:38:40] in this area, [1:38:41] what needs [1:38:42] to be protected [1:38:43] and what impact [1:38:44] you might see [1:38:46] from the, [1:38:48] from the mines [1:38:51] I want to just [1:38:52] share a little bit [1:38:54] of that [1:38:55] with you. [1:38:56] I just need to find it [1:38:57] here. [1:39:03] This talks about, [1:39:07] let me find it here. [1:39:08] Here we go. [1:39:15] This is, [1:39:16] this is a good summary, [1:39:17] I think, [1:39:17] of what, [1:39:18] what the environmental [1:39:18] assessment finds. [1:39:21] It says, [1:39:22] the greatest potential risk [1:39:23] to water quality [1:39:24] of the wilderness area [1:39:25] and lands within [1:39:25] the withdrawal area [1:39:26] comes from [1:39:27] the catastrophic failure [1:39:28] of a wet basin [1:39:29] tailing storage [1:39:31] or impoundment dam. [1:39:32] Wet basin tailing [1:39:33] storages pose [1:39:34] the risk of dam failure [1:39:36] and the potential release [1:39:37] of a large volume [1:39:38] of contaminated sediment [1:39:40] or tailings [1:39:40] into the water [1:39:41] to a nearby water body [1:39:43] with potential transport [1:39:44] of that downstream [1:39:45] water bodies [1:39:46] and receptors. [1:39:47] Dam failures [1:39:48] have the greatest potential, [1:39:50] have the greatest potential [1:39:52] of traveling downstream [1:39:53] in a volume [1:39:54] that could impact [1:39:55] receiving wilderness area [1:39:57] water resources. [1:39:58] impacts would be [1:39:59] most severe [1:40:00] for streams [1:40:00] and wetlands [1:40:01] and lakes [1:40:01] most adjacent [1:40:02] to the failure. [1:40:04] Failure would be [1:40:04] highly likely [1:40:05] to result in increases [1:40:06] of total dissolved solids, [1:40:08] sulfate, [1:40:09] metals, [1:40:10] and other constituents, [1:40:12] exceedance of water [1:40:13] quality standards, [1:40:14] and observable impacts [1:40:15] of aquatic biota [1:40:17] and habitat [1:40:18] in Birch Lake [1:40:19] becoming successively [1:40:20] less severe, [1:40:21] of course, [1:40:22] as the water moves forward, [1:40:23] but it assesses [1:40:25] that the risk effects [1:40:27] to the Boundary Waters [1:40:28] canoe area [1:40:29] would be significant [1:40:30] and can't be mitigated [1:40:36] in any way. [1:40:38] I think that that is the reason [1:40:40] why this environmental assessment [1:40:43] forms the basis [1:40:45] for the mineral lease withdrawal. [1:40:47] And again, [1:40:47] the mineral lease withdrawal [1:40:48] is for 20 years, [1:40:50] and 20 years seems like [1:40:52] a long time. [1:40:54] I've been in the Senate [1:40:55] for nine years. [1:40:56] half of that time. [1:40:59] But the idea here [1:41:00] is that you don't want [1:41:01] to lock these minerals [1:41:02] up forever. [1:41:03] That doesn't seem reasonable. [1:41:06] But given what the technology [1:41:08] is right now, [1:41:09] given what we know [1:41:10] about the environmental risks [1:41:11] and what this kind [1:41:12] of mining would do, [1:41:14] something is going [1:41:17] to have to change [1:41:18] before this makes sense, [1:41:19] before this is a risk [1:41:21] worth taking. [1:41:22] And I believe that [1:41:24] that is really [1:41:25] the message [1:41:28] that I take [1:41:28] out of this [1:41:29] environmental assessment, [1:41:30] along with the many [1:41:32] hundreds of thousands [1:41:33] of people [1:41:34] who wrote in [1:41:35] talking about this [1:41:36] and saying [1:41:37] why this mattered [1:41:39] to them. [1:41:43] I think [1:41:43] during the course [1:41:46] of this discussion, [1:41:48] we're talking about [1:41:50] the special place [1:41:53] that this is, [1:41:54] also talking about [1:41:56] the unusual precedent, [1:41:58] the remarkable [1:41:59] and dangerous precedent [1:42:00] that the CRA establishes [1:42:03] should it pass, [1:42:05] and also talking [1:42:06] about the special [1:42:08] consideration [1:42:10] that I think [1:42:11] that we need [1:42:11] to give [1:42:12] to Native people [1:42:14] who have [1:42:15] particular [1:42:16] and sovereign [1:42:18] treaty rights [1:42:21] related [1:42:22] to this [1:42:23] place. [1:42:27] And I want [1:42:28] to just, [1:42:28] if I can, [1:42:30] take a minute [1:42:31] to go over [1:42:33] in a bit of detail [1:42:34] what some [1:42:35] of the tribes [1:42:36] have said [1:42:38] about this, [1:42:39] because I think [1:42:39] it gives [1:42:40] a good impact, [1:42:42] gives a good sense [1:42:44] of what is, [1:42:46] why this is [1:42:47] important to them. [1:42:49] And let me just [1:42:50] find this for you [1:42:51] before I, [1:42:53] while I'm looking [1:42:54] for that, [1:42:54] I want to share [1:42:54] these other things [1:42:56] with you, [1:42:57] because I think [1:42:57] they're helpful. [1:42:59] Senator Heinrich [1:43:00] spoke about this [1:43:01] earlier, [1:43:02] and it was really [1:43:03] remarkable to me [1:43:05] that as we were [1:43:06] considering this [1:43:08] CRA, [1:43:10] it was just coming [1:43:10] over from the House [1:43:11] to the Senate, [1:43:12] that we received [1:43:14] here in the Senate [1:43:15] an open letter [1:43:16] from President [1:43:17] Theodore Roosevelt's [1:43:18] direct descendants [1:43:19] talking about [1:43:20] the importance [1:43:21] of saving [1:43:21] the boundary waters. [1:43:23] And I'm going [1:43:23] to just read [1:43:24] this letter [1:43:24] to make sure [1:43:26] that people [1:43:26] have had a chance [1:43:27] to understand [1:43:28] what it says. [1:43:29] The letter says, [1:43:29] Dear United States [1:43:30] Senators, [1:43:31] the purpose [1:43:32] of this letter [1:43:33] is to strongly [1:43:33] recommend all [1:43:35] senators vote [1:43:35] against House [1:43:37] Joint Resolution [1:43:38] 140, [1:43:39] and to ask you [1:43:40] to work with [1:43:40] President Trump [1:43:41] to seek ways [1:43:42] to permanently [1:43:42] protect the [1:43:43] boundary waters [1:43:44] and to send [1:43:45] a unified message [1:43:46] that America [1:43:46] is still a land [1:43:47] that relentlessly [1:43:48] protects its greatest [1:43:50] wilderness terrain. [1:43:51] The proposed [1:43:52] House resolution [1:43:53] erroneously uses [1:43:54] the Congressional [1:43:55] Review Act [1:43:56] to disallow [1:43:57] the current withdrawal [1:43:58] of over 225,000 acres [1:44:01] in the headwaters [1:44:02] of the boundary waters [1:44:03] and would greenlight [1:44:05] exposure of this [1:44:06] national treasure [1:44:06] to the highly toxic [1:44:08] and destructive [1:44:09] impacts of sulfide [1:44:10] ore copper mining. [1:44:12] It is faulty [1:44:13] on several key fronts. [1:44:16] First, it's the opposite [1:44:18] of America first. [1:44:19] The mining