Rules Committee · Feb 4, 2026
H.Amdt. 161: Its purpose is not yet published.
Adopted
With no one objecting, no names recorded
A Republican bill with 2 Republican cosponsors · See all 2 cosponsors
Last activity — Committee on Energy and Natural Resources Subcommittee on Public Lands, Forests, and Mining. Hearings held.
In the other chamber's committee
Passed one chamber and has been handed to a committee in the other.
The committee decides whether it goes any further, and most bills that reach a committee never leave it. A committee that simply does nothing kills a bill without anyone ever voting against it, so no news from here is usually the news.
Its path through Congress
- Introduced
- Passed House 224–195
- In Senate committee
What this bill would do
The Critical Mineral Dominance Act aims to establish the United States as a leading producer of hardrock minerals. It directs the Secretary of the Interior to analyze the economic impacts of relying on mineral imports. The bill requires the identification and expedited approval of priority mining projects on Federal land. It also mandates the identification of Federal lands suitable for mineral production and the review of regulations that may impose burdens on mining. Additionally, the act seeks to accelerate geological mapping of the United States to find unknown deposits.
Yes· 3 of 9
- Scored +7
Would business owners be better off under this?
Mining companies and industry stakeholders will benefit significantly from expedited approvals and reduced regulatory burdens.
- Scored +6
Is this likely to create jobs?
The bill explicitly aims to create jobs through increased domestic hardrock mineral production.
- Scored +5
Is this likely to grow the economy?
By increasing domestic mineral production and streamlining approvals, the bill aims to foster domestic economic prosperity.
The opposite· 3 of 6
- Scored -5
Would Native Americans be better off under this?
Increased mining on Federal lands often impacts tribal lands and traditional treaty rights.
- Scored -5
Does this better protect air, water and wildlife?
The bill directs the reduction or rescinding of agency actions and regulations that may serve as environmental protections.
- Scored -4
Does this better protect public land such as parks and forests?
The bill prioritizes mining interests over standard public land management and regulatory oversight.
What Congress actually voted on
2 recorded votes have been taken on this bill. One 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 224 yes · 195 no
02/04/2026 · Roll call 55 · recorded as “On Passage”
- The House: a last attempt to send the bill back to committee The minority party's final chance to change or stall a bill just before the vote on passage. It almost always fails; when it succeeds, the bill does not get its final vote that day. Motion to recommit rejected 209 yes · 212 no
02/04/2026 · Roll call 54 · recorded as “On Motion to Recommit”
Who it would affect, and how
Potential Positive Impacts for People
-
Economic Growth and Job Creation: The policy seeks to create jobs and prosperity at home through increased mineral production (Section 2).
-
National Security and Supply Chain Strength: The act aims to strengthen supply chains for the United States and its allies while reducing the global influence of adversarial states (Section 2).
-
Streamlined Project Approvals: The bill requires the Secretary to identify priority mining projects that can be immediately approved or issued permits for, and to take actions to expedite those approvals (Section 4(a)).
-
Resource Utilization: The bill seeks to identify projects that can increase production through the use of mine tailings or coal ash and other coal byproducts (Section 4(b)).
-
Improved Resource Knowledge: The act prioritizes efforts to accelerate detailed geologic mapping to find previously unknown hardrock mineral deposits (Section 7).
Potential Negative Impacts for People
-
Regulatory Reductions: The bill directs the Secretary to identify and potentially suspend, revise, or rescind agency actions, such as regulations or public land withdrawals, that are deemed to impose an undue burden on mining projects (Section 6(a)).
-
Review of Local Laws: The Secretary is required to conduct a nationwide review of State and local statutes, regulations, and ordinances that may impede domestic mining and mineral exploration (Section 6(b)).
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.
- Economy And Finance
- Is this likely to create jobs? — The bill explicitly aims to create jobs through increased domestic hardrock mineral production. Is this likely to grow the economy? — By increasing domestic mineral production and streamlining approvals, the bill aims to foster domestic economic prosperity.
