This is not an official government website.
© 2026 PLEJ LC. All rights reserved.
Congressional Daily Record
This section captures a formal floor step rather than a policy debate. It mentions legislation such as Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Bureau of Land Management relating to Public Land Order No. 7917 for Withdrawal of Federal Lands; Cook, Lake, and Saint Louis Counties, MN., members such as Charles Ernest Grassley.
Official title: LEGISLATIVE SESSION
Issued
April 16, 2026
senate side of the record
People
3
Linked members mentioned in this section
Legislation
1
Bills and resolutions linked from this section
Committees
0
No linked committees in this section
Senate Holds
0
No hold activity linked here
Source Document
Connected Data
People mentioned
Bills and resolutions
Source Control
Reader mode is for comprehension. The linked government PDF is the official published source.
Download official Senate Record PDFReturn to issue contextPROVIDING FOR CONGRESSIONAL DISAPPROVAL UNDER CHAPTER 8 OF TITLE 5,
UNITED STATES CODE, OF THE RULE SUBMITTED BY THE BUREAU OF LAND
MANAGEMENT RELATING TO PUBLIC LAND ORDER NO. 7917 FOR WITHDRAWAL OF
FEDERAL LANDS; COOK, LAKE, AND SAINT LOUIS COUNTIES, MN
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will resume consideration of H.J. Res. 140, which the clerk will report.
The senior assistant bill clerk read as follows:
A joint resolution (H.J. Res. 140) providing for
congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United
States Code, of the rule submitted by the Bureau of Land
Management relating to Public Land Order No. 7917 for
Withdrawal of Federal Lands; Cook, Lake, and Saint Louis
Counties, MN.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
SAVE America Act
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, the SAVE America Act has been a discussion for quite a few days on the floor of the U.S. Senate, and I would like to give my update on that. I have already spoken once on the subject. But before I speak, I would like to ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record after my speech some of the remarks that my constituents have been sending to my office on this issue so that they have direct quotations from letters backing up what I am saying here on the Senate floor today.
Mr. President, as I said, I am a cosponsor of the SAVE America Act. This SAVE America Act ensures only U.S. citizens are registered to vote in Federal elections, and it also requires voter ID when voting. Now, that is pretty simple. It is so simple that 85 percent of Americans generally support those principles of voter ID and only citizens voting. Even 71 percent of the Democrats in polls also support that.
some Iowa constituents who would say that while election integrity is important, noncitizen voting is not an issue. Some of my constituents even accept that noncitizen voting happens, but at the same time, they say it is not that often, so we should just ignore it.
uphold the rule of law. And I will bet every one of our constituents say the rule of law is a principle applying in America and it should be fully supported.
who are not eligible to vote and that voter fraud should not be ignored, no matter the scale.
vote and voting in elections. The first one is the State of Montana. In a State where elections have been decided by only a handful of votes, 23 potential noncitizens cast nearly 150 votes in various elections.
Then let's go to the State of Ohio. In 2024, Ohio found 597 noncitizens registered to vote—138 of whom voted in recent elections— that lacked citizenship status.
rolls between the years 2020 and 2024. That is a larger population than some small Iowa towns.
Then let's go to New Jersey. In January, two people in New Jersey were charged with illegal voting in the 2020 elections. This is in addition to other foreign nationals charged last year for registering to vote and voting in Florida and Massachusetts.
integrity. Even so, in my State, our secretary of state found 277 noncitizens registered to vote and 35 who actually cast ballots in 2024.
win by thousands or at least hundreds of votes, but I want to give you an example in Iowa where we had a very close election and just a handful of people not registered legally to vote—either they were noncitizens or they weren't the people that said they were going to vote. So we know elections can be decided by just a handful of votes. Iowa experienced that firsthand in 2020 when one of our congressional seats was decided by six votes. That is Miller-Meeks, presently a Congresswoman from southeast Iowa. So we have that election demonstrating how every single vote matters and why only legally cast ballots ought to be counted.
government. The SAVE America Act gives Americans absolute confidence that their elected representatives won fair and square, by the people who are legally eligible to vote.