company [1:44:20] in question [1:44:21] is foreign-owned, [1:44:22] will use Chinese [1:44:23] state-owned smelters, [1:44:25] and will then sell [1:44:26] the extracted metals [1:44:27] on the open market. [1:44:29] Next, it removes [1:44:31] the American public [1:44:32] from public land [1:44:33] decision-making. [1:44:34] A key priority [1:44:35] of American public land [1:44:36] policy has always been [1:44:37] to have a strong bias [1:44:38] towards obtaining [1:44:39] robust public input. [1:44:42] Hundreds of thousands [1:44:43] of Americans [1:44:43] have already weighed in [1:44:45] on the boundary waters, [1:44:46] and they overwhelmingly [1:44:47] want it protected forever. [1:44:49] Next, it discards [1:44:51] sound science. [1:44:52] A detailed environmental [1:44:53] assessment has already [1:44:55] documented the substantial [1:44:56] risk copper mining [1:44:57] poses to this highly [1:44:59] valued ecosystem. [1:45:02] It sets a very bad [1:45:03] precedent for other [1:45:04] public lands. [1:45:05] Using the CRA [1:45:06] in this fashion, [1:45:07] which has never been [1:45:08] done before, [1:45:09] would put at risk [1:45:10] other public land [1:45:11] withdrawals across America [1:45:12] to similarly [1:45:13] irresponsible actions. [1:45:16] Finally, [1:45:16] the proposed resolution [1:45:17] is diametrically at odds [1:45:19] with the conservation [1:45:20] legacy of President [1:45:21] Theodore Roosevelt. [1:45:23] For all these regions, [1:45:24] we feel a deep obligation [1:45:25] to TR, as they call him [1:45:27] in this letter, [1:45:28] to speak out loudly [1:45:29] in support of this [1:45:30] exceptional American [1:45:31] wilderness area. [1:45:33] As TR said [1:45:34] at the Grand Canyon [1:45:35] in 1903, [1:45:37] we now reiterate [1:45:38] with the Boundary Waters [1:45:39] today. [1:45:41] Leave it as it is. [1:45:43] Vote no on House [1:45:44] Joint Resolution 140 [1:45:45] or any other similar [1:45:47] legislation and seek [1:45:48] creative ways to protect [1:45:50] the Boundary Waters [1:45:50] forever. [1:45:52] Frankly, TR would have [1:45:53] been appalled [1:45:54] at House Resolution 140 [1:45:56] and the misguided [1:45:57] and harmful effort [1:45:58] to revoke a sound [1:45:59] and necessary mineral [1:46:01] withdrawal in the [1:46:01] headwaters of the [1:46:02] Boundary Waters. [1:46:03] To understand TR's [1:46:05] perspective on all of this, [1:46:06] it's important to review [1:46:07] a little of his history, [1:46:09] starting with Minnesota. [1:46:12] TR had a strong affinity [1:46:14] for Minnesota. [1:46:16] TR's love of Minnesota [1:46:17] emanated directly from [1:46:18] Lincoln and Grant's [1:46:19] leadership during the [1:46:20] Civil War. [1:46:22] Minnesota immediately [1:46:23] stepped up to support [1:46:24] the dire cause. [1:46:26] TR has a huge amount [1:46:28] of respect for the [1:46:29] 1st Minnesota Regiment, [1:46:30] who literally saved the [1:46:31] Union at Gettysburg. [1:46:33] It's perhaps why, [1:46:34] shortly after the [1:46:35] Civil War, as a 10-year-old [1:46:37] sitting in Germany, [1:46:39] TR dreamed of proudly [1:46:40] going to Minnesota [1:46:41] someday. [1:46:42] He hoped to get there [1:46:43] when he was 14, [1:46:44] and he cheered in his [1:46:46] diary about the [1:46:46] prospects. [1:46:48] Hip, hip, hurrah! [1:46:50] In 1880, TR's first [1:46:52] extended hunting trip [1:46:53] to the West brought [1:46:54] him as far as the Red [1:46:56] River in Moorhead, [1:46:57] Minnesota, way up in [1:46:59] the northwestern [1:47:00] quadrant of our state, [1:47:01] where he briefly ducked [1:47:03] into the Dakota [1:47:04] territory. [1:47:04] From then on, TR's [1:47:08] strong historical [1:47:09] connections and [1:47:09] interest in Minnesota [1:47:10] accelerated exponentially. [1:47:13] In 1883, he signed [1:47:15] his first cattle ranching [1:47:16] contract in St. Paul. [1:47:18] And the rest of the [1:47:19] 1880s and in the [1:47:22] 1990s, he crossed [1:47:23] through the state on [1:47:24] many memorable [1:47:25] occasions. [1:47:26] In 1900, he launched [1:47:28] his vice presidential [1:47:29] campaign in Minnesota. [1:47:31] And in 1901, he gave [1:47:32] his famous big-stick [1:47:33] speech at the [1:47:34] Minnesota State Fair. [1:47:35] These are just a few [1:47:37] small samplings of TR's [1:47:40] oversized affection for [1:47:41] Minnesota, which helped [1:47:42] to catapult him towards [1:47:44] his destiny. [1:47:46] TR worked exceedingly [1:47:47] hard to protect [1:47:49] Minnesota's forests and [1:47:50] water. [1:47:51] It should come as no [1:47:52] surprise that TR's [1:47:53] appreciations for [1:47:54] Minnesota translated into [1:47:56] an aggressive pursuit of [1:47:57] protecting the state's [1:47:58] favored forests and [1:48:00] water. [1:48:01] In 1902, shortly after [1:48:03] taking office, TR used [1:48:05] scientific forestry to [1:48:06] establish the Minnesota [1:48:07] Forest Reserve, which [1:48:09] was later renamed the [1:48:10] Chippewa National Forest. [1:48:12] It was the first national [1:48:14] forest reserve in America [1:48:16] east of the Mississippi [1:48:17] River and the first one [1:48:18] set aside through an act of [1:48:20] Congress rather than by [1:48:21] presidential proclamation. [1:48:23] Around the same time frame, [1:48:26] closer to America's [1:48:27] northern border, TR's [1:48:29] administration withdrew [1:48:30] hundreds of thousands of [1:48:31] acres in Lake and Cook [1:48:33] counties in the vicinity of [1:48:34] the Boundary Waters to get [1:48:36] a jumpstart on protecting [1:48:37] this even more pristine [1:48:38] source of water. [1:48:40] Finally, in 1909, for the [1:48:42] public good, TR formally [1:48:44] established the much [1:48:45] broader Superior National [1:48:47] Forest where the Boundary [1:48:49] Waters Canoe Wilderness [1:48:50] Area resides. [1:48:52] Based on all of these [1:48:53] proactive measures, there is [1:48:54] no doubt TR wanted [1:48:56] Minnesota's greatest natural [1:48:58] resource, its most beloved [1:49:00] Boundary Waters ecosystem [1:49:01] protected in perpetuity [1:49:03] for all future generations [1:49:06] to enjoy. [1:49:07] It was a central tenant of [1:49:09] his balanced approach to [1:49:10] conservationism. [1:49:12] Saving the bipartisan, [1:49:14] excuse me, I'm jumping [1:49:15] ahead. [1:49:16] Saving the Boundary Waters [1:49:17] makes common bipartisan [1:49:19] sense. [1:49:20] Because of the foresight of [1:49:22] America's early Republican [1:49:23] leaders, the Boundary Waters [1:49:25] has risen as per the [1:49:26] Department of the Interior [1:49:28] to become America's most [1:49:29] heavily visited wilderness [1:49:31] area. [1:49:32] Its