PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Executive Comment Requested from Interior.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Jan 30, 2001
Abandoned Mine Lands Reclamation Reform Act of 2001 - Amends the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 to repeal authorization for the use of moneys in the Abandoned Mine Reclamation Fund ( Fund) earmarked for: (1) the Secretary of Agriculture for rural land reclamation; and (2) studies, research, and demonstration projects by the Department of the Interior.Designates for transfer to the United Mine Workers of America Combined Benefit Fund the interest earned on unexpended Fund amounts.Extends the sunset date for the current rate of reclamation fees from 2004 to 2011.Revises requirements governing: (1) allocation of reclamation fees for certain reclamation purposes; and (2) the transfer of liquidated sums to the United Mine Workers of America Combined Benefit Fund.Repeals priorities for the expenditure of funds for the general welfare and for: (1) restoration of land and water resources and environment previously degraded by the adverse effects of coal mining practices; (2) protection, repair, construction, or enhancement of utilities, roads, and recreation and conservation facilities adversely affected by such practices; and (3) development for recreation, conservation, reclamation, and open space purposes of publicly owned land also adversely affected by such practices.Removes the proscription against the filing of reclamation fee liens against certain property owners who owned the surface prior to May 2, 1977.Authorizes a State or Indian tribe, subject to certain expenditure limitations, to fill voids and seal tunnels resulting from mining operations.Revises requirements pertaining to: (1) certification of completion of high priority coal reclamation projects; and (2) lands, waters, and public facilities eligible for annual grants (including certain water supply restoration and public facilities).
People & committees
Rep. Rahall, Nick J., II [D-WV-3] · D–WV
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Executive Comment Requested from Interior.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources.
Referred to the House Committee on Resources.
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR E67-69)
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Aug 19, 2025. 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.297 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.297 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.297 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.297 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.