“We don't have a problem with fraudulent voting,
especially in Iowa. We don't have a problem anywhere, but we
certainly don't have one in Iowa with the excellent election
process.”
“Please do NOT vote for the SAVE ACT. It addresses NO
ISSUE!!!”
“There is no voter fraud occurring in our elections . . .
no evidence of fraud.”
“No evidence of fraud in federal elections.”
“It is already illegal for non-citizens to vote in
national and state elections. Illegal voting by immigrants
very, very rarely happens in this country.”
“It is no surprise that noncitizen voting is extremely
rare and never significantly affects election outcomes.”
“There is no evidence of voter fraud that would justify
this legislation.”
“Evidence shows that noncitizen voting is nearly
nonexistent.”
“Why are they working so hard to create a law for a nearly
nonexistent problem?”
Mr. GRASSLEY. I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Recognition of the Majority Leader
The majority leader is recognized.
Reconciliation
Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, one thing you can always count on is that Democrats have a lot of nerve. The Democrat leader has been out and about, this week, criticizing Republicans for taking up reconciliation legislation to fund border security and immigration enforcement.
This was his quote:
Republicans are dragging the Senate through a partisan
circus just to avoid basic accountability for ICE and Border
Patrol.
Let me repeat that:
Republicans are dragging the Senate through a partisan
circus.
Is he serious? Because the shoe is entirely on the other foot. Democrats, through their stubborn refusal to seriously engage in bipartisan negotiations and their ultimate refusal to fund law enforcement at all, have forced us into a position where the only way we can fund law enforcement and border security is through reconciliation.
appropriations through regular order. And despite Democrats' decision to shut down the entire Federal Government for 43 days in the fall, we were well on our way to passing all of fiscal year 2026 appropriation bills—all 12.
Department—that included additional funding for body cameras for Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents, deescalation training, and increased oversight of ICE funding.
But then Democrats reneged on that agreement. But did Republicans then move to reconciliation? Not at all. We bent over backward to reach a new deal with Democrats. The White House repeatedly—repeatedly— offered a robust package of reforms, and we spent weeks—weeks—trying to negotiate.
But Democrats weren't interested in negotiation. A good example of that is that one of the offers that was made by the White House wasn't responded to by Democrats for 18 days. Eighteen days we kept coming out here saying: Come on. Give us a counteroffer here. You want reforms, you want changes made; let's sit down and figure that out.
Just more stall, delay, obstruct.
demands with no compromises, but I strongly suspect that Democrats were never interested in a deal at all.
it clear that no deal was happening, which meant that either Republicans acceded to Democrats' refusal to fund law enforcement and border security or—or—we pursue the only option left to us, which is funding law enforcement and border security through reconciliation.
open borders, then so be it. But we are not going to join Democrats in their irresponsible refusal to fund key parts of the Department of Homeland Security.
individuals guilty of things like murder, assault, and sexual crimes against minors. They refused to fund drug interdiction and efforts to fight human trafficking. They refused to fund border security. That is right. They refused to fund the Border Patrol. These are all critical security priorities.
the Democrats have left us no other option. And to prevent Democrats from voting to defund law enforcement once again in September, we are going to fund border security and immigration enforcement for the next 3 years.
43-day government shutdown in the fall. Remember what that was about— what that was over. It was over a clean, nonpartisan funding bill. And the Democrats' shutdown of the Department of Homeland Security happened because they couldn't take yes for an answer.
salaries of government workers, all—all—have been repeatedly sacrificed this year thanks to Democrats' partisanship.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following Senators be permitted to speak prior to the scheduled rollcall vote: Senator Heinrich for up to 5 minutes, Senator Klobuchar for up to 5 minutes, and Senator Smith for up to 15 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Recognition of the Minority Leader
The Democratic leader is recognized.
Working Families Tax Cuts
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, well, today Trump is in Las Vegas trying to sell the American people on his tax policies and convince them that everything is going just dandy, but the reality for American families is that thanks to these deleterious policies people are hurting worse than before. Working families are hurting worse than before, middle- class families are hurting worse than before; overall, because of Trump's policies, people are hurting.