greatness goes way beyond [1:49:33] Minnesota. [1:49:34] It is the fourth pillar of all [1:49:36] of America's greatest [1:49:38] continental wilderness [1:49:39] terrain. [1:49:40] Yosemite, Lincoln-Harrison, [1:49:42] Yellowstone, Grant, the [1:49:44] Grand Canyon, Roosevelt, and [1:49:46] the Boundary Waters. [1:49:48] Saving it from the [1:49:49] devastating effects of [1:49:50] copper mining is therefore [1:49:51] the conservation imperative of [1:49:53] our time and should be [1:49:54] bipartisan in nature. [1:49:57] It is certainly bipartisan in [1:49:58] Minnesota, as evidenced by the [1:50:00] fact, 70% of Minnesotans want the [1:50:02] Boundary Waters permanently [1:50:03] protected. [1:50:04] Minnesotans know, aside from the [1:50:06] devastating impact on the [1:50:08] environment, copper nickel mining [1:50:10] in the Boundary Waters would deal a [1:50:11] crushing blow to a great rural [1:50:14] American economy. [1:50:15] It would kill jobs, dampen growth, [1:50:18] decrease affordability, and erase [1:50:20] any meaningful prospects for future [1:50:22] economic prosperity in the [1:50:23] region. [1:50:24] For all of these reasons, we are [1:50:26] positive TR would want the [1:50:27] Boundary Waters protected in a [1:50:29] bipartisan fashion, but sadly, the [1:50:32] passage of House Joint Resolution [1:50:34] 140 in the House puts all of this [1:50:37] in grave jeopardy. [1:50:40] Our specific ask of United States [1:50:42] Senators. [1:50:43] To America's Senators, please do [1:50:45] all that you can to protect this [1:50:47] national treasure. [1:50:48] On both sides of the political [1:50:50] aisle, we strongly ask you to vote [1:50:52] no on this resolution and on any [1:50:54] other similar legislation proposed [1:50:56] in the future. [1:50:58] TR was active in the preserving of [1:51:00] our greatest wilderness terrain on [1:51:02] both the east and west coasts. [1:51:04] It became one of the greatest [1:51:05] enduring legacies of his life. [1:51:08] It is now time for all of you to get [1:51:10] in the arena with him. [1:51:13] We implore you to do your own parts [1:51:15] to ensure TR's common sense approach [1:51:18] to conservationism is as strong today [1:51:21] as it was more than a century ago. [1:51:24] There is no better place to do this [1:51:26] than to preserve the greatest [1:51:27] wilderness terrain in the middle of [1:51:29] America's heartland, the Boundary Waters. [1:51:31] The greatest America 250 conservation gift [1:51:37] protecting the fourth pillar. [1:51:40] This letter concludes in this way. [1:51:43] In conjunction with America's 250th birthday, [1:51:46] we ask you to honor President Theodore [1:51:49] Roosevelt's conservation legacy. [1:51:51] As TR's presidential library formally opens [1:51:55] in Medora, North Dakota on Independence Day, [1:51:58] three pillars of TR's life will take central stage. [1:52:02] Leadership, conservation, and citizenship. [1:52:05] It's one thing for politicians to say they believe in these three pillars, [1:52:09] and it is quite another to see them act that way. [1:52:12] We humbly submit it would be hard to gift America [1:52:15] a more meaningful fourth pillar, [1:52:17] one that better unites these three aspects of his legacy [1:52:21] than a huge enduring present [1:52:23] in the form of a permanently protected Boundary Waters. [1:52:26] Finally, it should be noted that the signatories below [1:52:29] represent the three branches of Theodore Roosevelt's family [1:52:33] emanating directly from his three sons, [1:52:35] who all served in both World War I and World War II. [1:52:40] Quentin Roosevelt was sadly killed in action in World War I, [1:52:43] or he certainly would have risen to the call of service a second time. [1:52:46] The four of us below, this is important, [1:52:50] the four of us below have never collectively co-signed a letter together [1:52:55] which should give an indication of how strongly we support [1:52:58] voting no on this resolution [1:53:00] and then voting yes on permanent Boundary Waters protection. [1:53:06] We greatly appreciate your time and attention to this matter. [1:53:08] Mr. President, I just think this is so interesting [1:53:24] because one, it speaks to the great tradition of conservationism [1:53:29] in the Republican Party, [1:53:31] and I love also that it highlights these other great pillars [1:53:37] of American, you know, remarkable places. [1:53:42] They talk about, in this letter, [1:53:44] America's greatest continental wilderness terrain, [1:53:48] Yosemite, protected by Lincoln and Harrison, [1:53:50] Yellowstone, protected by Grant, [1:53:52] the Grand Canyon, and Roosevelt. [1:53:56] And, you know, just as it is impossible for us [1:54:00] to imagine a big mine right on the doorstep [1:54:07] of the Grand Canyon or Yosemite, [1:54:10] it is impossible for us in Minnesota [1:54:12] to imagine this mine right on the doorstep [1:54:16] of the Boundary Waters. [1:54:17] The Boundary Waters is the same caliber of national treasure [1:54:20] as the Grand Canyon or Yosemite or Yellowstone. [1:54:27] And in this country, we certainly don't say [1:54:29] we don't want to do any mining anyplace, [1:54:31] but we also acknowledge that there are places [1:54:33] that are so special that that does not need [1:54:36] to be the place where we look to meet our needs [1:54:46] for precious metals, precious minerals. [1:54:48] I was searching a moment ago, Mr. President, [1:54:53] for I mentioned that I wanted to share [1:54:56] some of the views of the America's indigenous tribes [1:55:01] talking about why they think that it is important [1:55:04] to protect the Boundary Waters. [1:55:05] And I've got a few here that I'm going to read to you. [1:55:09] And I'm going to start with the letter [1:55:11] from the National Congress of American Indian, [1:55:14] which, as you no doubt know, [1:55:15] is the oldest and largest organization [1:55:20] of sovereign tribal nations from around the country. [1:55:24] I'm going to, this is actually not a letter, forgive me. [1:55:28] This is a resolution that the National Congress [1:55:31] of American Indian put forward a few weeks ago, [1:55:36] speaking on behalf of all of the tribes, [1:55:39] all of the tribes that are members. [1:55:40] It goes as follows. [1:55:43] It's called Calling on the Senate Committee [1:55:45] on Indian Affairs to Hold a Hearing to Consider [1:55:47] and Take Testimony on House Joint Resolution 140 [1:55:50] and entitled Disapproving Public Land Order 7917 [1:55:56] Due to the Impact of Tribal Interests [1:55:59] Contained in the Subject Public Land Order. [1:56:02] It goes as follows. [1:56:03] Whereas we, the members of the National Congress [1:56:06] of American Indians of the United