WASHINGTON – Rep. Pete Stauber thought he had found a foolproof way to speed legislation through Congress that would lift a moratorium on copper and nickel mining in the Boundary Waters watershed.

But it has not turned out to be speedy. And maybe not fool proof, either.

Stauber, R-8th District, had no trouble winning approval in the U.S. House of his resolution. He has also won House approval for other legislation that would help mining interests on the Iron Range. But the filibuster, which gives minority Democrats leverage in the U.S. Senate, has always prevented his legislation from passage in that chamber.

So, Stauber turned to the Congressional Review Act (CRA). Approved in 1996, the act was aimed at making federal agencies more accountable.

Related: House Republicans vote to lift 20-year ban on mining near pristine Boundary Waters Canoe Area

The CRA can overturn federal agency rules and regulations through  a joint resolution of approval in both the House and Senate and a president’s signature. That means it is not bound by the filibuster rule, which requires 60 votes to pass most legislation.

Stauber’s resolution would lift a Biden-administration 20-year moratorium, or mineral withdrawal, on copper and nickel mining in about 225,000 acres of the Superior National Forest that is a watershed for the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness because of concerns over the environmental dangers of sulfide mining.

It would also prevent future presidents from asking the U.S. Forest Service to implement a new mining moratorium to try to protect that sportsman’s paradise 

The use of the Congressional Review Act to overturn the mineral withdrawal stunned environmental and conservation groups that have for years fought attempts to mine copper and nickel in Superior National Forest. That moratorium has impacted mining firms like Twin Metals, which has been working for more than a decade to obtain federal permits to mine in the forest.

Stauber’s legislation has opened a new front in the battle, and opponents of sulfide mining are deploying a grassroots lobbying effort to try to convince the Senate to ignore the legislation, saying it would have long-term and broader consequences.

“The Senate’s upcoming vote will decide the fate of America’s most cherished canoe country and set a dangerous precedent for public lands across the country,” said Ingrid Lyons, executive director of Save the Boundary Waters. 

The Roosevelt factor 

Those opposed to sulfide mining in the Boundary Waters watershed are hoping the Senate will run out of time to take up Stauber’s resolution.

To use the CRA to avoid a filibuster, the Senate must act on a disapproval resolution during a 60-days-of-Senate-session period. That deadline will come near the end of April because, although the Senate received Stauber’s resolution Jan. 26, there have been times the chamber was not in session.  

Yet the Senate is tied up with bigger things, including trying to pass legislation to fund the war with Iran and the Department of Homeland Security. 

Meanwhile, President Donald Trump has made the SAVE America Act, which would require strict identification to register to vote and cast a ballot, a priority and will not sign any other bill until the voter bill hits his desk. And the Senate is about to take a two-week spring break.

So, opponents of Stauber’s resolution are in watch-and-see mode, celebrating each day the issue isn’t on the Senate floor. 

“We’re over halfway there,” said Libby London, spokesperson for Save the Boundary Waters. “We’ve basically been in limbo for 10 weeks and every week without a vote is a good week for the Boundary Waters.”

That the vote hasn’t happened yet shows how much the Boundary Waters is beloved, London said. She pointed as evidence of the Boundary Waters’ popularity a lobbying blitz that includes outreach to Republicans from the great-grandsons and great-great-grandsons of former President Teddy Roosevelt.

“The proposed resolution is diametrically at odds with the conservation legacy of President Theodore Roosevelt,” the president’s descendants wrote in a lengthy letter to GOP senators.

Meanwhile, the resolution’s opponents are anxiously watching the calendar.

“Americans do not want to let Congress take away the Boundary Waters, but it is hard to sit here in this gray area,” London said.

Stauber also knows the clock is ticking. In an op-ed that ran in The Hill last week, Stauber urged the Senate to hurry to vote on his legislation, citing the need for war-fighting minerals in the wake of the war on Iran.

