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.
Latest action (Apr 27, 2026) — No: 119-85.
What it does
Congressional Research Service, Apr 27, 2026This joint resolution opens approximately 225,504 acres of National Forest System lands in Cook, Lake, and Saint Louis Counties in Minnesota to mineral and geothermal leasing. Specifically, the joint resolution nullifies Public Land Order 7917, which withdrew such land from mineral and geothermal leasing for 20 years beginning in 2023. The Bureau of Land Management issued the order to protect and preserve the Rainy River Watershed, the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness, the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness Mining Protection Area, and the 1854 Ceded Territory of the Lake Superior Chippewa from potential adverse effects of mineral and geothermal exploration and development. The joint resolution removes such protections and allows such land to be leased for the exploration and development of minerals and geothermal energy.
Face Value
as enrolledHow much of this bill its name accounts for.
- Every bill starts at100
- Nothing counted against it: one area of law, and short enough that length doesn't register.
Face Value measures reach, not honesty. A big bill can be accurately named, and a low score is not an accusation — it means the contents reach further than any short title could describe. Count it yourself ↗ How this is worked out
What Congress did
4 recordeddecisive vote
House · Jan 21, 2026
Whether the bill passes the House. This is the vote most people mean.
On the decisive vote
Senate · Apr 16, 2026
On the
Senate · Apr 15, 2026
Whether to start debating it at all. Not a vote on the bill itself.
On the
Senate · Apr 15, 2026
Whether to kill it without further debate. A Yea here is a vote against it.
Who lobbied on this
1 organizationThese organizations told Congress, in their own quarterly disclosures, that they were lobbying on this bill.
- International Brotherhood of Teamstersno position stated
“H.J. Res. 140” filing ↗
Most filings say only that an organization lobbied on a bill, not which side it took — where that's the case we say so rather than guessing. Quotes are verbatim from the filing. How this is built.
Discussion
0 commentsSign in to join the discussion and put your vote on the record.
No comments yet. Be the first to make the case.