Providing for Congressional Disapproval of the Rule Submitted By the Bureau of Land Management Relating to Public Land Order No. 7917 for Withdrawal of Federal Lands; Cook, Lake, and Saint Louis Counties, Mn

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this legislation, which risks polluting the Boundary Waters Canoe Area, as has been stated, our Nation's most visited wilderness.

If this resolution passes and the mineral withdrawal is overturned, toxic sulfide-ore copper mining will contaminate the water and the habitat in this priceless wilderness.

The BWCA is a huge reserve of the most pristine water in the United States, so clean you can directly drink from its lakes or streams. This water is under threat once again.

In 2017, the Obama administration applied for a mineral withdrawal of the Rainy River Watershed--the watershed is up here--which is the headwaters that flows into the Boundary Waters Wilderness and Voyageurs National Park. It started a 2-year environmental study, which included extensive public input and scientific review.

While the Rainy River Watershed was being studied, Paradise Valley in Montana and Methow Valley in Washington State were going through the same exact process. All three of those watersheds were threatened by sulfide-ore mining.

In Montana and Washington, those studies were able to be completed, and their mineral withdrawals happened in 2018, protecting their waters, but the Rainy River Watershed was left unfinished.

When President Trump took office, his administration initially promised to complete the study. Instead, President Trump honored his promise from a campaign rally and did not protect the watershed. His administration canceled the study for Minnesota's watershed without releasing any of the scientific findings.

This is what we received in the committee instead, and it is an entirely redacted study--no information, nothing scientific in it, nothing, all blank. Now, I serve on the Defense Committee. If we needed to go in a SCIF, I would have been happy to go in the SCIF and get this if it was so classified it had to be redacted. The protection of the headwaters of the BWCA was abandoned.

The Biden administration decided to finish the study, and they followed the scientific recommendations and the public input. In 2022, a comprehensive environmental assessment was finally completed. The Forest Service recommended a mineral withdrawal to protect the Boundary Waters of Minnesota, just as it had for the waters in Montana and Washington.

Currently, we have 17 years left of a 20-year mineral withdrawal that is protecting and preserving this water, but today Republicans want to overturn those protections using, in my opinion, a legislative stunt.

In January 2023, almost 3 years ago, the mineral withdrawal was completed. It was noticed under the Federal Land Policy and Management Act. The law was followed. The Department of the Interior notified the Congress of the withdrawal on January 26, 2023, and as my colleague, the ranking member from the committee, just pointed out, we all received those letters. I received one. Mr. Stauber received one. The chair of the committee received one. Everybody got a letter.

Then Congress had 90 days to adopt a resolution of disapproval. Republicans have tried to disapprove of the withdrawal, but they weren't able to bring it to the floor. Congress didn't ask, and the window of disapproval closed.

Now they are trying to use the Congressional Review Act to get a do- over. The CRA wasn't created to overturn a public land order, especially one that is nearly 3 years old. CRA resolutions are for rules, which public land orders are not, and they are to be used within 60 days of the congressional notice, not 3 years later.

Let me point out another, in my opinion, falsehood about this legislation. I am the ranking member of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee. There is no immediate national security interest that would be advanced by mining in this watershed.

How do we know this? We know this because Antofagasta, as has been pointed out, is a Chilean mining company who owns Twin Metals. It is lobbying to undo the current mineral withdrawal and restore their leases to extract the copper. Here is what Antofagasta does with the extracted copper, and we can't say this enough: They send it to China where it is smelted and then it is sold on the open market or it is used for its own defense weapons.

This resolution is not about national security. This is about water, the world's most critical natural resource, and it must be protected not only for today but for future generations. We have a responsibility to future generations to have water available.

Also, in my opinion, some places are just too precious to mine. I urge my colleagues to oppose the resolution.

Mr. Speaker, before I do that, I would like to enter the following documents into the Congressional Record: The January 2023 notification to Congress, the letter we all received; the redacted environmental assessment; and the complete environmental assessment. The links are as follows:

The combined letter notification to Congress can be found at: mccollum. house.gov/sites/evo-subsites/mccollum. house.gov/files/evo- media-document/blm-correspondence_rep-westerman_ rainy-river- withdrawal-combined.pdf.

The redacted environmental assessment can be found at: Mccollum. house.gov/sites/evo-subsites/mccollum. house.gov/files/evo-media- document/sept-2018_fs-ea_fully-redacted.pdf.

The complete environmental assessment can be found at: mccollum.house. gov/sites/evo-subsites/mccollum.house. gov/files/evo- media-document/02-rainy-river-withdrawal-ea.pdf.

Mr. Speaker, I also include two letters. The first letter is a letter dated January 16, 2026, from a group of hunters and anglers opposing this legislation; and the second letter is a letter dated January 20, 2026, from a group of environmental organizations opposing this legislation. January 16, 2026. Hon. Mike Johnson, Speaker, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Hon. Hakeem Jeffries, Democratic Leader, House of Representatives, Washington, DC.

