PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 481.
Congressional Research Service
Version 07 · Reported to House · Mar 19, 2026
This bill repeals reporting requirements related to the use of certain minerals from the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) and the surrounding area by publicly traded companies.
Currently, publicly traded companies must annually make disclosures if certain minerals (tin, tungsten, tantalum, or gold) are necessary to the functionality or production of a product manufactured by the company. As part of the reporting process, companies must determine if such minerals are from the DRC or the surrounding area and exercise due diligence to determine if the minerals are DRC conflict free, not found to be DRC conflict free, or are unable to be classified. (DRC conflict free means the minerals do not finance or benefit armed groups in the DRC or an adjoining country.)
People & committees
Rep. Huizenga, Bill [R-MI-4] · R–MI
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 481.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Financial Services. H. Rept. 119-560.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Financial Services. H. Rept. 119-560.
Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by the Yeas and Nays: 30 - 24.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held
Referred to the House Committee on Financial Services.
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: Jun 11, 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.7085 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.7085 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.7085 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.7085 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.