States, [1:56:08] invoking the design blessing of the creator [1:56:11] upon our efforts and purposes [1:56:12] in order to preserve for ourselves and our descendants [1:56:16] the inherent sovereign rights of our Indian nations, [1:56:19] rights secured under Indian treaties [1:56:22] and agreements with the United States [1:56:24] and all other rights and benefits [1:56:26] to which we are entitled [1:56:27] under the laws and constitution of the United States [1:56:30] and the United Nations Declaration [1:56:32] on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples [1:56:34] to enlighten the public toward a better understanding [1:56:37] of the Indian people [1:56:38] to preserve Indian cultural values [1:56:41] and otherwise promote welfare of the Indian people [1:56:45] do hereby establish and submit the following resolution. [1:56:49] And whereas the National Congress of American Indians [1:56:52] and CAI was established in 1944 [1:56:55] and is the oldest and largest national organization [1:56:58] of American Indian Alaska Native Tribal Governments [1:57:02] and whereas the Ojibwe people have resided [1:57:05] in North America since time immemorial [1:57:07] and before the establishment of the United States [1:57:10] have resided among what has become the border [1:57:15] between the United States and Canada [1:57:17] and the places now called Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota, [1:57:20] and North Dakota. [1:57:21] And whereas the Ojibwe people entered into numerous treaties [1:57:24] with the United States, [1:57:26] ceding land and reserving rights within those lands [1:57:28] in exchange for peace, protection, and services, [1:57:31] including the Treaty of La Pointe, September 30, 1854. [1:57:36] And whereas in the 1854 Treaty, [1:57:39] the Ojibwe reserved rights to hunt, fish, [1:57:44] and gather within the territory ceded, [1:57:46] the 1854 ceded territory, [1:57:49] and such rights remain intact [1:57:51] and are presently exercised [1:57:53] by the current beneficiaries of the 1854 Treaty. [1:57:57] And whereas over time, [1:58:00] the federal government took land [1:58:01] within the ceded territory [1:58:03] for conversation and conservation and protection, [1:58:08] including the Superior National Forest [1:58:10] and the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness, [1:58:12] both within the Rainy River watershed, [1:58:14] which runs along the current U.S.-Canada border [1:58:18] in what is now northeastern Minnesota. [1:58:21] And whereas the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness [1:58:23] is a globally unique freshwater ecosystem [1:58:26] with some of the world's cleanest water, [1:58:29] it comprises 20% of the freshwater [1:58:31] within the entire national forest system. [1:58:34] And through its interconnected system [1:58:36] of lakes, forests, and wetlands, [1:58:38] provides irreplaceable habitat [1:58:40] for threatened species like the lynx and the loon, [1:58:43] and by doing so, [1:58:44] offers invaluable cultural and recreational resources, [1:58:48] including resources that the Ojibwe utilize [1:58:51] when exercising their reserved treaty rights. [1:58:53] And whereas, as recognized in CAI Resolution, [1:58:58] SEA 02510, wild rice, manumen, [1:59:03] is the sacred food of the Ojibwe people, [1:59:06] integral to their identity [1:59:08] and necessary for their subsistence. [1:59:10] And the federal government must protect [1:59:12] the waters of the 1854 ceded territory [1:59:15] from contamination [1:59:16] to maintain traditional harvesting of wild rice, [1:59:20] which is the Ojibwe treaty guaranteed, [1:59:22] usufructory right. [1:59:25] And whereas, on January 31st, 2023, [1:59:29] then Secretary of the Interior, [1:59:31] Deb Holland, issued Public Land Order 17917, [1:59:36] withdrawing approximately 225,504 acres [1:59:41] of national forest system lands [1:59:43] from disposition under the United States [1:59:45] mineral and geothermal leasing laws [1:59:47] for a period of 20 years [1:59:49] to protect and preserve [1:59:51] the 1854 ceded territory [1:59:53] of the Lake Superior Chippewa [1:59:55] in northern Minnesota [1:59:56] from the political adverse effects [1:59:58] of mineral and geothermal exploration [2:00:01] and development. [2:00:02] And whereas, the order further provides [2:00:04] that the purpose for the withdrawal [2:00:06] is also to protect the health, [2:00:08] traditional cultural values, [2:00:10] and subsistence-based lifestyle [2:00:12] of the tribal nations [2:00:14] that rely on resources in the region, [2:00:16] such as wild rice, [2:00:17] which are particularly susceptible [2:00:19] to adverse impacts [2:00:20] associated with mineral exploration [2:00:22] and development. [2:00:24] And whereas, NCAI acknowledges [2:00:26] that any threat to tribal rights [2:00:29] and treaty rights [2:00:30] of one tribal nation [2:00:31] erodes the reserved tribal [2:00:33] and treaty rights [2:00:34] of all tribal nations, [2:00:36] thereby eroding tribal sovereignty. [2:00:38] And whereas, House Joint Resolution 140, [2:00:42] introduced in the U.S. House [2:00:43] of Representatives [2:00:44] on January 12, 2026, [2:00:46] authorizes the disapproval [2:00:48] of Public Land Order 7917. [2:00:52] And whereas, the U.S. House [2:00:54] of Representatives [2:00:55] enacted House Joint Resolution 140 [2:00:57] without a hearing [2:00:58] and without soliciting input [2:01:00] from the impacted parties, [2:01:01] including from the tribal nations [2:01:04] whose treaty rights [2:01:04] are impacted by the disapproval. [2:01:07] And whereas, pursuant [2:01:08] to the rules [2:01:09] of the Congressional Review Act, [2:01:11] adoption and enactment [2:01:12] of House Joint Resolution 140 [2:01:14] would permanently preclude [2:01:16] any future consideration [2:01:17] or action [2:01:18] by the executive branch [2:01:19] forever stripping [2:01:21] the impacted tribal nations [2:01:22] of their right [2:01:23] to be consulted [2:01:24] prior to federal actions [2:01:26] that materially impact [2:01:27] their lives, [2:01:29] lands, and interests. [2:01:31] And whereas, [2:01:32] House Joint Resolution 140 [2:01:33] has been transmitted [2:01:34] to the United States Senate, [2:01:36] and because disapproval [2:01:37] of the underlying [2:01:38] public land order [2:01:39] directly impacts [2:01:40] more than one federally recognized [2:01:42] tribe's treaty-guaranteed rights, [2:01:45] the Senate Committee [2:01:46] on Indian Affairs [2:01:47] should hold a hearing [2:01:48] on Public Land Order 7917 [2:01:52] in order to solicit testimony [2:01:53] from the impacted tribal nations [2:01:56] before Senate floor consideration. [2:01:58] Now, therefore, [2:01:59] be