Sponsors (3)
3 meetings related to this legislation
Last progress December 16, 2025 (1 month ago)
Introduced on June 10, 2025 by Pat Fallon
On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by voice vote. (text: CR H5884)
Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
Amends the Mineral Leasing Act for Acquired Lands to add a statutory definition of “hardrock mineral” and to treat hardrock minerals as a category subject to the Act’s leasing provisions. The change lists which minerals count as hardrock (for example, base and precious metals, gemstones) and explicitly excludes others (coal, oil, gas, sulfur, etc.). This is a targeted, technical change to statutory definitions and to the list of minerals covered by the leasing framework for acquired federal lands; it does not itself appropriate funds or establish new programs, but it could change how hardrock extraction on acquired lands is authorized and administered (leasing vs. other authorities).
Amends section 2 (30 U.S.C. 351) of the Mineral Leasing Act for Acquired Lands by striking and inserting the statutory text that defines multiple terms, including United States; acquired lands; Secretary; mineral leasing laws; lease; and oil.
Adds a new definition in section 2 for the term “hardrock mineral.” The definition explicitly includes: (i) minerals found in sedimentary or other rocks; (ii) base metals; (iii) precious metals; (iv) industrial metals; and (v) precious and semi-precious gemstones. The definition explicitly excludes: (i) coal; (ii) oil; (iii) oil shale; (iv) gas; (v) sodium; (vi) potassium; (vii) sulfur; and (viii) mineral materials subject to disposition under the Materials Act of 1947 (30 U.S.C. 601 et seq.).
Amends section 3 (30 U.S.C. 352) of the Mineral Leasing Act for Acquired Lands by striking the phrase “and sulfur” and inserting “sulfur, and hardrock minerals,” thereby adding hardrock minerals to the list in that section.
Who is affected and how:
Lode and placer claim holders and hardrock miners: On acquired federal lands, activities involving minerals that meet the new “hardrock mineral” definition may now fall under the Mineral Leasing Act for Acquired Lands. That can change the legal pathway for development—from a claims-based approach under other statutes to a leasing-based regime—potentially affecting permitting steps, lease terms, and payments to the government.
Mining companies and project developers: Companies exploring or proposing hardrock mineral projects on acquired lands will need to work within the leasing framework applicable to those lands. This can alter administrative procedures and timelines because leasing and leasing-related environmental analyses differ from other authorization processes.
Federal land management agencies (Department of the Interior and bureaus): Agencies will have to apply the revised definitions when determining whether particular mineral activities qualify as hardrock minerals subject to leasing. That may require updates to internal guidance, forms, and review practices.
Local communities and stakeholders near acquired lands: Changes in statutory coverage could affect the timing and type of federal review, revenue flows (through leases and royalties if later established by regulation), and land‑use outcomes for projects proposed on affected lands.
Other resource sectors: The statute explicitly excludes certain resources (coal, oil, gas, sulfur), so those sectors are not directly changed by this text; the change is focused on the treatment of hardrock-type minerals on acquired lands.
Overall effect:
This is a definitional and coverage change that clarifies which minerals are to be treated as hardrock minerals under the Mineral Leasing Act for Acquired Lands. It does not itself create permits, set royalty or reclamation policy, or change environmental standards, but it can alter which statutory pathway applies to future hardrock mineral activity on acquired lands, with downstream administrative and commercial effects.