Here is the truth in Las Vegas. Here is the truth. If you are a hotel or casino owner in Las Vegas, if you are a multimillionaire, Donald Trump's tax policies have been very good to you; but if you are a hotel staffer, a waiter, a janitor, a DoorDash delivery driver, the tax policies don't come close to undoing the economic damage he has done to you.
are a multimillionaire, Trump's tax policies
have been very, very good to you; but if you are a hotel staffer, a waiter, a janitor, a DoorDash delivery driver, Trump's tax policies don't come close to undoing the economic damage Trump has done to you and your family.
And there are three major reasons Donald Trump's “Big Ugly Bill” has turned out to be a giant scam for most Americans. First, Republicans promised their “Big Ugly Bill” would mean tax refunds of more than a thousand dollars. That promise was false. The average refund is less than one-third of what the Republicans promised.
devoured by Trump's policies that have led to higher gas prices, higher grocery prices, higher electric costs.
For example, the average tax cut is maybe an extra $350. But thanks to Donald Trump's war in Iran alone, Americans will pay an extra $740 this year just to fill up their tanks. Just like that, your tax break is gone, America. And that doesn't include the increase to healthcare costs, grocery costs, housing costs, electricity costs, and so much more.
costs that Americans feel just about across the board, so many of them, because of Donald Trump's policies.
Third, Donald Trump's “Big Ugly Bill” is overwhelmingly skewed to benefit the rich. This is an old Republican trick: Give most of the tax breaks to the very wealthy, let a little bit trickle down to middle- class people and call it a middle-class tax break. It is a tax break for the rich.
ultrarich will see their taxes cut by more than a trillion dollars over the next decade.
cut, put all of the money into the middle class, not a nickel to billionaire-millionaire tax cuts.
The largest corporations will see a $65 billion tax cut in just 1 year alone. Multimillionaires are getting a tax cut worth more than $300,000 a year.
big corporations. To label this package of tax breaks a middle-class tax cut is just as close to lying as it comes.
disastrous tariff policies and foreign policies are greatly cutting down on tourism in the United States and will greatly cut down on tourism to Las Vegas and Nevada, particularly this summer, the lifeblood of the Las Vegas and Nevada economies.
raise airline tickets, that will be far more damage to the Nevada economy and Nevada families than any gain from Trump's tax policies.
policies are really helping you. With Trump's policies, the owners of Las Vegas big hotels will do far better than the staff, the custodians, the drivers, or the servers.
with his other policies, are turning out to be a giant failure for you, putting your family in an economic hole.
Department of Homeland Security
Mr. President, on Department of Homeland Security, well, all this week the Republican leader has come to the floor to try and pin his party's failure to fund the Department of Homeland Security on Democrats. He did it again today. He said we—Democrats—“shut down the appropriations process,” and that “Republicans have been forced to do this the hard way.”
Let's be very clear about all of this. DHS has been shut down now for over 60 days for one reason and one reason only: Republicans have been so paralyzed by their own dysfunction that they cannot govern.
of the last work period, not a Democratic bill. It was Thune's bill. Thune put the bill on the floor to fund every single Agency within DHS except for ICE and Border Patrol, and it passed unanimously.
It was Thune's bill; Democrats agreed and voted yes. In fact, Democrats agreed twice. It was Speaker Johnson, cowed by radical rightwing Republicans in the House, who stood in the way—not Democrats.
to do, it would have passed. So if the majority leader wants to put an end to this Department of Homeland Security shutdown, he should start talking to Speaker Johnson in the House instead of pointing fingers at us.
stands ready to fund agencies like TSA, FEMA, Coast Guard, and CISA and at a moment's notice.
But this is not the path Republicans want to take. They do not seem interested in reaching a compromise to rein in ICE with exceedingly simple guardrails.
people want, and Republicans have never moved, never budged. Republicans seem so sickened, in fact, by the idea of basic reforms to ICE that they would rather take up weeks of the Senate's time, ramming through a party-line reconciliation package without a shred of the reforms that Americans demand, commonsense reforms that police departments in every part of the country obey: no masks, warrants when you break into someone's home, cooperating with local authorities.
lower grocery prices, lower energy costs, Republicans want to hijack the Senate and spend weeks on reconciliation to ram through billions more for ICE with zero reforms.