Dear Speaker Johnson, Leader Jeffries, and Members of the House of Representatives: On behalf of the 80 undersigned organizations and their millions of members, we respectfully urge you to vote NO on House Joint Resolution 140, which would revoke critical protections for the watershed of the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness--one of the nation's most visited and expansive wilderness areas.

The Boundary Waters and downstream Voyageurs National Park are currently protected by Public Land Order 7917, the 20- year mineral withdrawal banning copper mining on federal public lands in the headwaters of these beloved wild lands. This mineral withdrawal was based on the U.S. Forest Service's comprehensive Environmental Assessment, which concluded that sulfide-ore copper mining near the Boundary Waters would cause irreversible harm to the ecosystem and downstream Voyageurs National Park. The analysis completed by the Forest Service in 2022 included 675,000 public comments, over 95% of which favored protecting the Boundary Waters and Voyageurs from sulfide-ore copper mining.

In early January, this Public Land Order (7917) was challenged under the Congressional Review Act (CRA), despite Public Land Orders having never been deemed a rule subject to the law. Instead, statutory requirements for Public Land Orders have always been dictated by the Federal Land Management and Policy Act of 1976. Using the CRA to attack these protections also creates a reckless precedent that would allow Congress to retroactively target virtually any public land action as a `rule.'

Beyond setting a dangerous precedent, removing Boundary Waters protections by passing this CRA would blatantly ignore the voices of the American people and prioritize the profits of a foreign mining company--Chilean conglomerate Antofagasta--over the interest of this nation's citizenry and beloved public lands. Once compromised, the Boundary Waters cannot be restored. This region is much more than a beautiful place. It embodies the best of our public lands: clean water, expansive habitat, world-class recreation, and a strong, sustainable local economy. Generations of Midwesterners and Americans from across the country have formed deep connections to nature through hunting, fishing, camping, canoeing, and hiking in the Boundary Waters.

Allowing copper mining to proceed by overturning the mineral withdrawal puts at risk not only the environment but also the regional economy. The outdoor recreation economy in northeastern Minnesota supports over 17,000 jobs and contributes more than $1 billion in annual sales. Studies consistently show that protecting the Boundary Waters generates stronger and more sustainable economic benefits than short term and toxic sulfide-ore copper mining.

We urge you to vote no on H.J.R. 140. Do not sell out our wilderness and public lands against the will of Americans who want these special places preserved. Sincerely,

Alaska Wilderness League; Allegheny-Blue Ridge Alliance (ABRA); American Bird Conservancy; American Hunters & Anglers; Big Mountain Dreams; BlueGreen Generation; Bolder Options; Californians for Western Wilderness; Cascade Forest Conservancy; Center for Biological Diversity; Change the Chamber; Clean Water Action Minnesota; Colorado Mountain Club; Colorado Wild Public Lands; Conservation Colorado; Conservation Lands Foundation; Conservation Minnesota; Conservation Northwest; Conservatives for Responsible Stewardship; Crow River Trail Guards.

CURE; Earthjustice Action; Earthworks; EcoFtight; Elders Climate Action; Endangered Species Coalition; Environment America; Environment Minnesota; Environmental Action; Environmental Law & Policy Center; Environmental Law & Policy Center; Friends of the Boundary Waters Wilderness; Giniw Collective; Great Old Broads for Wilderness; Healthy Ocean Coalition; Inland Ocean Coalition; Izaak Walton League of America; John Muir Project; League of Conservation Voters; Living Rivers Colorado Riverkeeper; Lutefisk Technologies, Inc.

MN Center for Environmental Advocacy; mtn bio; National Parks Conservation Association; Natural Resources Defense Council; Nebraska Division IWLA; New Mexico Wild; New York State Division IWLA; Next 100 Coalition; Nimiipuu Protecting the Environment; Ocean Defense Initiative; Ohio Division IWLA; One Mississippi; Outdoor Alliance; Presbyterians for Earth Care; Quiet Use Coalition; Rivers Without Borders; Rocky Mountain Wild; San Juan Citizens Alliance; Sanitas Sales Group; Save Lake Superior Association; Save Our Sky Blue Waters.

Save the Boundary Waters; Sheep Mountain Alliance; Sierra Club; Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance; Standing Trees; Student Public Interest Research Groups; The Conservation Alliance; The Wilderness Society; Vet Voice Foundation; Voyageurs Conservancy; Washington Wild; WaterLegacy; West Virginia Division IWLA; Western Slope Conservation Center; Western Watersheds Project; Wild Montana; Wilderness Watch; Wilderness Workshop; Wisconsin Division IWLA. ____ January 20, 2026.

Dear Members of Congress: On behalf of the undersigned hunting and fishing conservation organizations representing hundreds of thousands of members and supporters, we write to share our concern regarding H.J. Res. 140, a Congressional Review Act (CRA) resolution which would revoke critical protections for the watershed of the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness, a world-class fishing and hunting destination averaging over 150,000 visitors annually, and overturn existing precedent for the management of our nation's public lands.

