Latest action: Committee on Energy and Natural Resources Subcommittee on Public Lands, Forests, and Mining. Hearings held. With printed Hearing: S.Hrg. 119-305.
Referred to one or more standing committees for review, hearings, and possible markup.
Specific committees not parsed from action data.
The committee may hold hearings, amend the bill, or let it die without action.
Next: Reported
Full chamber floor — Speaker / Majority Leader controls scheduling
Protects Ruby Mountains in Nevada from mining and industrial development.
The problem
The Ruby Mountains in Nevada face potential mining and industrial projects that could harm wilderness areas, wildlife habitat, and water resources in the region.
The proposal
Designates portions of the Ruby Mountains as protected land, restricting mining, logging, and similar industrial activities while allowing some recreation and conservation uses.
The impact
Affects mining companies and energy interests seeking access to resources; benefits conservation groups, hunters, and outdoor enthusiasts; influences local Nevada economy and land management.
Designating the area protects animal habitats and ecosystems. This prevents habitat fragmentation and loss that mining operations would cause. Wildlife populations and migration patterns benefit from protected corridors.
Mining typically uses and can contaminate water supplies. Protected status helps maintain clean water for downstream communities and agriculture. Water quality protection benefits both environmental and human interests.
Hikers, hunters, and outdoor tourists spend money in nearby communities. Protected wilderness attracts visitors and supports local businesses. This creates sustainable economic activity without extraction.
Permanent protection preserves the mountains for future generations. Once mined, land cannot be restored to original condition. Conservation locks in environmental benefits indefinitely.
Restricts access to mineral and energy resources in the area. This reduces potential mining company profits and available domestic mineral supplies. Companies cannot pursue economically valuable projects on protected land.
Limiting domestic mineral extraction could increase reliance on imported materials. This might raise costs for metals and minerals used in manufacturing and construction. Higher input costs could affect consumer prices.
Mining operations generate tax revenue and jobs for local counties and Nevada state government. Protected status eliminates this revenue source. Smaller communities near the mountains lose economic opportunities.
Increases federal government control over Nevada land. Some argue states should have more say in managing local natural resources. Debate continues over proper balance between federal and state authority.
Generated by AI from the bill text. Not a prediction and not legal or policy advice. The percentage is the model's own rating of each item — self-reported, and not a measure of how accurate it is.
Loading map…
Loading...
0 citizens have already voted
Free · No spam · See how your representatives voted
Be the first to weigh in
Your vote starts the conversation
How citizen engagement works
Citizens vote & comment
Public opinion data is aggregated and updated in real time.
Patterns become visible
Representatives can see constituent sentiment broken down by district.
Your voice on the record
Contact your rep directly — one constituent call can shift a staffer's priority list.
Research shows that constituent contacts — especially calls — are among the most effective ways to influence a legislator's position on active bills.
Other bills in this policy area
HR 3620
Southcentral Foundation Land Transfer Act of 2025
HR 6380
Chiricahua National Park Act
HR 4467
Vicksburg National Military Park Boundary Modification Act
HR 837
To require the Secretary of Agriculture to convey the Pleasant Valley Ranger District Administrative Site to Gila County, Arizona.
Individual contributions, grouped by employer · FEC
Where their individual donors work · 2026 cycle
Money from people who work there, not from the company. Not tied to this bill.
Itemized individual contributions via FEC, grouped by the employer each contributor self-reported. Companies and unions cannot contribute to federal candidates from their treasuries, so these totals are money from people who work at an employer — never from the organization itself. They are campaign contributions covering a full election cycle and are not connected to this bill.
Senate LDA lobbying disclosures
BACKCOUNTRY HUNTERS & ANGLERS
via BACKCOUNTRY HUNTERS & ANGLERS
…Act S. 462 - Washoe County Economic Development and Conservation Act S. 1349 - Ruby Mountains Protection Act S. 1464 - Mineral Withdrawal Act S. 1497 - Cerro de la Olla Wilderness Act S. 2968 - Outdoor Americans with Di…
Q1 2026 total
all issues
Firms whose LDA filings mention this bill. One filing covers many bills — read as disclosed interest, not confirmed lobbying on this bill alone. Dollar amounts are each filer's total reported lobbying money for that reporting period across every issue in the filing. No public data breaks lobbying spending out by bill, so none of these figures is the amount spent on this bill.
Verify these filings on the Senate LDA database