PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Committee on Energy and Natural Resources Subcommittee on Public Lands, Forests, and Mining. Hearings held.
Congressional Research Service
Version 07 · Reported to House · Nov 25, 2025
Critical Mineral Dominance Act
This bill directs the Department of the Interior to address mineral supply chain vulnerabilities, including by accelerating and expanding mineral production on federal land (i.e., National Forest System land, public lands, and any land that may be leased for the exploration, development, or production of hardrock minerals).
Interior must (1) identify priority mining projects on federal lands that can be immediately approved, and (2) take all necessary and appropriate steps to expedite those projects.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Interior must also identify active, inactive, or proposed mining projects on federal land that have the potential to (1) increase production of hardrock minerals or their byproducts, (2) expand existing operations to include such byproducts, or (3) produce hardrock minerals from mine tailings or coal byproducts.
Further, Interior must identify certain federal land with potential for hardrock mining. Interior must prioritize identifying land where a mining project (1) can most quickly be fully permitted and operational, and (2) would have the greatest potential effect on the robustness of the domestic mineral supply chain.
Interior must (1) suspend, revise, or rescind agency actions that place undue burdens on mining projects; (2) recommend changes to current law necessary to expand U.S. production of hardrock minerals; and (3) review state and local laws that impede development of domestic mining and mineral exploration projects.
Interior must also report on the dollar value and overall economic impact of the United States' reliance on imports of certain mineral commodities.
Finally, Interior must prioritize efforts to accelerate geologic mapping.
People & committees
Rep. Stauber, Pete [R-MN-8] · R–MN
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources Subcommittee on Public Lands, Forests, and Mining. Hearings held.
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 the Yeas and Nays: 224 - 195 (Roll no. 55). (text of amendment in the nature of a substitute: CR H1994)
House roll call 55 · Individual votesPassed/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)
House roll call 55 · Individual votesOn motion to recommit Failed by the Yeas and Nays: 209 - 212 (Roll no. 54).
House roll call 54 · Individual votesConsidered 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)
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.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 337.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Natural Resources. H. Rept. 119-387.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Natural Resources. H. Rept. 119-387.
Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by the Yeas and Nays: 26 - 16.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held
Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources Discharged
Subcommittee Hearings Held
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.4090 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.4090 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.4090 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.4090 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.