The Boundary Waters and downstream Voyageurs National Park are currently protected by Public Land Order 7917, the 20- year mineral withdrawal placed in 2023, banning sulfide-ore copper mining on over 225,000 acres of federal public lands in the Rainy River Watershed of Northeast Minnesota. This mineral withdrawal was based on the U.S. Forest Service's comprehensive Environmental Assessment, which concluded that sulfide-ore copper mining near the Boundary Waters would cause irreversible harm to this sensitive ecosystem. The Forest Service's 2022 analysis included 675,000 public comments, over 95% of which favored protecting the withdrawal area from non-ferrous mining.

At nearly 1.1 million acres, the Boundary Waters spreads across the northeastern tip of Minnesota, containing over 1,100 lakes, 2,000 designated campsites, hundreds of miles of rivers and streams, and the largest contiguous areas of uncut forest remaining in the eastern United States. The three- million-acre Superior National Forest, which includes the Boundary Waters, contains 20 percent of all the fresh water in the entire National Forest System.

The Boundary Waters offers unparalleled opportunities for fishing, hunting, camping, and paddling. It's a haven for hunters and anglers who come to the region to pursue walleye. smallmouth bass, northern pike, whitetail deer, grouse, black bear, and one of the largest selfsustaining populations of native lake trout in America. The potential loss of these unique recreational opportunities is a stark reminder of the stakes involved in protecting this irreplaceable natural resource.

H.J. Res. 140 would overturn the 20-year mineral withdrawal, which complied fully with the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA), including extensive public review and comment. Mineral withdrawals have never been considered ``rules'' eligible to be overturned by the CRA, which is why Public Land Orders such as this have never been submitted to Congress.

This CRA resolution is an entirely unprecedented maneuver that ignores the foundation of our public lands management system and threatens not only the future of the Boundary Waters, but how all federal public lands are managed going forward. Attempting to revoke this mineral withdrawal through this unprecedented manner completely sidelines the environmental analysis and public process required under FLPMA to amend or rescind mineral withdrawals.

Further, the CRA is a blunt legislative tool that has historically been used only in rare instances. In the first twenty years after enactment, the CRA was used to overturn a federal rulemaking only once. Again, public land orders have historically not been submitted to Congress under the CRA-- setting this precedent could open the door for overturning any public land order since 1996.

Further, this would open the door for Twin Metals MN, a subsidiary of the Chilean mining company Antofagasta, to permit the Twin Metals MN copper-nickel mine less than a mile upstream from the Boundary Waters. More importantly, Antofagasta plans to ship its metal concentrates from the Twin Metals project to China for processing and sale, and already has contracts in place with Chinese smelters. This mine will not directly supply critical minerals domestically, as the minerals will be funneled to a strategic adversary of the United States.

Notably, the Boundary Waters withdrawal area includes only four out of eighteen known mineral deposits in the Duluth Complex, the mineral rich formation found in northern Minnesota. Neither does the withdrawal affect other mineral deposits in the region, such as the Tamarack Intrusion, where the electric vehicle manufacturer Tesla committed to purchasing 75,000 metric tonnes of nickel from Talon Metals's Tamarack Nickel Project. Furthermore, recent research from the Colorado School of Mines, By-product recovery from US metal mines could reduce import reliance far critical minerals, concluded that 90% recovery of these minerals/ metals as by-products at active U.S. mines now could meet nearly all our critical mineral needs as a nation. In other words. we don't need to put the Boundary Waters at risk to meet domestic critical mineral demands.

Overturning the Boundary Waters watershed mineral withdrawal jeopardizes not only the environment but also the regional economy. The outdoor recreation economy in northeastern Minnesota supports over 17,000 jobs and contributes more than $1 billion in annual sales. Studies consistently show that protecting the Boundary Waters yields stronger, more sustainable economic benefits than short-term, toxic sulfide-ore copper mining.

As hunters, anglers, and outdoor enthusiasts who rely on places like the Boundary Waters, we find this legislation troubling. Removing existing safeguards by passing H.J. Res. 140 would ignore the voices of the overwhelming majority of the American sporting community, prioritize the profits of a foreign mining company, and set a dangerous precedent for similar protections across the country.

We respectfully request that you uphold protections for the Boundary Waters that ensure generations of incredible hunting, fishing, and paddling opportunities. Our sporting heritage and the outdoor economy of Northeast Minnesota rely on an intact and water-rich backcountry habitat that millions of Americans have visited. Please oppose H.J. Res 140 and any similar actions taken in the Senate.

Sincerely,

American Fisheries Society; American Fly Fishing Trade Association; Angler Action Foundation; Backcountry Hunters & Anglers; Bass Anglers Sportsman Society (B.A.S.S.); Fly Fishers International; Izaak Walton League of America; Minnesota Trout Unlimited; Minnesota Wildlife Federation; National Deer Association; National Wildlife Federation; North American Falconers Association; North American Grouse Partnership; Pheasants Forever; Quail Forever; Sportsmen for the Boundary Waters; Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership; Trout Unlimited; Whitetails Unlimited; Wildlife Management Institute.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source