PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Jun 20, 2017
Community Reclamation Partnerships Act
This bill amends the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (SMCRA) to revise the abandoned mine land reclamation program which restores land and water adversely impacted by surface coal mines that were abandoned before SMCRA's enactment.
A state with an approved abandoned mine reclamation program may enter into a memorandum of understanding with relevant federal or state agencies (or both) for remediating mine drainage on abandoned mine land and water impacted by abandoned mines.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
In addition, the bill authorizes a partnership between a state and a community reclaimer for remediating abandoned mine land if:
the partnership's proposed project is consistent with an approved state memorandum of understanding and conducted on certain prioritized sites;
the state assumes all responsibly on behalf of the community reclaimer and the owner of the proposed project site for costs or damages resulting from actions or inactions of the community reclaimer in carrying out the project, except for gross negligence or intentional misconduct by the community reclaimer; and
the state has necessary legal authority to conduct the project and has financial resources to ensure the project's completion.
A community reclaimer is a person who: (1) voluntarily assists a state in a reclamation project, (2) did not participate in any way in the creation of site conditions at the proposed site or activities that caused any land or waters to become eligible for reclamation or drainage abatement expenditures under SMCRA, (3) is not a past or current owner or operator of any site with ongoing reclamation obligations, and (4) is not subject to outstanding violations of surface coal mining permits.
People & committees
Rep. LaHood, Darin [R-IL-18] · R–IL
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill Agreed to by voice vote. (text: CR H7645)
Passed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill Agreed to by voice vote.(text: CR H7645)
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H.R. 2937.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H7645-7646)
Mr. Thompson (PA) moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 189.
Reported by the Committee on Natural Resources. H. Rept. 115-260.
Reported by the Committee on Natural Resources. H. Rept. 115-260.
Ordered to be Reported by Unanimous Consent.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Referred to the House Committee on Natural Resources.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Sep 8, 2026. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
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.
Analyze H.R.2937 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.
Examine H.R.2937 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.
Examine H.R.2937 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.
Examine H.R.2937 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.