- Demographic And Interest Groups
- Would business owners be better off under this? — Mining companies and industry stakeholders will benefit significantly from expedited approvals and reduced regulatory burdens. Would people in rural areas be better off under this? — Mining projects often provide significant economic opportunities to rural areas where resources are located. Would union members be better off under this? — Increased mining activity is likely to create industrial and manual labor jobs. Would Native Americans be better off under this? — Increased mining on Federal lands often impacts tribal lands and traditional treaty rights.
- Environment Energy And Infrastructure
- Does this put more money into wind, solar and other renewable power? — Increased mineral production is essential for the production of renewable energy technologies. Does this better protect air, water and wildlife? — The bill directs the reduction or rescinding of agency actions and regulations that may serve as environmental protections. Does this better protect public land such as parks and forests? — The bill prioritizes mining interests over standard public land management and regulatory oversight. Does this cut the pollution that drives climate change? — The focus on expanding hardrock mining may increase environmental disruption and reduce certain regulatory protections.
- Education And Technology
- Does this put more money into scientific research? — The bill accelerates geologic mapping efforts, which increases the scientific knowledge of US mineral resources.
- Governance And Ideology
- Does this give the federal government more power? — The bill empowers the Secretary of the Interior to expedite approvals and potentially override local regulations. Does this make what the government does easier for the public to see? — The bill requires new, regular reporting on mineral reliance and priority mining projects. Does this leave more decisions to the states? — The bill mandates a review of state and local statutes that might impede federal mining projects. Does this protect the right to fair treatment by the courts? — The expedited approval processes may reduce the opportunity for due process in regulatory challenges.
- 7/15/2026
- Committee on Energy and Natural Resources Subcommittee on Public Lands, Forests, and Mining. Hearings held.
- 2/5/2026
- Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
- 2/4/2026
- Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
- Passed/agreed to in House: On passage Passed by the Yeas and Nays: 224 - 195 (Roll no. 55). (text of amendment in the nature of a substitute: CR H1994)
- On passage Passed by the Yeas and Nays: 224 - 195 (Roll no. 55). (text of amendment in the nature of a substitute: CR H1994)
- On motion to recommit Failed by the Yeas and Nays: 209 - 212 (Roll no. 54).
- Considered as unfinished business. (consideration: CR H2009-2010)
- POSTPONED PROCEEDINGS - At the conclusion of debate on H.R. 4090, the Chair put the question on motion to recommit and by voice vote, announced the noes had prevailed. Ms. Leger Fernandez 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. Leger Fernandez moved to recommit to the Committee on Natural Resources. (text: CR H2002)
- The previous question was ordered pursuant to the rule.
- DEBATE - The House proceeded with one hour of debate on H.R. 4090.
- Rule provides for consideration of H.J. Res. 142 and H.R. 4090. The resolution provides for consideration of the Senate amendments to H.R. 7148. Also, the resolution provides for consideration of H.J. Res. 142 and H.R. 4090 under a closed rule and provides for one motion to recommit H.R. 4090.
- Considered under the provisions of rule H. Res. 1032. (consideration: CR H1993-2002)
- 2/3/2026
- Rule H. Res. 1032 passed House.
- Rules Committee Resolution H. Res. 1032 Reported to House. Rule provides for consideration of H.J. Res. 142 and H.R. 4090. The resolution provides for consideration of the Senate amendments to H.R. 7148. Also, the resolution provides for consideration of H.J. Res. 142 and H.R. 4090 under a closed rule and provides for one motion to recommit H.R. 4090.
- 11/25/2025
- Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Natural Resources. H. Rept. 119-387.
- Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 337.
- 10/6/2025
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 9/17/2025
- Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources Discharged
- Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held
- Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by the Yeas and Nays: 26 - 16.
- 9/9/2025
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 9/3/2025
- Subcommittee Hearings Held
- 7/2/2025
- Referred to the Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources.
- 6/23/2025
- 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