Analyses / Public Summary / 119 · HJRES 140 Public Summary

119-HJRES-140 Journalist Public Summary

119 · HJRES 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.

park Public Lands and Natural Resources
This joint resolution nullifies Public Land Order 7917, which withdrew approximately 225,504 acres of National Forest System lands in Cook, Lake, and Saint Louis Counties, Minnesota, from mineral and...

A House resolution aims to overturn a 2023 Interior Department order that paused new mining leases on more than 225,000 acres near Minnesota’s Boundary Waters; backers say it would restore jobs and domestic minerals, while opponents warn it risks water quality and a popular wilderness area. (congress.gov)

Analyzed as
Journalist
Published
21 Jan 2026
Updated
21 Jan 2026
Tags
US Congress · Public Lands · Mining
Unvetted
01 · Section

Public Summary of 119-HJRES-140

Headline Summary: A short bill to nullify a 2023 Interior order that blocked new mining leases near the Boundary Waters in Minnesota; if enacted, it would lift that 20‑year pause. (congress.gov)

What It Does: This Congressional Review Act (CRA) resolution disapproves Public Land Order No. 7917—the 2023 decision that withdrew about 225,504 acres in the Superior National Forest from new mineral and geothermal leasing for 20 years to protect the Boundary Waters watershed. Passing the resolution would make that order have no force or effect, effectively reopening the area to potential leasing (any specific mine would still need permits and environmental review). Why it matters: Supporters frame it as a jobs-and‑minerals issue for a region with copper‑nickel deposits; opponents see high water‑pollution risks to a uniquely interconnected wilderness and recreation economy. (congress.gov)

Who’s For It:

  • Rep. Pete Stauber (R‑MN), the sponsor, arguing the withdrawal harmed local jobs and U.S. mineral security. (stauber.house.gov)
  • National Mining Association, urging Congress to overturn the withdrawal to access domestic critical minerals. (nma.org)
  • Twin Metals Minnesota (mine proponent near Ely/Babbitt), welcoming congressional efforts to reverse the withdrawal. (wdio.com)

Who’s Against It:

  • U.S. Department of the Interior has defended the 2023 withdrawal and opposed prior attempts to undo it, citing risks to the Boundary Waters watershed, Tribal rights, and the outdoor recreation economy. (doi.gov)
  • Save the Boundary Waters coalition, which supports maintaining the 20‑year withdrawal. (savetheboundarywaters.org)
  • National Parks Conservation Association, warning of harms to Voyageurs National Park and the Boundary Waters if protections are reversed. (npca.org)
  • Sen. Tina Smith (D‑MN), who has opposed reopening the Boundary Waters watershed to this type of mining. (boreal.org)

What’s Next: As of January 21, 2026, the resolution was introduced on January 12 and scheduled by the House Rules Committee for floor consideration under a closed rule on January 20. If it passes the House, it moves to the Senate; under the CRA, a disapproval must pass both chambers and be signed by the President to nullify the rule, and agencies are then barred from issuing a “substantially the same” rule unless Congress later authorizes it. (congress.gov)

Discussion