PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.
H.R.2818 / 105th Congress

To repeal the pilot recreation fee program, and to establish a royalty on hardrock minerals, the proceeds of which are to be used for public recreational sites managed by the Department of the Interior or the United States Forest Service, and for other purposes.

Referred to the Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources.

Official summary

Version 00 · Introduced in House · Nov 5, 1997

Amends Federal law to repeal the recreational fee demonstration program. Requires each person: (1) producing locatable minerals from any mining claim located under the general mining laws, or mineral concentrates derived from such a claim, to pay the United States a royalty of five percent of the net smelter return from such minerals or concentrates; and (2) responsible to make royalty payments to the Secretary of the Interior within 30 days after the end of the calendar month in which the minerals or concentrates are produced and first placed in marketable condition, consistent with prevailing practices in the industry. Sets forth reporting and audit requirements. Directs that all receipts from royalties collected under this Act be available to increase the quality of the visitor experience at public recreational sites, for backlogged repair and maintenance projects at such sites, and for interpretation, signage, habitat or facility enhancement, resource preservation, annual operation and maintenance of public recreation sites, and law enforcement relating to public use of such areas, to be allocated as follows: (1) 20 percent to the Forest Service; (2) 70 percent to the National Park Service; (3) three percent to the Fish and Wildlife Service; (4) six percent to the Bureau of Land Management; and (5) one percent to the Department of the Interior for administrative costs. Imposes a civil penalty of up to $10,000 upon any person holding mining claims located under the general mining laws who knowingly or willfully prepares, maintains, or submits false, inaccurate, or misleading information, or fails or refuses to submit information, required by this Act.

Read the summary on Congress.gov
PlainBill analysis is coming later. This page presents official source data. We have not yet published a PlainBill explanation for this bill.

Who introduced it

Rep. DeFazio, Peter A. [D-OR-4] · D–OR

Committees

  • Natural Resources Committee
10 cosponsorship records, including any withdrawals

Actions

A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.

  1. Referred to the Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources.

  2. Executive Comment Requested from Interior.

  3. Referred to the House Committee on Resources.

  4. Introduced in House

  5. Introduced in House

Bill text & related measures

Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.

Related bills identified by Congress.gov

No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.

Source last updated: Feb 7, 2024. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.

Explore the bill from different angles

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.

Neutral evidence review

Objective

Analyze H.R.2818 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.

View full prompt & sources
Fairness and public impact

Progressive lens

Examine H.R.2818 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.

View full prompt & sources
Institutions and government scope

Conservative lens

Examine H.R.2818 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.

View full prompt & sources
Individual rights and government power

Liberty lens

Examine H.R.2818 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.

View full prompt & sources