Catherine Cortez Masto (D-NV)
Ruby Mountains Protection Act
A Democratic bill with 1 Democratic cosponsor · See the cosponsor
Last activity — Committee on Energy and Natural Resources Subcommittee on Public Lands, Forests, and Mining. Hearings held. With printed Hearing: S.Hrg. 119-305.
In committee
Introduced and handed to a committee in the chamber it started in.
The committee holds it, and most bills are never heard from again. A hearing or a committee vote would be news; silence is the usual outcome, and it kills the bill without anyone voting against it.
Its path through Congress
- Introduced
- In Committee
What this bill would do
This bill, known as the "Ruby Mountains Protection Act," aims to withdraw specific Federal lands from mineral leasing laws. It targets approximately 309,272 acres in the Ruby Mountains subdistrict of the Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest. Additionally, it covers approximately 39,926.10 acres located in the Ruby Lake National Wildlife Refuge. These areas are located in Elko and White Pine Counties, Nevada. The withdrawal applies to land acquired after the Act's enactment as well.
Yes· 3 of 5
- Scored +8
Does this better protect air, water and wildlife?
The bill provides strong environmental protections by withdrawing lands from mineral leasing.
- Scored +7
Does this better protect public land such as parks and forests?
The bill clarifies land use by withdrawing specific areas from mineral leasing activities.
- Scored +5
Does this reduce how much oil, gas and coal is produced?
The withdrawal specifically prohibits mineral leasing which includes various fossil fuel resources.
The opposite· 3 of 6
- Scored -5
Would business owners be better off under this?
The bill negatively impacts business owners in the mineral and mining sectors.
- Scored -3
Would union members be better off under this?
Mining and extraction unions may see a reduction in job opportunities.
- Scored -2
Would people in rural areas be better off under this?
Local rural economies dependent on mining may face economic constraints.
Who it would affect, and how
Potential Positive Impacts for People
-
Protection of Federal Lands: The bill withdraws approximately 309,272 acres in the Ruby Mountains subdistrict and approximately 39,926.10 acres in the Ruby Lake National Wildlife Refuge from all forms of operation under the mineral leasing laws (Section 2(a) and Section 3(a)(1)).
-
Management Continuity: The withdrawal does not prevent noncommercial refuge management activities by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (Section 3(a)(2)).
Potential Negative Impacts for People
- Restriction of Mineral Leasing: The bill withdraws specific Federal land and interests in the land from all forms of operation under the mineral leasing laws (Section 2(a) and Section 3(a)(1)).
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 better protect air, water and wildlife? — The bill provides strong environmental protections by withdrawing lands from mineral leasing. Does this better protect public land such as parks and forests? — The bill clarifies land use by withdrawing specific areas from mineral leasing activities. Does this reduce how much oil, gas and coal is produced? — The withdrawal specifically prohibits mineral leasing which includes various fossil fuel resources. Does this cut the pollution that drives climate change? — Preventing new mining may indirectly assist in reducing carbon-intensive industrial expansion. Does this invest in rural communities? — Restrictions on land use may limit certain types of economic development in rural Nevada.
- Demographic And Interest Groups
- Would business owners be better off under this? — The bill negatively impacts business owners in the mineral and mining sectors. Would union members be better off under this? — Mining and extraction unions may see a reduction in job opportunities. Would people in rural areas be better off under this? — Local rural economies dependent on mining may face economic constraints.
- Economy And Finance
- Is this likely to create jobs? — The withdrawal of lands from mineral leasing may restrict future jobs in the mining sector. Is this likely to grow the economy? — Restricting resource extraction can have a slight negative impact on regional economic growth.
- Governance And Ideology
- Does this give the federal government more power? — The bill utilizes federal authority to withdraw lands from commercial leasing laws.
- 2/12/2026
- Committee on Energy and Natural Resources Subcommittee on Public Lands, Forests, and Mining. Hearings held. With printed Hearing: S.Hrg. 119-305.
- 4/8/2025
- Read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- Introduced in Senate
Jacky RosenDemocrat · Nevada