Ted Cruz (R-TX)
Army Organic Industrial Base Mineral Partnerships Act of 2026
A Republican bill with 1 Republican cosponsor · See the cosponsor
Last activity — Read twice and referred to the Committee on Armed Services.
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 "Army Organic Industrial Base Mineral Partnerships Act of 2026," seeks to amend title 10 of the United States Code. It authorizes cooperative partnerships between the Army and non-Army entities for mineral extraction activities at Army organic industrial base facilities. These activities include the recovery, processing, or handling of strategic or critical minerals using Army land, facilities, or waste streams. The bill establishes specific rules regarding environmental responsibilities, financial security, and compensation. It also dictates how funds received from these partnerships can be used for Army industrial facilities. Finally, it requires the Secretary of the Army to submit annual reports to Congress regarding these arrangements.
Yes· 3 of 6
- Scored +3
Does this make what the government does easier for the public to see?
The bill requires the Secretary of the Army to submit annual reports to Congress regarding these mineral partnerships.
- Scored +2
Does this better protect air, water and wildlife?
The bill explicitly requires non-Army entities to comply with all federal, state, and local environmental laws and mandates responsibility for cleanup.
- Scored +2
Does this better protect public land such as parks and forests?
The bill establishes strict environmental and financial safeguards for using Army-controlled land for mineral extraction.
The opposite
No question was scored the opposite.
Who it would affect, and how
Potential Positive Impacts for People
-
Environmental Protection and Accountability: The bill mandates that non-Army entities must comply with all applicable Federal, State, and local environmental laws, such as the National Environmental Policy Act and the Clean Air Act (Section 2, subsection (i)(1)(A)). Additionally, these entities are responsible for environmental mitigation, cleanup, and response (Section 2, subsection (i)(1)(B)(i)).
-
Financial Security for the Government: To protect against the risk of a company going bankrupt or failing to meet its obligations, the bill requires the non-Army entity to provide financial assurances, such as performance bonding or insurance (Section 2, subsection (i)(1)(B)(iii)).
-
Modernization of Army Facilities: The Army can receive various forms of consideration for these partnerships, including equipment, production capability enhancements, or industrial process improvements that directly support the modernization of the organic industrial base (Section 2, subsection (i)(2)(B)(iii)).
-
Resource Generation for Facility Maintenance: Cash payments received by the Army can be kept and used for the operation, maintenance, modernization, and environmental remediation of Army industrial facilities (Section 2, subsection (i)(2)(C)).
Potential Negative Impacts for People
-
Risk of Environmental Contamination: While the bill places responsibility on non-Army entities, it explicitly mentions the handling of contamination that may be discovered after a contract ends or that migrates beyond the facility boundaries (Section 2, subsection (i)(1)(B)(i)).
-
Potential for Financial Loss if Entities Default: There is a stated need for financial security because the government faces risks associated with the "default, insolvency, or bankruptcy of the non-Army entity" (Section 2, subsection (i)(1)(B)(iii)).
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 explicitly requires non-Army entities to comply with all federal, state, and local environmental laws and mandates responsibility for cleanup. Does this better protect public land such as parks and forests? — The bill establishes strict environmental and financial safeguards for using Army-controlled land for mineral extraction.
- Governance And Ideology
- Does this make what the government does easier for the public to see? — The bill requires the Secretary of the Army to submit annual reports to Congress regarding these mineral partnerships.
- Demographic And Interest Groups
- Would business owners be better off under this? — The bill opens new avenues for commercial entities to partner with the Army for mineral recovery.
- Economy And Finance
- Does this make it easier to run a small business? — The bill creates new opportunities for non-Army entities to engage in mineral extraction partnerships on Army land.
- National Security And Foreign Policy
- Does this increase the pay, pensions or support veterans receive? — The bill allows for the modernization of Army industrial facilities which supports the broader military mission.
- 5/13/2026
- Read twice and referred to the Committee on Armed Services.
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- Introduced in Senate
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.
John CornynRepublican · Texas