And, again, I say this to Leader Thune: Republicans could open DHS today, all they have to do is start listening to the American people and stop obeying Donald Trump and the MAGA radical right.
Iran
Mr. President, on Iran, there is an old saying that says “success has a thousand fathers, but failure is an orphan.” The Republicans who voted against our War Powers Resolution yesterday, they may try and dodge responsibility for Trump's failed war, but they have joint custody over this debate. And certainly the war is a debacle.
America and around the world, Trump has no idea how to end this war, just as he had no plan when he started it. All this war has gotten us is a more radical Iranian regime with greater nuclear ambitions, a closed Strait of Hormuz, skyrocketing gas costs, and the ire of the world.
“Operation Epic Failure” has been worth it? That is what we call it, Operation Epic Failure.
Trump isn't practicing the “Art of the Deal”; Trump is practicing the “Art of Defeat”, and he seems all too good at it. Republicans are kidding themselves if they think they can distance themselves from Trump's Iran blunder by sitting on the sidelines.
legislator can make—Republicans in the Senate and the House have an obligation to take a stand, but they are putting their heads in the sand. They haven't even had one hearing on this war. This is a war that has gone on close to 50 days, creating huge problems for our economy, huge problems for our national security, and not one hearing? What are you afraid of?
Resolution, to finally reassert Congress' constitutional authority, and each time they have said no. But the debate is not over. Next week, Republicans will have to answer the question again: Do you want endless war with Iran, yes or no?
Republican silence is a stamp of approval. Republican silence is a stamp
the top of the mind for the Senate and for the Nation. The same goes for Senator Booker and so many in our caucus who have participated in this debate.
Tribute to Assistant Chief Sean P. Gallagher
of the Senate today in saying thank you and goodbye to one of the most beloved members of the Capitol Police, Assistant Chief Sean Gallagher. He retires today after 25 incredible years. He joined the Department in April of 2001 and has been a part of keeping the Capitol Complex safe during some of the most consequential moments in our Nation's history, from national crises, to Presidential inaugurations, to papal visits, and so much more.
support program, and helped create the Howard C. Liebengood Center for Wellness to support officer well-being.
We say goodbye and thank you on your retirement.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
H.J. Res. 140
Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, we have a vote before us today, and this vote is involving an unprecedented use of a procedural mechanism that would have far-reaching consequences, not just for the beautiful Boundary Waters Canoe Area in Minnesota, but for public lands across our country.
Smith who you are about to hear from, Senators Heinrich and Baldwin for speaking out against this resolution on the floor last night.
one proposed here that is so close to the cherished Boundary Waters Canoe Area, and I continue to have concerns about this administration's intention and their disregard of science across the board in every Agency in the government, but especially when you are looking at something like this.
ore miner. My grandpa loved that life, but he mostly also loved the time he had in the outdoors. He would go down in a cage 1,500 feet every single day with the lunch bucket that my grandma would pack for him, that black lunch bucket.
when he was saving money in a coffee can to send his two sons to college when he never even got to graduate from high school? Well, he would think of the outdoors because he loved to hunt, he loved to fish, and he loved to pick blueberries.
In his later years, he became a foreman of the mine. I would meet people when I was first running for the U.S. Senate up in Northern Minnesota, where my relatives live, and they would say to me: You know, my dad worked with your grandpa.
They said: A lot of times, the foremen would never go down when they found a new part of the mine. They would always stay up at the top and radio down. But your grandpa always went with the guys, and he always went first.
That was my grandpa.
So the joy he had was the outdoors.
That mining life is so important in Northern Minnesota. And I have stood with our miners. I have stood with them when steel was dumped from China. I have brought the former President's Chief of Staff up to Northern Minnesota, where we met with steelworkers, where we met with mine owners, and we have made the case for changes. We have made the case for their benefit. We have made the case for them. And that is why we are getting a new mine, Mesabi Metallics, which is a taconite mine that I just visited last week. It is incredible. Hundreds and hundreds of new jobs are about to open, construction jobs. That permitting process has been fair, and it has been fast. But what we have today is something else.
outdoors. My family values the outdoors. My mom and dad met in the Twin Cities Hiking Club, and generations of Minnesotans have found the same joy up north.