it resolved [2:02:00] that NCAI urges [2:02:01] the United States Senate [2:02:02] Indian Affairs Committee [2:02:04] to expeditiously schedule [2:02:05] a hearing regarding [2:02:07] the contents [2:02:08] of public land order 7917 [2:02:10] and the potential detrimental impact [2:02:13] adopting House Joint Resolution 140 [2:02:15] would have on treaty rights [2:02:17] by soliciting testimony [2:02:18] from the tribal nations impacted. [2:02:21] And be it further resolved [2:02:22] that NCAI insists [2:02:24] that the administration [2:02:25] and the Congress [2:02:26] protect the unique ecosystems [2:02:28] of the Boundary Waters [2:02:29] Canoe Area Wilderness [2:02:31] from contamination [2:02:31] and encroachment [2:02:32] which is the underlying purpose [2:02:34] of public land order 7917. [2:02:38] And be it finally resolved [2:02:39] that this resolution [2:02:40] shall be the policy of NCAI [2:02:42] until it is withdrawn [2:02:44] or modified [2:02:45] by any subsequent resolution. [2:02:48] Now, I think this is important [2:02:50] for a couple of reasons. [2:02:52] One, this is such an important organization [2:02:55] reflecting so many tribal nations. [2:02:58] It is important also [2:03:00] that they are saying clearly [2:03:01] that they believe [2:03:02] that the public land order [2:03:04] in place right now [2:03:06] is protecting [2:03:06] their tribal sovereignty [2:03:09] and treaty rights [2:03:10] as it should be protected. [2:03:12] And the resolution [2:03:13] is also saying [2:03:14] that if you're going to take [2:03:15] such a dramatic step, [2:03:16] United States Senate, [2:03:17] you ought to at least [2:03:18] have a hearing [2:03:19] in the Senate Indian Affairs Committee [2:03:22] to create an opportunity [2:03:23] for tribal nations [2:03:26] to express their views on this. [2:03:29] Now, of course, [2:03:31] that hearing hasn't happened. [2:03:34] Because the CRA came before the Senate [2:03:38] as a privileged resolution, [2:03:40] it was not possible [2:03:41] to refer this to the committee [2:03:44] during this process [2:03:46] that we're going on. [2:03:47] There are so many things [2:03:48] that are limited, [2:03:49] the Senate is limited from doing [2:03:50] because of the form [2:03:52] in which the House [2:03:53] sent this resolution [2:03:55] over to the Senate. [2:03:57] But I think it is a travesty [2:03:59] that at the very least, [2:04:02] a hearing exploring the impacts [2:04:05] on tribal nations [2:04:06] before, [2:04:08] that hearing will not have been held [2:04:10] before members of the Senate [2:04:12] are making a decision [2:04:14] that has such a significant impact [2:04:17] on treaty rights [2:04:20] and tribal nations [2:04:21] in Minnesota. [2:04:22] And as this letter says, [2:04:24] it has impacts, [2:04:26] what impacts one tribal nation [2:04:28] impacts all tribal nations [2:04:30] in this environment, [2:04:33] in this situation. [2:04:35] Now, having the support [2:04:37] of the National Congress [2:04:40] of American Indian [2:04:41] is extremely important. [2:04:43] But I also want to just note [2:04:45] that the Minnesota Chippewa tribes, [2:04:49] which are all of the Chippewa tribes [2:04:51] in northern Minnesota, [2:04:52] have also expressed [2:04:54] their strong disapproval [2:04:57] of this action [2:04:58] that the Senate [2:04:59] is contemplating tonight. [2:05:01] And so I'm going to read [2:05:04] the letter [2:05:05] that the Minnesota Chippewa tribe [2:05:07] sent to Senator Klobuchar [2:05:11] and me [2:05:12] so that everyone will, [2:05:14] so that it will also [2:05:15] be in the record. [2:05:17] And here's the letter [2:05:19] which was written [2:05:20] on March 4th, [2:05:21] my birthday. [2:05:24] It's to Senator Tina Smith [2:05:25] and Senator Amy Klobuchar [2:05:27] re-vote no [2:05:28] on mining [2:05:28] in and around [2:05:29] the Boundary Waters. [2:05:30] Dear Senator Smith [2:05:31] and Klobuchar, [2:05:32] I write at the direction [2:05:34] of the leadership [2:05:34] of the six bands [2:05:35] of the Minnesota Chippewa tribe, [2:05:38] otherwise MCT, [2:05:40] all of which [2:05:41] are federally recognized [2:05:43] Indian tribes [2:05:43] under the umbrella [2:05:44] of the MCT. [2:05:46] As you know, [2:05:47] in January, [2:05:48] H House Joint Resolution 140 [2:05:50] passed the House [2:05:51] and rolls back [2:05:52] the 20-year ban [2:05:53] on mining [2:05:54] in and around [2:05:54] the Boundary Waters [2:05:55] canoe area wilderness [2:05:57] and within the [2:05:58] Superior National Forest [2:05:59] in Minnesota. [2:06:01] The MCT strongly opposes [2:06:03] any mining in that area [2:06:05] and asks that you vote no [2:06:06] on any companion bill [2:06:08] in the Senate. [2:06:09] And we thank you both [2:06:10] for your public statements [2:06:11] to date [2:06:11] in opposition [2:06:12] of this destructive measure. [2:06:15] Members of those MCT bands [2:06:17] who were signatories [2:06:18] to the 1854 Treaty of La Pointe, [2:06:21] which encompasses [2:06:21] the Boundary Waters [2:06:22] canoe area wilderness, [2:06:24] retained the right [2:06:25] to enter millions of acres [2:06:27] in the Arrowhead region [2:06:28] of Minnesota [2:06:29] to exercise [2:06:30] their treaty reserve rights [2:06:31] to hunt and fish [2:06:32] and gather. [2:06:33] The entire area [2:06:35] is Ojibwe homeland. [2:06:38] In fact, [2:06:39] one of the key purposes [2:06:40] of the Bureau of Land Management [2:06:43] order withdrawing [2:06:44] these Superior National Forest lands [2:06:46] from potential mineral [2:06:48] and geothermal leasing [2:06:49] was, quote, [2:06:50] to protect and preserve [2:06:51] the fragile and vital [2:06:52] social and natural resources, [2:06:55] ecological integrity, [2:06:57] and wilderness values [2:06:58] from the potential diverse effects [2:07:00] of mineral and geothermal [2:07:02] exploration and development. [2:07:04] The 1854 Seated Territory [2:07:07] was expressly called out [2:07:08] as one of the areas [2:07:10] that must be protected. [2:07:12] The letter includes [2:07:13] a map of the [2:07:14] Seated Territory [2:07:17] and the letter concludes [2:07:18] by saying, [2:07:19] again, [2:07:19] we appreciate your opposition [2:07:21] to lifting the mining ban [2:07:23] and your support [2:07:24] of tribes in this region. [2:07:26] Thank you. [2:07:29] I have here also [2:07:30] letters from [2:07:32] the White Earth Reservation [2:07:36] expressing their opposition [2:07:39] to mining in or near [2:07:41] the Boundary Waters wilderness. [2:07:44] I have a letter [2:07:45] from the Midwest Alliance [2:07:46] of Sovereign Tribes. [2:07:48] All of the Anishinaabe tribes [2:07:50] in across Minnesota [2:07:52] and Wisconsin [2:07:53] are all relatives. [2:07:55] This is another letter [2:07:57] basically saying, [2:07:58] we are writing to you today [2:08:01] on an issue of utmost importance [2:08:02] to all of our members. [2:08:04] It is our understanding [2:08:04] that House Joint Resolution [2:08:06] may soon be brought [2:08:07] to the floor. [2:08:08] This resolution [2:08:09] is a measure brought [2:08:10] under the Congressional Review Act [2:08:11] to repeal a current rule [2:08:13] banning copper sulfide mining. [2:08:15] We urge you and your colleagues [2:08:16] to vote no on this measure. [2:08:18] I have here a letter [2:08:24] from the Eastern Shoshone tribe, [2:08:27] which is a Wyoming tribe, [2:08:30] sent to Senator Lummis, [2:08:32] Senator Thune, [2:08:34] and also to Senator Schumer [2:08:37] and Senator Barrasso. [2:08:39] It includes an opposition [2:08:42] saying clearly on behalf [2:08:44] of the Eastern Shoshone [2:08:47] Business Council urging the Senate [2:08:50] to oppose House Joint Resolution 140. [2:08:53] I have a letter from the Prairie Band [2:08:57] Potawatomi Nation urging opposition [2:09:01] to this resolution. [2:09:04] I have a letter from the Rosebud Sioux Tribe [2:09:07] from Rosebud, South Dakota, [2:09:09] urging resolution to this CRA. [2:09:15] Mr. President, [2:09:20] I have here a letter from early February [2:09:29] to all of the members of the Senate, [2:09:32] and I'm just going to read you a bit of it, [2:09:34] but I think I want you to know [2:09:36] that there is, [2:09:37] at the end of this letter, [2:09:38] it is signed by, [2:09:39] I mean, my word, [2:09:40] I have to count them all up, [2:09:41] I would guess 40 or 50 small businesses [2:09:47] in Minnesota. [2:09:49] Many of them from the area, [2:09:54] you know, [2:09:54] they benefit so much [2:09:56] from the natural resources [2:09:57] of northern Minnesota [2:10:00] and from the outdoor recreation economy [2:10:02] of northern Minnesota, [2:10:05] and they are urging the United States Senate [2:10:07] to oppose House Joint Resolution 140 [2:10:11] which could revoke, [2:10:13] I'm just going to read you a bit of it. [2:10:16] It says, [2:10:16] the Boundary Waters [2:10:19] and Downstream Voyagers National Park [2:10:21] are currently protected [2:10:22] by Public Land Order 7917, [2:10:25] the 20-year mineral withdrawal [2:10:27] banning copper nickel mine [2:10:28] on federal public lands [2:10:30] and the headwaters [2:10:31] of these beloved wild lands. [2:10:33] This mining ban is based [2:10:35] on the U.S. Forest Service [2:10:36] Comprehensive Environmental Assessment, [2:10:38] which concluded [2:10:39] that sulfide ore copper mining [2:10:42] near the Boundary Waters [2:10:43] would cause irreversible harm [2:10:45] to the region's watershed, [2:10:46] fish, and wildlife, [2:10:48] treaty, [2:10:49] and tribal rights, [2:10:50] and robust recreation economy. [2:10:52] The analysis completed [2:10:53] by the Forest Service in 2022 [2:10:55] included 675,000 public comments, [2:11:00] over 95% of which favored [2:11:03] protecting the Boundary Waters [2:11:04] and Voyagers [2:11:05] from sulfide ore copper mining. [2:11:08] Overturning the mining ban [2:11:09] puts at risks [2:11:10] the forests [2:11:11] and the clean waters [2:11:12] of the region [2:11:13] as well as its towns, [2:11:14] indigenous communities, [2:11:15] and the regional economy. [2:11:17] The love for the Boundary Waters [2:11:19] powers a strong [2:11:20] and enduring recreation economy [2:11:22] in northeastern Minnesota, [2:11:24] responsible for 17,000 jobs [2:11:27] and over a billion dollars [2:11:28] in sales annually [2:11:29] in the region. [2:11:30] This includes [2:11:31] the many businesses [2:11:32] many of us have created [2:11:33] and grown, [2:11:34] which will be seriously damaged [2:11:35] if sulfide ore copper mining [2:11:37] were allowed [2:11:38] in this fragile environment. [2:11:40] The wilderness [2:11:40] is also a crown jewel [2:11:42] of Minnesota [2:11:43] and important to the state's [2:11:44] growing $13.5 billion [2:11:47] outdoor economy. [2:11:49] Economic studies show [2:11:50] that protecting [2:11:51] the Boundary Waters [2:11:51] would be better [2:11:52] for the economy [2:11:53] than opening the area [2:11:55] to copper mining. [2:11:58] The letter goes on [2:11:59] to say, [2:12:01] once compromised, [2:12:03] the Boundary Waters [2:12:04] cannot be restored. [2:12:05] This region is much more [2:12:07] than a beautiful place. [2:12:08] It embodies the best [2:12:09] of our public lands. [2:12:11] Clean water, [2:12:12] expansive habitat, [2:12:13] world-class recreation, [2:12:15] vibrant wilderness, [2:12:16] edge communities, [2:12:17] and sustainable local economies. [2:12:20] Generations of Midwesterners [2:12:21] and Americans [2:12:22] from across the country [2:12:23] have formed deep connections [2:12:25] to nature [2:12:26] through hunting and fishing [2:12:27] and camping and canoeing [2:12:28] and hiking [2:12:29] in the Boundary Waters. [2:12:30] We urge you to vote no [2:12:31] on House Joint Resolution 140. [2:12:34] Do not sell out [2:12:35] our wilderness, [2:12:36] our way of life, [2:12:37] and our businesses. [2:12:38] This letter is signed by, [2:12:41] I won't read all of the people [2:12:42] that have signed it, [2:12:43] but Ely Outfitting [2:12:45] in Ely, Minnesota, [2:12:46] Freeman's Explore, [2:12:48] The Lodge of Whispering Pines, [2:12:50] River Point Resort, [2:12:51] Wilderness Cabins, [2:12:53] Peragas Northwoods Company, [2:12:55] Voyager Outward Bound School, [2:12:57] North of North Resort, [2:13:00] Ely Cabin Collective, [2:13:02] Final Touch Proofreading [2:13:04] and Editing, [2:13:04] I'm sure there is advertising [2:13:06] and marketing jobs [2:13:08] connected to the Boundary Waters. [2:13:10] White Pine Productions, [2:13:11] these are all businesses [2:13:12] in Ely, Minnesota. [2:13:14] Then there are many others [2:13:15] in North Shore Adventure Park [2:13:18] in Silver Bay, [2:13:19] Big City Mountaineers [2:13:21] in Tower, [2:13:22] Granite Gear [2:13:22] in Two Harbors, [2:13:24] Madison Elise LLC [2:13:26] in Alexandria, [2:13:27] Little Bug Enterprises [2:13:28] in Bemidji, [2:13:30] Java Moose [2:13:30] and Grand Marais, [2:13:32] the Fisherman's Daughter [2:13:33] in Grand Marais. [2:13:33] I mean, [2:13:34] there are dozens [2:13:35] of businesses [2:13:35] that are listed here, [2:13:37] and I think this just goes [2:13:38] to show how [2:13:39] the outdoor recreation economy [2:13:44] powers these small businesses. [2:13:47] They are the employers [2:13:49] and the drivers [2:13:51] of Minnesota's economy, [2:13:53] and listening to them [2:13:57] and hearing what they have to say [2:13:59] as we make this decision [2:14:01] is just so important. [2:14:27] Mr. President, [2:14:28] the hour grows late, [2:14:30] and I know that we have people [2:14:32] who have been here all day long, [2:14:33] and I am going to take a couple of, [2:14:39] take a bit more of the time [2:14:42] that I have, [2:14:44] five hours all in, [2:14:45] on this extremely important topic [2:14:47] just to talk a little bit more [2:14:49] about some of the feedback [2:14:50] that I have gotten [2:14:52] from Minnesotans [2:14:53] before I wrap up tonight. [2:15:00] And here's something [2:15:04] that I think is really [2:15:06] an important, [2:15:09] really an interesting note [2:15:11] that I have gotten [2:15:13] from Lakeville, Minnesota, [2:15:14] and this person says the following. [2:15:17] They say, [2:15:18] I've moved to Minnesota [2:15:19] over a decade ago [2:15:20] from Chicago. [2:15:21] As someone born in Iowa, [2:15:23] I visited Minnesota often. [2:15:25] When making the decision [2:15:26] to move to Minnesota, [2:15:27] a huge draw for us [2:15:28] was outdoors. [2:15:30] We visit the Boundary Waters [2:15:31] canoe area every year, [2:15:33] and my kids know the feeling [2:15:35] of a great hike [2:15:36] and the beautiful scenery [2:15:37] to go with it. [2:15:38] If this resolution [2:15:39] passes Congress, [2:15:40] not only will my grandchildren [2:15:42] not be able to enjoy [2:15:43] this beautiful place, [2:15:44] but my kids will watch it [2:15:46] disappear before their eyes. [2:15:48] Please protect this land, [2:15:50] protect beauty, [2:15:51] and protect the feeling [2:15:52] of a great hike. [2:15:58] This is a letter [2:15:59] from Lake Elmo, Minnesota. [2:16:00] It's very short, [2:16:02] and she says, [2:16:03] I am a 79-year-old woman [2:16:06] who goes to the BWCA [2:16:07] with my kids and grandchildren. [2:16:09] Chili mining in the area [2:16:10] will hurt the tour industry. [2:16:13] Thank you for sending that. [2:16:20] Here's, [2:16:21] I'll read a couple more here [2:16:23] before I close. [2:16:24] This is from St. Augusta, Minnesota, [2:16:26] and it says, [2:16:28] I am a 45-year resident [2:16:29] of Minnesota. [2:16:30] I'm an Eagle Scout, [2:16:31] husband and father [2:16:32] of three daughters. [2:16:34] I've been an outdoor enthusiast [2:16:35] from a very early age, [2:16:37] deer hunting with extended family [2:16:39] and camping with the Scouts. [2:16:40] When my daughters were old enough, [2:16:42] I began planning annual trips [2:16:43] into the BWCA [2:16:45] for four to six days, [2:16:47] acquiring all the equipment necessary [2:16:49] and passing on my knowledge [2:16:51] and appreciation of the outdoors, [2:16:53] hoping that one day [2:16:54] they'll take up the mantle [2:16:56] with our children [2:16:57] and help protect [2:16:58] these critical ecosystems. [2:17:00] I also require [2:17:01] that no phones [2:17:02] or electronic devices [2:17:04] accompany us [2:17:05] on our BW adventures, [2:17:07] something my daughters label [2:17:08] as a technology detox [2:17:10] and, in my opinion, [2:17:11] provides a type of reset [2:17:13] against an increasingly [2:17:14] technological existence. [2:17:18] Here's a note [2:17:20] from somebody [2:17:20] from Big Lake, Minnesota. [2:17:21] I am Minnesota-born [2:17:24] and raised. [2:17:25] I grew up [2:17:25] in a Republican household [2:17:27] with a father [2:17:27] who showed me [2:17:28] all the true beauty [2:17:29] and wonder of this state [2:17:31] through fishing, hunting, [2:17:33] foraging, and camping. [2:17:35] The land [2:17:35] that makes up this state [2:17:37] and all the creatures [2:17:38] and features within it [2:17:39] had given me [2:17:40] a purpose and a mission. [2:17:42] I went to college [2:17:43] at Gis Davis Adolphus [2:17:44] where I studied [2:17:45] the environment [2:17:45] and I got a job there [2:17:47] guiding others [2:17:48] on how to enjoy [2:17:49] the outdoors [2:17:50] and invest in protecting [2:17:51] the wonderful state [2:17:53] that gives them [2:17:53] these opportunities. [2:17:55] I have seen [2:17:56] the impact firsthand [2:17:57] on how countless times [2:17:59] people's whole worlds [2:18:00] have changed [2:18:00] when they're introduced [2:18:01] to the beauty [2:18:02] and recreation [2:18:03] of the land [2:18:04] of 10,000 lakes [2:18:05] of which you are [2:18:06] representing me. [2:18:07] If I could sit down [2:18:08] with you [2:18:10] to face Mr. Emmer, [2:18:14] you would see [2:18:14] the absolute fear [2:18:16] in my eyes [2:18:17] at the prospect [2:18:17] of losing more wild areas [2:18:19] than we already have. [2:18:20] And I can assure you [2:18:22] that sentiment [2:18:24] is shared [2:18:24] by a vast majority [2:18:25] of Minnesotans. [2:18:27] No matter what side [2:18:28] of the aisle [2:18:29] people are on, [2:18:30] they can unite [2:18:31] over the unique beauty [2:18:33] and foundational importance [2:18:35] that our ecosystems [2:18:36] have not only [2:18:37] on the very water [2:18:39] we drink [2:18:39] and the air [2:18:40] that we breathe, [2:18:41] but in the foundation [2:18:42] for pride [2:18:43] in our chest [2:18:44] when we beam [2:18:45] that we are from Minnesota. [2:18:48] I sincerely urge you [2:18:50] to consider this deeply, [2:18:51] to talk to those [2:18:52] you represent [2:18:53] about the impact [2:18:54] that this would have [2:18:54] and to take heed [2:18:56] to science. [2:18:57] This isn't about me. [2:18:59] This is about [2:19:00] every little kid [2:19:01] who is growing up [2:19:02] or who is about [2:19:03] to be born [2:19:03] in this great state. [2:19:05] Will they still hold [2:19:07] that pride [2:19:08] in their chest [2:19:09] when they declare [2:19:10] where they are from [2:19:11] if the very thing [2:19:14] that makes us Minnesotan [2:19:15] is ripped away [2:19:16] from them? [2:19:16] Already I have taught [2:19:18] young people [2:19:19] who have never seen [2:19:20] an obstructed night sky [2:19:21] or know what it's like [2:19:23] to catch a firefly. [2:19:25] I've taught young people [2:19:26] who know what it's like [2:19:27] to fish at a lake [2:19:28] their grandfather recommended [2:19:30] and to catch nothing [2:19:31] because the fish are gone [2:19:32] and hear nothing [2:19:33] but machinery [2:19:34] instead of loon calls [2:19:35] while they are out. [2:19:37] Please, [2:19:37] I am begging you [2:19:38] on behalf of all [2:19:39] our legacies, [2:19:40] please fight for us. [2:19:41] Mr. President, [2:19:43] I think I wanted [2:19:44] to just clarify [2:19:45] that this letter [2:19:46] was forwarded to me [2:19:48] but it was sent [2:19:48] to Congressman Emmer [2:19:50] of Minnesota [2:19:51] and this Minnesotan [2:19:55] is begging him [2:19:56] to listen and