“This is not about Northern Minnesota. It is about whether the United States has the minerals necessary to build the aircraft, munitions and systems required to fight — and win — the wars of the future,” Stauber said in his op-ed.

Stauber also wrote that “national security doesn’t pause for political inertia.”

“The Senate should pass the resolution now — not because Northern Minnesota needs it, but because America’s security demands it,” he wrote.

A spokeswoman for Stauber was optimistic.

“Our bill will come to the Senate floor soon, and when it does, it will pass,” she said.

‘Legislative gymnastics’ 

Yet Pete Marshall, a spokesperson for Friends of the Boundary Waters, said even if the mining issue does reach the top of the Senate’s to-do list, it’s unclear how much support it has.

Reading the tea leaves, he suspects Republicans would have enough votes to undo the mining ban. The process, however, may ruffle feathers among traditionalists who don’t like the precedent that it would set. 

“Just because of the way that the Congressional Review Act is being used to overturn a public land order … (we hope) some more institutional-minded Republicans would not be too thrilled by this kind of legislative gymnastics that went on,” he said.

Congress passed the CRA to prevent a lame duck president from pushing through massive policy changes right before a new president is inaugurated. It mandates a resolution of disapproval to be considered 60 days after a rules change. But the mineral withdrawal was implemented on Jan. 26, 2023.

Athan Manuel, director of the lands protection program at the Sierra Club, said Stauber and his supporters are using an improper “loophole” and because of that and other things he expects court challenges if Stauber’s resolution becomes law.

Manuel also lauded Sen. Tina Smith’s outreach to GOP colleagues, especially moderates and women she has served with, including Sens. Thom Tillis of North Carolina, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Susan Collins of Maine.

He said Smith is “calling in a lot of chits.”

“She’s saying, ‘Please don’t do this to me as I’m walking out the door,’” Manuel said of Smith, who is retiring at the end of the year. “She’s done a good job in casting doubt on the vote count.”

Marshall said Sens. Chuck Grassley and Joni Ernst of Iowa and even Majority Leader John Thune of South Dakota may not like the use of the CRA because they are traditionalists and could be “longshot” no votes. 

“I know senators on both sides of the aisle have gotten huge amounts of outreach from their constituents opposing this bill,” Smith said in an emailed statement. “Not just from people who are lucky enough to have visited the Boundary Waters, but also those who care about public lands and are deeply concerned how this unprecedented legislative maneuver opens the door to reversing protections for public lands everywhere.”

Related: Task force wades into the complexity of water stewardship in the Land of 10,000 Lakes; mining identified at major issue

Sen. Amy Klobuchar, who like Smith is a Democrat, also opposes the resolution. 

Republicans hold a 53-47 majority in the Senate and it would not take too many GOP “no” votes for Stauber’s resolution to fail if Democrats hold firm in opposition. But if Trump, who removed a moratorium on sulfide mining that was placed on Superior National Forest by the Obama administration, gets involved, it would be difficult for a Republican to vote “no” on the resolution. 

Even if the resolution passes the Senate, there won’t be sulfide mining in Superior National Forest for many years. Mining companies like Twin Metals must apply for federal and state permits, undergo environmental reviews and clear other bureaucratic hurdles.

“It would still be a very lengthy review process before any mine would be permitted,” said Julie Lucas, executive director of Mining Minnesota, who says development of a huge deposit of helium is also impacted by the moratorium. 

So, environmental advocates don’t have tunnel vision on only Congress.

They’ll be at the Minnesota Capitol on Wednesday to push for more state protections  for the Boundary Waters. Marshall said they want the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources to cancel Twin Metals’ lease based on provisions in a 1990 agreement with the state.

Under the provisions, the state could take this step after 35 years if the company hasn’t actively engaged in mining and hasn’t paid the state $100,000 in royalty payments during a calendar year. Twin Metals hasn’t met either requirement, according to Friends of the Boundary Waters. 

Related