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 81 · Passed House without amendment · Nov 30, 2017
(This measure has not been amended since it was introduced. The summary has been expanded because action occurred on the measure.)
Minnesota's Economic Rights in the Superior National Forest Act
(Sec. 2) This bill declares that minerals with the National Forest System (NFS) lands in Minnesota shall not be subject to withdrawal from disposition under U.S. mineral and geothermal leasing laws unless such withdrawal is approved by an Act of Congress.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
(Sec. 3) The bill prohibits any extension or establishment of national monuments on NFS lands in Minnesota except by express authorization of Congress.
(Sec. 4) The bill declares that certain mineral leases issued within the exterior boundaries of NFS lands in Minnesota are indeterminate preference right leases that shall be: (1) issued for an initial 20-year period; and, (2) after such period, shall be renewable for 10-year periods if the lessee has complied with the terms and conditions of the lease during the 20-year period and on the condition that, at the end of each 10-year renewal period, Interior may readjust lease terms and conditions to encourage production or to address changing conditions within the lease area.
Interior may: (1) suspend operations under a lease when the lease can only be operated at a loss due to market conditions or when operations are interrupted by strikes; and (2) issue permits for the use of surface lands subject to, but not included in, the lease for the exploration, development, and use of the deposits covered by the lease.
This bill applies to all such mineral leases within the exterior boundaries of NFS lands in Minnesota, including: (1) leases that are not effective as of enactment of this bill; and (2) the existing hard rock mineral leases for Superior National Forest identified as MNES-01352 and MNES-01353.
The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) shall also apply to all such mineral leases within those boundaries. In the case of the renewal of such hard rock mineral leases, the Bureau of Land Management must complete the pending environmental assessment under NEPA within 30 days of this bill's enactment.
People & committees
Rep. Emmer, Tom [R-MN-6] · 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 recorded vote: 216 - 204 (Roll no. 643).
House roll call 643 · Individual votesPassed/agreed to in House: On passage Passed by recorded vote: 216 - 204 (Roll no. 643).
House roll call 643 · Individual votesUNFINISHED BUSINESS - Pursuant to clause 1(c) of rule 19, the House resumed with further consideration of H.R. 3905. (consideration: CR H9535-9536)
POSTPONED PROCEEDINGS - Pursuant to clause 1(c) of rule 19, further consideration of H.R. 3905 is postponed.
The previous question was ordered pursuant to the rule.
DEBATE - Pursuant to the provisions of H.Res. 631, the House proceeded with 10 minutes of debate on the Grijalva amendment No. 1.
DEBATE - The House resumed with debate on H.R. 3905.
DEBATE - The House proceeded with one hour of debate on H.R. 3905.
The rules provides 1 hour of general debate on both bills. For H.R. 3017, the bill is closed to amendments. For H.R. 3905, the rule provides for a specified amendment. The rule also provides for one motion to recommit with or without instructions on each bill.
Considered under the provisions of rule H. Res. 631. (consideration: CR H9498-9512; text of amendment in the nature of a substitute: CR H9498-9499)
Rule H. Res. 631 passed House.
Rules Committee Resolution H. Res. 631 Reported to House. The rules provides 1 hour of general debate on both bills. For H.R. 3017, the bill is closed to amendments. For H.R. 3905, the rule provides for a specified amendment. The rule also provides for one motion to recommit with or without instructions on each bill.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 312.
Reported by the Committee on Natural Resources. H. Rept. 115-422.
Reported by the Committee on Natural Resources. H. Rept. 115-422.
Ordered to be Reported by the Yeas and Nays: 17 - 13.
Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources Discharged.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Subcommittee on Federal Lands Discharged.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Federal Lands.
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.3905 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.3905 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.3905 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.3905 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.