Did the house pass a bill to roll back protections near the mn boundary canoe area
Executive summary
The U.S. House of Representatives voted to overturn a Biden-era 20-year mineral withdrawal that had blocked new sulfide-ore mining in the headwaters near the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness, passing a Congressional Review Act resolution (H.J. Res. 140) on a 214–208 vote and sending the measure to the Senate [1][2]. Supporters say the move reopens access for mining and state permitting while opponents warn it would expose the Boundary Waters’ watershed to the risks of acid mine drainage and heavy-metal pollution and pledge to fight the resolution in the Senate [3][4][5].
1. What the House actually voted to do
House Republicans advanced and adopted a joint resolution under the Congressional Review Act to nullify Public Land Order 7917, the Biden administration action that imposed a 20-year moratorium on mining in roughly 400 square miles near the Boundary Waters; the roll-back was approved in the House by a 214–208 margin and now awaits Senate consideration [1][6][2]. The resolution specifically seeks to rescind the federal withdrawal that had been intended to prevent new sulfide-ore copper and nickel mining in the Rainy River watershed that feeds the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness [3][7].
2. Why supporters backed the rollback
Proponents in Congress, led by Rep. Pete Stauber and House Republicans, framed the move as undoing an executive overreach and restoring access for mineral development and state permitting in a region with a history of mining importance, arguing the withdrawal improperly locked up lands and economic opportunity [3][6]. Coverage and statements from supporters emphasize the role of the CRA as a legal vehicle to review past agency actions and assert that overturning the withdrawal would allow potential mining projects—subject to state and further federal permitting—to proceed [3][7].
3. Why opponents say the repeal is dangerous
Environmental groups, Minnesota Democratic lawmakers and conservation advocates say the House vote would expose the Boundary Waters watershed to high-risk sulfide-ore mining that can produce irreversible acid mine drainage and heavy metal contamination, threatening habitats, recreation, and a multi-billion-dollar outdoor economy; Rep. Betty McCollum and Rep. Jared Huffman publicly condemned the resolution and vowed to fight it in the Senate [4][5][8]. Critics also characterize the maneuver as an unprecedented precedent for using the CRA to wipe out long-term land protections and warn that mining interests, including Twin Metals and foreign-owned companies, could gain access to lands that flow directly into the wilderness [7][5].
4. What this vote does — and what it does not — accomplish now
The House passage clears the CRA resolution for Senate consideration but does not itself reauthorize mining or change Minnesota’s permitting processes; if the Senate rejects the resolution or does not act, the 2023 withdrawal remains in place [1][6]. Likewise, even if the CRA succeeds in both chambers and is signed, proponents acknowledge additional state permits and other federal reviews would still be necessary for any specific mine to be built, and opponents emphasize the political and legal fights that would follow [3][9].
5. Stakes, politics and the next steps
The vote exposes a stark political split: Republicans pressing to reverse a Biden-era land order via the limited CRA tool and Democrats, conservation groups and many local stakeholders mobilizing to preserve the 20-year moratorium and advance separate legislation to permanently protect the Boundary Waters [7][10]. The immediate battlefield is the Senate, where control and Senate procedure will determine whether the repeal moves forward; the outcome there will decide if the House action actually removes the protections or remains a political statement [1][4].