So let's talk about H.J. Res. 140. It would threaten public lands across the country. So many of our colleagues know this. Senator Smith has made this case ardently and repeatedly.
land orders to reserve Federal land for specific uses, setting it aside for things like infrastructure, certain military purposes, training, border security protection, and, yes, conservation. But now, for the first time, the Congressional Review Act is being used to rescind the public land order that bans mining in the Boundary Waters for 20 years.
soon tell you that this is unprecedented. Public land orders have never been considered rules under the CRA and have never been submitted to Congress' rules.
revoking the land withdrawal without having to conduct the level of public engagement that is expected.
on the ability of land management agencies to oversee public lands all across the country. Yes, this is focused on Northern Minnesota today, but where will it be next time? What part of your State will it be focused on? What will happen to your public lands?
Nation's most treasured landscapes could be lost and the careful management of their lands and waters eliminated.
protect our public lands that would be put at risk. Twenty-five military withdrawals would no longer be considered final. The CRA could even threaten the protected status of the Grand Canyon.
So I will close with this, as I did last night. Sigurd Olson, the great Ely, MN, author and conservationist who went from that small, hardscrabble mining town to great national prominence, someone who loved the land and was a beautiful author—he wrote:
Joys come from simple and natural things: mists over
meadows, sunlight on leaves, the path of the moon over water.
That is the Boundary Waters to me. That is the Boundary Waters to so many people in Minnesota and across our country.
bill to protect this area by creating the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness.
This was a special, special place to my dad and to our family. My dad actually went to Ely Junior College when Sigurd Olson was the dean, and that launched a lifelong friendship. I found books of Sigurd Olson's in my dad's belongings after we lost him, with notes of my dad of their meetings together and their time together.
and forests unlike any in the United States. So we should be preserving and treating these public lands as treasures, not messing around like is happening today.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
Mr. HEINRICH. Mr. President, why are we here today? We are here today because some people want to abuse the Congressional Review Act and use it in a way it has never been used before.
there was a secretarial order that was put in place, a narrow order authorized by statute under FLPMA—the Federal Land Policy and Management Act—which specifically spells out the Secretary of the Interior's authority to do this. It is not a regulation.
overreach. Regulations are broad. They
apply to large swaths of the country. They are not things that are authorized specifically in statute.
to the delegation from Minnesota, who has spoken up again and again and again about why this is wrong, what about when it is aimed at Montana? what about when it is aimed at Alaska? what about when it is aimed at South Dakota?
This is wrong. And why are we doing it? To pad the pockets of the President's buddy from Chile so that he can take our minerals—our minerals, the American people's minerals—send them to China, process them in China, and then maybe sell them back to the American people with a tariff. This is nuts. Is that “America First”? That is “America Last.”
What is at stake? What is at stake is a million acres of the most pristine public lands in the United States, places where my kids have canoed and fished and forged their identities. We are going to do that to Minnesota? We are going to do that to the delegation from Minnesota? We are going to do that to the American people who cherish this place?
in these Boundary Waters, and we are going to pollute that with sulfuric acid? This company plans to dump millions of tons of waste rock on this site. That will never be removed. It will be sitting there, waiting for the air and the water to turn that waste rock full of sulfides into sulfuric acid.
who has had to negotiate with copper companies in my own State, that this type of copper mining has never been done without polluting the water—never. Not once. So we are guaranteeing that we are going to pollute the Boundary Waters.
It is fashionable today to talk about selling off the public lands. These places—this place that people like Teddy Roosevelt and Sigurd Olson and so many others fought to preserve—they are the anvil on which we have forged our collective identity as a country. They are the places we are still free. They are not places to sell off to some foreign company for a few years of profit, a few years versus a century of identity for the people of Minnesota and this country.
This is a dark day for this body. This is a stain on what the Senate used to be but certainly is not today.
constituents from left to right. Whether you are a bowhunter or a bunny hugger, it doesn't matter—they love our public lands, and they care about our public lands.
