PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Jan 13, 2026
Developing Overseas Mineral Investments and New Allied Networks for Critical Energies Act or the DOMINANCE Act
This bill establishes a Bureau of Energy Security and Diplomacy in the Department of State and authorizes several programs to address access to energy and critical minerals.
The bureau must formulate and implement policies related to international energy, energy technology, critical minerals, and related supply chains. An assistant secretary is authorized to lead the bureau.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
The bill authorizes the State Department to establish multi-year energy security compacts with partner countries. The purpose of such compacts is to increase reliable access to energy, electricity, or critical minerals for both parties to the compact.
The bill also authorizes the State Department to lead U.S. participation in a Minerals Security Partnership (MSP), whose purpose includes supporting investment in critical mineral mining, processing, and refining projects that enable critical mineral supply chains. The United States must prioritize MSP projects that advance the national and economic security interests of the United States and U.S. allies and partners.
Fellowships are authorized to support (1) U.S. citizens attending foreign mining institutions in order to build the capacity of the U.S. mining workforce; and (2) foreign mining academics and professionals being placed at U.S. institutions to help advance research and development initiatives in the U.S. mining industry and expand U.S. mining education and workforce development programs.
People & committees
Rep. Kim, Young [R-CA-40] · R–CA
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations.
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by voice vote. (text: CR H3957-3964)
Passed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by voice vote. (text: CR H3957-3964)
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H.R. 7037.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H3957-3965)
Mr. Mast moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended.
Ordered to be Reported in the Nature of a Substitute by the Yeas and Nays: 45 - 0.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held
Referred to the House Committee on Foreign Affairs.
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: Nov 5, 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.7037 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.7037 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.7037 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.7037 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.