Loading bill breakdown…
1
Jared F. GoldenDemocrat · Maine 2nd · Lean R+4House Committee on Natural ResourcesEnergy and Mineral ResourcesOn the ballot
Loading bill breakdown…
Sponsored by Rep. Pete Stauber (R-MN) · 2 active : 2 Republicans
Latest action: Committee on Energy and Natural Resources Subcommittee on Public Lands, Forests, and Mining. Hearings held.
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.
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.
Each member’s recorded vote compared with their swing projection from before the vote. A member by voting against most of their own party.
| BandBand before the vote | VotedVoted yea or nay | BrokeBroke with party | Share |
|---|---|---|---|
| Swing | 35 | 9 | 26% |
| Middle | 238 | 2 | 1% |
| Entrenched | 143 | 0 | 0% |
| All |
Members fall into . 2 representatives don’t have enough data yet and are marked “insufficient data”. Non-voting delegates are not counted.
Bars show each input from 0 to 100: ideology gap, scorecard gap, . is the seat’s partisan lean, and shows how much of the input data a score has. Where the House has voted, each member’s appears with the projection made before it.
Loading similar votes
Finally, Interior must prioritize efforts to accelerate geologic mapping.
| 416 |
| 11 |
| 3% |
: Pair any member who broke with one who stayed with their party: in 96% of those pairs, the one who broke had the higher swing score before the vote. Chance would be 50%.
Projections from swing-v2, computed with data from before the vote. Present and not voting never count as breaking.
These members have less than half of the model’s inputs, so their scores are not banded or ranked.
Ringed dots broke with their party on the vote.
Ideology is each member’s score. The cluster low on the chart includes the bill’s 3 sponsor and cosponsors in the House: they have already committed, so they score as entrenched. 2 representatives without a DW-NOMINATE score or with insufficient data are not plotted.
Similar votes count toward swing-v3 in the House: total similarity weight 62.5 (needs 5.0).
