PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
Congressional Research Service
Version 07 · Reported to House · Feb 9, 2024
Superior National Forest Restoration Act
This bill rescinds Public Land Order No. 7917 for Withdrawal of Federal Lands; Cook, Lake, and Saint Louis Counties, MN, which bars mining operations on specified Forest Service lands in Minnesota.
The bill directs the Forest Service to
complete necessary environmental and regulatory review for all mine plans of operations within the Superior National Forest within 18 months of submission; and
reissue each cancelled mineral lease, preference right lease, and prospecting permit relating to lands within that forest.
A lease or permit reissued under this provision is not subject to judicial review.
People & committees
Rep. Stauber, Pete [R-MN-8] · R–MN
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
On passage Passed by the Yeas and Nays: 212 - 203 (Roll no. 171). (text of amendment in the nature of a substitute: CR H2718)
House roll call 171 · Individual votesPassed/agreed to in House: On passage Passed by the Yeas and Nays: 212 - 203 (Roll no. 171). (text of amendment in the nature of a substitute: CR H2718)
House roll call 171 · Individual votesOn motion to recommit Failed by the Yeas and Nays: 205 - 210 (Roll no. 170).
House roll call 170 · Individual votesConsidered as unfinished business. (consideration: CR H2752-2754)
POSTPONED PROCEEDINGS - At the conclusion of debate on H.R. 3195, the Chair put the question on the motion to recommit and by voice vote announced that the noes had prevailed. Ms. McCollum demanded the yeas and nays and the Chair postponed further proceedings until a time to be announced.
The previous question on the motion to recommit was ordered pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XIX.
Ms. McCollum moved to recommit to the Committee on Natural Resources. (text: CR H2728)
The previous question was ordered pursuant to the rule.
DEBATE - The House proceeded with one hour of debate on H.R. 3195.
Rule provides for consideration of H.R. 615, H.R. 2925, H.R. 3195, H.R. 764, H.R. 3397, H.R. 6285 and H.R. 6090. The rule provides for consideration of H.R. 615, H.R. 2925, H.R. 3195, H.R. 764, H.R. 3397, and H.R. 6090 under a closed rule, and H.R. 6285 under a structured rule. The rule provides for one hour of general debate and one motion to recommit on each bill.
Considered under the provisions of rule H. Res. 1173. (consideration: CR H2718-2728)
Rules Committee Resolution H. Res. 1173 Reported to House. Rule provides for consideration of H.R. 615, H.R. 2925, H.R. 3195, H.R. 764, H.R. 3397, H.R. 6285 and H.R. 6090. The rule provides for consideration of H.R. 615, H.R. 2925, H.R. 3195, H.R. 764, H.R. 3397, and H.R. 6090 under a closed rule, and H.R. 6285 under a structured rule. The rule provides for one hour of general debate and one motion to recommit on each bill.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 308.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Natural Resources. H. Rept. 118-377.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Natural Resources. H. Rept. 118-377.
Ordered to be Reported in the Nature of a Substitute (Amended) by the Yeas and Nays: 21 - 17.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources Discharged.
Subcommittee Hearings Held.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources.
Referred to the House Committee on Natural Resources.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Sep 8, 2026. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.3195 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.3195 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.3195 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.3195 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.