There are many places that we can mine and do it right. My dad worked for Anaconda Copper. My grandfather was a gold miner. This is a boondoggle. This is wrong.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
Ms. SMITH. Mr. President, I want to start by just thanking my colleague from Minnesota, Senator Klobuchar, and Senator Heinrich and Senator Baldwin and all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle who have joined me in opposing H.J. Res. 140.
I start from this place: One of our most important responsibilities, I think, in this body is to protect our precious public spaces—those places that, as Senator Heinrich just said so eloquently, helped to forge our national identity and connect us to our past and to our future. I am thinking of places like Yosemite and the Black Hills of South Dakota, the Grand Canyon, and, of course, the Boundary Waters.
responsibilities to protect these precious places with a sense of balance. We think of the value of the wilderness itself. We also think of the need for economic opportunities for our constituents. We think of our responsibilities around stewardship of these places, of these natural resources.
are guided by the science; we are guided by public input, what people in these parts of the country think is the best thing to do, because those folks that are closest to the issues, closest to the land are going to have the best ideas about what should happen to the land. Also, we are guided by the longstanding trust and treaty obligations that the Federal Government has to the Tribal nations, a sovereign relationship that goes beyond just the laws of this country.
This is actually what Minnesota knows how to do. We know how to strike this balance. Minnesota is the No. 1 producer in the country of iron ore. The battleships and the tanks of World War II were built with Minnesota iron.
and responsibly mine the copper and the nickel and the platinum group of metals that are there in the Duluth Complex up in Northern Minnesota. You can see it in the maps that I was showing last night.
but that does not mean that you support every mine in every place. I think that this is bipartisan. We understand this in our country. We can support the need for mining, but that doesn't mean that we mine on the edge of Chaco Canyon or on the rim of the Grand Canyon, and it does not mean that we think that a copper sulfide mine on the doorstep of the Boundary Waters is a good idea.
Colleagues, what you are about to do, should you end up passing H.J. Res. 140—what you are about to do is fly in the face of that balance that has traditionally been a bipartisan goal, something that we have traditionally worked on together. You are about—should you make this vote, you are about to overturn a public land order that was put in place 3 years ago that stopped not all mining—not all mining, colleagues—but this particular kind of copper sulfide mining for 20 years in just one place—in this one place—in the Superior National Forest on the doorstep of the Boundary Waters.
goal that we have of striking a balance, you are picking one side over the other. You are putting your thumb on the wrong side. When it comes to protecting this precious place, you are choosing the wrong side because you are not protecting this place that needs our support, that needs our protection.
to the vibrancy of Northern Minnesota. You are not choosing that if you make this decision, and you support H.J. Res. 140.
Minnesota and the outdoor recreation economy, I have a letter here from dozens and dozens of Minnesota small businesses beseeching the Senate to oppose H.J. Res. 140, and the reason is they tell us right here.
They say:
The love for the Boundary Waters powers a strong and
enduring recreation economy in Northeastern Minnesota . . .
17,000 jobs and over $1 billion in sales annually in the
region.
their families because of the access to this incredible resource of the Boundary Waters. But, no, colleagues, you would not be choosing that in this balance that we are trying to strike.
Colleagues, if you support H.J. Res. 140, you are ignoring what Minnesota wants, not only the hundreds of thousands of people who sent in their public comments during the process of setting aside this space and protecting it from mining but the 70 percent of Minnesotans who say: No, we do not want this mine in this place. We want our elected leaders to protect—to protect—the Boundary Waters.
I want to be clear because there has been a question about this. This is not just people from the Twin Cities who go up to the Boundary Waters to visit. This is everybody in Minnesota. This is people who live in Northeastern Minnesota who want to see this protection done.
So, colleagues, if you support H.J. Res. 140, you are also choosing to ignore the trust and the treaty obligations that we have to the Chippewa Tribes in Northern Minnesota. You are saying: Nope. We are not going to pay any attention to that. That doesn't matter.
fishing
rights, on their rights to harvest wild rice, but you are saying: I am not going to come down on that side of the scale.
