To amend the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 to repeal certain disclosure requirements related to conflict minerals, and for other purposes.
- Bill Number
- H.R. 7085
- Origin Chamber
- House
- Congress
- 119th Congress, Session 2
- Policy Area
- Finance and Financial Sector
- Status
- Introduced
- Latest Action
- 2026-03-19: Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 481.
- Last Updated
- 2026-06-11T23:41:25Z
AI-Generated Summary
Purpose of the Legislation
H.R. 7085 aims to eliminate specific reporting rules for companies regarding "conflict minerals." Conflict minerals refer to certain raw materials—like tin, tantalum, tungsten, and gold—mined in areas of armed conflict, particularly in the Democratic Republic of Congo and neighboring countries, where sales may fund violence. The bill seeks to reduce regulatory requirements on businesses by removing these disclosure obligations.
Key Provisions Outlined
- Repeal of Core Requirement: Fully removes subsection (p) from section 13 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, which mandated disclosures about the use of conflict minerals in products.
- Amendments to Dodd-Frank Act: Strikes section 1502 entirely from the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (a 2010 law addressing financial reforms after the 2008 crisis). This includes updating the Act's table of contents to delete the reference to that section.
- Scope: Applies to publicly traded companies that file reports with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), ending requirements for them to investigate and report on conflict mineral sourcing in their supply chains.
Significant Changes to Existing Law
- Elimination of Mandatory Reporting: Previously, under Dodd-Frank section 1502, companies had to annually disclose whether their products contained conflict minerals and, if so, conduct due diligence (a thorough check) on their origins. This bill completely removes these rules, shifting from required transparency to no federal obligation.
- Simplification of Securities Regulations: Reduces the overall compliance burden in the Securities Exchange Act, which governs how public companies report financial and operational information to investors and regulators.
- No new requirements or replacements are introduced; the focus is solely on repeal.
Potential Impacts
- On Government Agencies: The SEC will no longer need to oversee, review, or enforce conflict minerals disclosures, potentially freeing up resources for other regulatory priorities but reducing its role in promoting ethical supply chains.
- On Citizens: Consumers and investors may have less access to information about whether products fund conflicts abroad, potentially affecting purchasing decisions or investment choices focused on ethical sourcing.
- On International Relations: Could signal a U.S. retreat from pressuring companies to avoid conflict zones, possibly weakening international efforts to address human rights abuses in mineral-rich regions like central Africa. It might strain relations with advocacy groups or allies emphasizing corporate responsibility in global trade.
Main Stakeholders Affected
- Publicly Traded Companies: Especially those in industries like electronics, jewelry, and automotive (e.g., manufacturers using these minerals), who will face reduced paperwork and costs but lose a framework for demonstrating ethical practices.
- Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC): As the enforcer of disclosure rules, it benefits from lighter administrative duties but may see criticism for diminished oversight.
- Mining and Supply Chain Industries: Global suppliers in conflict-prone areas could face less scrutiny, potentially increasing demand for unregulated minerals.
- Human Rights and Advocacy Organizations: Groups focused on ending conflict in regions like the Democratic Republic of Congo may view this as a setback to accountability efforts.
- Investors and Consumers: Those prioritizing socially responsible business practices could have fewer tools to evaluate company ethics.
Notable Legal, Constitutional, or Political Implications
- Legal Implications: Streamlines federal securities law by removing a specific reporting mandate, potentially reducing litigation over compliance (e.g., lawsuits alleging inadequate due diligence). However, it does not affect other environmental or labor disclosure rules, so companies must still report on broader risks.
- Constitutional Implications: None directly apparent; the bill operates within Congress's authority to regulate interstate commerce and securities markets under the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution.
- Political Implications: Represents a deregulatory move, aligning with efforts to ease business burdens post-Dodd-Frank. It could spark debate on balancing corporate freedom with international human rights, especially amid ongoing geopolitical tensions in mineral supply chains. The bill's progression (introduced January 15, 2026; reported March 19, 2026) indicates House support but would require Senate approval and presidential signature to become law.
This summary was generated by AI and may contain inaccuracies. Refer to the official source document for the authoritative text.
Sponsor
Recent Actions
- 2026-03-19: Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 481.
- 2026-03-19: Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Financial Services. H. Rept. 119-560.
- 2026-03-19: Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Financial Services. H. Rept. 119-560.
- 2026-01-22: Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by the Yeas and Nays: 30 - 24.
- 2026-01-22: Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held
- 2026-01-15: Referred to the House Committee on Financial Services.
- 2026-01-15: Introduced in House
- 2026-01-15: Introduced in House
Bill Versions
- To amend the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 to repeal certain disclosure requirements related to conflict minerals, and for other purposes. — issued 2026-01-15 — PDF (2 pages)
- To amend the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 to repeal certain disclosure requirements related to conflict minerals, and for other purposes. — issued 2026-03-19 — PDF (4 pages)