fight. [2:20:02] Here's a letter [2:20:02] from a Minnesotan [2:20:04] that says, [2:20:04] I am devastated [2:20:05] to learn [2:20:05] that the U.S. [2:20:06] House of Representatives [2:20:07] has voted [2:20:07] to repeal [2:20:08] the long-standing ban [2:20:09] on mining [2:20:10] near the Boundary Waters. [2:20:11] I've been going [2:20:12] on yearly BWCA trips [2:20:14] with my mom [2:20:15] since 2009 [2:20:16] when I was 10 years old. [2:20:18] I am now 27 [2:20:19] and she is now 70 [2:20:20] and we plan [2:20:22] to continue [2:20:22] our annual tradition [2:20:23] for as long as we can. [2:20:26] Though I haven't yet [2:20:27] started a family, [2:20:28] my mom has always hoped [2:20:30] she'll be around [2:20:31] to introduce [2:20:31] her future grandchildren [2:20:33] to this beautiful wilderness. [2:20:35] I now fear, though, [2:20:36] that the Boundary Waters [2:20:37] at Stealth [2:20:38] won't be around [2:20:39] for my children to enjoy. [2:20:41] My mom raised me [2:20:42] to care for nature, [2:20:43] to leave each BWCA [2:20:45] campsite cleaner [2:20:47] than I found it [2:20:48] and it grieves me [2:20:49] that I am powerless [2:20:50] to preserve [2:20:51] the Boundary Waters [2:20:52] beyond these small actions. [2:20:54] When we go [2:20:55] on our 2026 trip, [2:20:57] I'll continue [2:20:58] to treat [2:20:59] each campsite [2:21:00] and portage [2:21:01] and lake [2:21:01] with respect [2:21:02] and love. [2:21:03] I can only hope [2:21:04] that those [2:21:05] with power [2:21:05] in this country [2:21:06] can, [2:21:07] from afar, [2:21:08] do the same. [2:21:13] Mr. President, [2:21:13] I don't think [2:21:14] I could possibly read [2:21:15] all of the letters [2:21:16] and messages [2:21:17] that have come [2:21:20] from Minnesota [2:21:21] to me [2:21:22] over the last [2:21:23] many months [2:21:24] about this. [2:21:25] And you may be wondering [2:21:26] why I am standing here [2:21:28] at nearly midnight [2:21:29] keeping everybody up [2:21:31] and here's why. [2:21:33] Because I know [2:21:36] there are so many people [2:21:37] in Minnesota [2:21:37] who are wondering, [2:21:39] excuse me, [2:21:40] I'm losing my voice, [2:21:41] I know there are [2:21:43] so many people [2:21:44] in Minnesota [2:21:44] who are wondering [2:21:45] whether anybody [2:21:46] in this building [2:21:47] cares about what [2:21:48] they think. [2:21:50] And the one thing [2:21:53] that I can do [2:21:53] is to be here [2:21:55] speaking to this [2:21:56] mostly empty room, [2:21:58] making sure that [2:21:59] to the best [2:22:00] of my abilities [2:22:00] that their voices [2:22:02] will be heard. [2:22:05] Their voices [2:22:06] will be heard [2:22:06] regardless of [2:22:08] what the Senate [2:22:09] does. [2:22:11] I dearly hope [2:22:13] that the members [2:22:15] of this body [2:22:16] will think about [2:22:18] their legacy [2:22:19] in protecting [2:22:21] the great places [2:22:22] in this country. [2:22:25] To think about [2:22:26] the risks, [2:22:28] there are risks [2:22:28] in this time [2:22:30] that you must take [2:22:31] but then there are [2:22:32] other risks [2:22:33] like the risks [2:22:33] polluting this [2:22:34] beautiful place [2:22:35] that is not necessary. [2:22:36] It is not necessary [2:22:37] to take. [2:22:39] And I hope [2:22:39] that my colleagues [2:22:40] will also think about [2:22:42] the precedent [2:22:47] that taking this [2:22:48] action will take [2:22:50] and the ways [2:22:51] in which other [2:22:51] politicians down [2:22:53] the road [2:22:53] will look back [2:22:54] on the actions [2:22:55] that this Senate [2:22:55] is taking right now [2:22:56] and saying [2:22:57] they gave us [2:22:58] permission to do [2:22:59] the same thing [2:23:00] because they said [2:23:01] it was okay. [2:23:02] And that will [2:23:03] have impacts [2:23:04] not only on [2:23:06] the boundary waters, [2:23:07] this precious place, [2:23:08] but it will have [2:23:09] impacts on precious [2:23:10] places all over [2:23:11] the country [2:23:11] and it will have [2:23:12] impacts on the [2:23:13] overall integrity [2:23:14] of our government [2:23:15] if actions [2:23:18] that are taken [2:23:19] that are legal [2:23:20] can just be undone [2:23:21] willy-nilly. [2:23:24] And that just seems [2:23:26] to me to be so bad [2:23:27] for this body, [2:23:28] to be bad for [2:23:28] the public lands [2:23:30] that we all love [2:23:31] and to be bad [2:23:31] for this country [2:23:34] that we all love [2:23:35] so much. [2:23:36] So I stand here [2:23:37] tonight with a [2:23:38] mostly gone voice [2:23:40] to give voice [2:23:42] to all of those [2:23:42] people in my home [2:23:44] state and states [2:23:45] all over this country [2:23:46] who feel like [2:23:47] what they think [2:23:47] doesn't really matter [2:23:48] and I'm here [2:23:49] to tell you [2:23:49] that it does. [2:23:50] And the power [2:23:51] of the organizing [2:23:52] that has happened [2:23:53] over the last [2:23:55] many weeks [2:23:56] to raise up [2:23:57] this issue [2:23:58] in the face [2:23:59] of a time [2:23:59] in our country [2:24:00] when there are [2:24:00] so many issues [2:24:01] that demand [2:24:02] so much attention. [2:24:04] A war in Iran, [2:24:07] the brutal attacks [2:24:09] on my home state [2:24:11] of Minnesota [2:24:12] by federal agents. [2:24:15] Great, you know, [2:24:16] so many worries, [2:24:18] so many worries [2:24:18] that so many people [2:24:20] have in this country [2:24:21] right now. [2:24:21] Worries fundamentally [2:24:23] about how they're [2:24:23] going to put food [2:24:24] on the table [2:24:24] and how they're [2:24:25] going to pay rent [2:24:26] and how they're [2:24:27] going to hold [2:24:27] their lives together. [2:24:29] But they organized [2:24:31] to make sure [2:24:33] that their voices [2:24:34] were heard [2:24:35] on this thing [2:24:37] that they care [2:24:38] so much about. [2:24:39] and so it's been [2:24:40] my honor [2:24:40] and also my [2:24:42] responsibility [2:24:43] and my obligation [2:24:44] to help to lift [2:24:45] those voices up [2:24:45] tonight. [2:24:46] Tomorrow I believe [2:24:47] the Senate [2:24:47] will vote on this [2:24:49] and I hope [2:24:50] that the Senate [2:24:50] makes a good decision [2:24:51] and a good decision [2:24:52] not only for my home [2:24:53] state of Minnesota [2:24:54] and for this precious [2:24:55] place but also [2:24:57] for the good [2:24:58] of the whole, [2:24:59] for the good [2:25:00] of the whole country [2:25:01] and the protection [2:25:03] of our public lands [2:25:04] and the integrity [2:25:05] of our democracy. [2:25:06] So thank you. [2:25:08] With that, [2:25:08] I yield the floor. [2:25:15] Senate stands adjourned [2:25:16] until 10 a.m. tomorrow.