What you are going to do if you support H.J. Res. 140 is you are going to come down—who is the winner here? You are going to come down on the side of a Chilean billionaire, a Chilean billionaire who owns the largest copper mine—the largest copper company—in the whole world, a Chilean billionaire who is going to take our minerals, ship them to the Pacific coast, where they are going to go to China to get smelted—where this company has a sweetheart deal with their smelters. Then, if we are lucky, that copper is going to be sold back to us at a profit.
That is not an “America First” strategy, colleagues. That is a “Chilean Billionaire First” strategy.
this decision in the Senate, isn't it ironic that President Trump, who says that he is a supporter of miners and that he stands with steelworkers, is about to use foreign steel to build his billionaire ballroom off of the White House? What is that about?
mining issue—I see this play out every single day in my beloved State of Minnesota—but as you vote, I ask you to think about this: I ask you to think about the precedent that you are setting here because here is what I have learned after having been in the Senate for the last 9 years: What goes around comes around. What goes around comes around because what you would be doing here, colleagues, is you would be allowing this public land order to be rescinded under the Congressional Review Act. This is a dangerous precedent. This has never been done before. Public land orders have never previously been submitted by any administration, including the Trump administration, as rules subject to the CRA. This would be the first one submitted even though this public land order was submitted 3 years ago, processed legally, and done by the book—done by the book that Congress wrote.
over, potentially, decades could then be rescinded by some partisan act of Congress just willy-nilly. Think about what this means. It means mineral leases, and it means timber public land orders in North Dakota. It means that any public land order that has been out there in the past or potentially any administrative action could be just undone under a privileged process in the U.S. Senate.
Colleagues, I beseech you not to do this. I know that this is a terrible thing for us to do. I know that not only will it have impacts for my beloved Boundary Waters in my State but that it will have impacts in all of our States.
care so much about the Boundary Waters and who care so much about the precious places that we have all over this country.
You have organized. You have made calls. You have sent messages. I am thinking about the hunting and fishing groups. I am thinking about the outdoor groups. I am thinking about the Minnesota citizens and American citizens. I am thinking about all of the Tribal leaders and members who have made your voices heard.
afternoon, that we will not stop fighting, and we will not stop our work to protect the Boundary Waters. Of all the places that we have in this country, this place has such special meaning. It is a sacred place, and we will never stop defending it.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will read the joint resolution by title for the third time.
Vote on H.J. Res. 140
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The joint resolution having been read the third time, the question is, Shall the joint resolution pass?
Mrs. MOODY. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. BARRASSO. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Missouri (Mr. Hawley).
The result was announced—yeas 50, nays 49, as follows:
Rollcall Vote No. 84 Leg.
YEAS—50
Armstrong
Banks
Barrasso
Blackburn
Boozman
Britt
Budd
Capito
Cassidy
Cornyn
Cotton
Cramer
Crapo
Cruz
Curtis
Daines
Ernst
Fischer
Graham
Grassley
Hagerty
Hoeven
Husted
Hyde-Smith
Johnson
Justice
Kennedy
Lankford
Lee
Lummis
Marshall
McConnell
McCormick
Moody
Moran
Moreno
Murkowski
Paul
Ricketts
Risch
Rounds
Schmitt
Scott (FL)
Scott (SC)
Sheehy
Sullivan
Thune
Tuberville
Wicker
Young
NAYS—49
Alsobrooks
Baldwin
Bennet
Blumenthal
Blunt Rochester
Booker
Cantwell
Collins
Coons
Cortez Masto
Duckworth
Durbin
Fetterman
Gallego
Gillibrand
Hassan
Heinrich
Hickenlooper
Hirono
Kaine
Kelly
Kim
King
Klobuchar
Lujan
Markey
Merkley
Murphy
Murray
Ossoff
Padilla
Peters
Reed
Rosen
Sanders
Schatz
Schiff
Schumer
Shaheen
Slotkin
Smith
Tillis
Van Hollen
Warner
Warnock
Warren
Welch
Whitehouse
Wyden
NOT VOTING—1
Hawley
The joint resolution (H.J. Res. 140) was passed.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Hagerty). The Senator from Alaska.
Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that with respect to H.J. Res. 140, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.