Pete Stauber (R-MN)
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.
A Republican resolution with 4 Republican cosponsors · See all 4 cosponsors
Last activity — Became Public Law No: 119-85.
Became law
Passed both chambers and was signed by the President, or became law without a signature.
Nothing more in Congress: it is law. When it takes effect depends on the dates written into it — some parts start at once, others a year or more later.
What this bill would do
This joint resolution addresses a specific rule submitted by the Bureau of Land Management. The rule involves Public Land Order No. 7917 regarding the withdrawal of federal lands. These lands are located in Cook, Lake, and Saint Louis Counties, MN. This resolution provides for congressional disapproval of that specific rule. As a result of this disapproval, the rule shall have no force or effect.
Yes· 3 of 4
- Scored +3
Does this invest in rural communities?
By stopping the land withdrawal in Cook, Lake, and Saint Louis Counties, the bill keeps federal lands available for local development and use.
- Scored +3
Would people in rural areas be better off under this?
The resolution prevents the federal withdrawal of land in specific Minnesota counties, leaving land available for local-driven uses.
- Scored +2
Would farmers be better off under this?
Preventing land withdrawal keeps certain lands available for potential agricultural or resource use.
The opposite
- Scored -5
Does this better protect air, water and wildlife?
The resolution reverses a land withdrawal, which prevents the federal government from restricting certain uses of those lands for environmental preservation.
- Scored -4
Does this better protect public land such as parks and forests?
The resolution nullifies a specific Bureau of Land Management land withdrawal order, altering how those public lands are managed.
What Congress actually voted on
4 recorded votes have been taken on this bill. 2 of them decided something; the rest moved it along.
- The House: the vote on whether to pass the bill This is the real decision in this chamber. Passing here sends the bill to the other chamber, which must pass it too before it can go to the President. Passed 214 yes · 208 no
01/21/2026 · Roll call 38 · recorded as “On Passage”
- The Senate: the vote on whether to pass the joint resolution A joint resolution is a bill by another name: it goes to the other chamber and then to the President. Most of them are used to overturn a rule an agency has made. Passed 50 yes · 49 no
04/16/2026 · Roll call 84 · recorded as “On the Joint Resolution H.J.Res. 140”
- The Senate: a vote to kill something without debating it Setting a measure aside permanently. A successful motion to table ends the matter, so a vote for tabling is a vote against whatever was tabled. Motion to Table Agreed to 51 yes · 48 no
04/16/2026 · Roll call 82 · recorded as “On the Motion to Table H.J.Res. 140”
- The Senate: a vote on whether to start debating something This decides only whether the chamber takes the measure up at all. Nothing about the measure itself has been decided when it passes. Motion to Proceed Agreed to 51 yes · 49 no
04/15/2026 · Roll call 83 · recorded as “On the Motion to Proceed H.J.Res. 140”
Who it would affect, and how
Potential Positive Impacts for People
- Reversal of Land Withdrawal: By disapproving the rule, the resolution ensures that the rule relating to Public Land Order No.�7917 has no force or effect. This prevents the Bureau of Land Management's rule regarding the withdrawal of federal lands in Cook, Lake, and Saint Louis Counties, MN from being implemented.
Groups and Interests Ranking
Every group the model scored this bill for, from -10 to +10. Tap or hover a score for the reason it gave.
- Environment Energy And Infrastructure
- Does this invest in rural communities? — By stopping the land withdrawal in Cook, Lake, and Saint Louis Counties, the bill keeps federal lands available for local development and use. Does this better protect air, water and wildlife? — The resolution reverses a land withdrawal, which prevents the federal government from restricting certain uses of those lands for environmental preservation. Does this better protect public land such as parks and forests? — The resolution nullifies a specific Bureau of Land Management land withdrawal order, altering how those public lands are managed.
- Demographic And Interest Groups
- Would people in rural areas be better off under this? — The resolution prevents the federal withdrawal of land in specific Minnesota counties, leaving land available for local-driven uses. Would farmers be better off under this? — Preventing land withdrawal keeps certain lands available for potential agricultural or resource use.
- Governance And Ideology
- Does this leave more decisions to the states? — The resolution uses congressional authority to overturn a federal agency rule, which affects how federal land is managed within the state.
- Public Law (4/28/2026)
The text as it became law
- Enrolled Bill
The final version, on its way to the President
Arrived from the other chamber; nothing has been done to it there yet
- 4/27/2026
- Signed by President.
- Became Public Law No: 119-85.
- 4/17/2026
- Presented to President.
- 4/16/2026
- Considered by Senate. (consideration: CR S1807-1812)
- Passed/agreed to in Senate: Passed Senate without amendment by Yea-Nay Vote. 50 - 49. Record Vote Number: 84.
- Passed Senate without amendment by Yea-Nay Vote. 50 - 49. Record Vote Number: 84.
- Message on Senate action sent to the House.
- 4/15/2026
- Motion to proceed to consideration of measure made in Senate. (consideration: CR S1779-1780)
- Point of order that the measure is not entitled to expedited procedures under the Congressional Review Act raised in Senate. (CR S1780)
- Motion to table the point of order that the measure is not entitled to expedited procedures under the Congressional Review Act agreed to in Senate by Yea-Nay Vote. 51 - 48. Record Vote Number: 82.
- Motion to proceed to consideration of measure agreed to in Senate by Yea-Nay Vote. 51 - 49. Record Vote Number: 83. (CR S1790)
- Measure laid before Senate by motion.
- 1/26/2026
- Received in the Senate, read twice.
- 1/21/2026
- Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
- Passed/agreed to in House: On passage Passed by the Yeas and Nays: 214 - 208 (Roll no. 38). (text: CR H1147)
- On passage Passed by the Yeas and Nays: 214 - 208 (Roll no. 38). (text: CR H1147)
- Considered as unfinished business. (consideration: CR H1156-1157)
- POSTPONED PROCEEDINGS - At the conclusion of debate on H.J. Res. 140, the Chair put the question on passage of the joint resolution and by voice vote, announced the ayes had prevailed. Mr. Huffman demanded the yeas and nays and the Chair postponed further proceedings until a time to be announced.
- The previous question was ordered pursuant to the rule.
- DEBATE - The House proceeded with one hour of debate on H.J. Res. 140.
- Rule provides for consideration of H.R. 6945, H.R. 6359 and H.J. Res. 140. The resolution provides for consideration of H.R. 6945, H.R. 6359, and H.J. Res. 140 under a closed rule with one hour of general debate and one motion to recommit on each measure.
- Considered under the provisions of rule H. Res. 1009. (consideration: CR H1147-1155)
- Rule H. Res. 1009 passed House.
- 4 Cosponsors added.
- 1/20/2026
- Rules Committee Resolution H. Res. 1009 Reported to House. Rule provides for consideration of H.R. 6945, H.R. 6359 and H.J. Res. 140. The resolution provides for consideration of H.R. 6945, H.R. 6359, and H.J. Res. 140 under a closed rule with one hour of general debate and one motion to recommit on each measure.
- 1/12/2026
- Referred to the House Committee on Natural Resources.
- Introduced in House
One bill Congress.gov lists as related to this one — companions in the other chamber, earlier versions, and bills this one absorbed or was folded into.
Nicholas BegichRepublican · Alaska
Brad FinstadRepublican · Minnesota
Anna Paulina LunaRepublican · Florida
Celeste MaloyRepublican · Utah