PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the House Committee on Natural Resources.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Jan 23, 2025
This bill exempts certain energy and mineral actions on federal lands from the environmental review requirements under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA). Specifically, the bill states that the following are not to be considered a major federal action under NEPA:
issuing, granting, or renewing a lease, easement, or right-of-way under the Mineral Leasing Act for the exploration, development, or production of oil, gas, or coal; or
issuing, granting, or renewing a permit or other authorization under the Mining Law of 1872 for the exploration, location, development, or extraction of a critical mineral on land that is open to mineral entry.
By way of background, NEPA requires agencies to identify and evaluate the impacts of major federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment prior to finalizing certain decisions. Thus, if an action is not considered to be a major federal action, then it is exempt from NEPA.
People & committees
Rep. Hageman, Harriet M. [R-WY-At Large] · R–WY
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
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.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Dec 1, 2025. 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.676 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.676 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.676 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.676 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.