PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Oct 6, 2005
Federal Mineral Development and Land Protection Equity Act of 2005 - Sets forth guidelines for: (1) mineral exploration and development on public domain lands; and (2) exclusive right of possession and use of the claimed land for mineral activities by holders of mining claims executed under this Act.
Subjects unpatented mining claims, mill sites, and tunnel sites to an annual claim maintenance fee payable to the Secretary of the Interior in lieu of assessment work requirements contained in the general mining laws and the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976.
Exempts from such fee any claimants holding ten or fewer mining claims who elect to perform the assessment work.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Requires locators of unpatented mining claims, mill sites, and tunnel sites located after enactment of this Act to pay a location fee.
Establishes forfeiture penalties against holders of mining claims for noncompliance with this Act.
Prescribes guidelines for royalty payments applicable to production of locatable minerals, including mineral concentrates or products derived from locatable minerals. Cites federal lands which are not open to location of mining claims.
Requires the Secretaries of the Interior and of Agriculture, respectively, to review the suitability of lands for mineral activities.
Requires: (1) a permit to engage in mineral activities on federal land that may cause a disturbance of surface resources; (2) an operations permit to carry out any activity greater than casual use; (3) financial assurance to cover lands and affected waters that may require restoration or treatment of effluent as a result of mineral activities; and (4) operation and reclamation standards.
Permits state or local law or regulation more stringent than the requirements of this Act.
Establishes the Abandoned Locatable Minerals Mine Reclamation Fund in the Treasury.
Amends the Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970 and the National Materials and Minerals Policy, Research and Development Act of 1980, to modify the responsibilities of the Secretary of Agriculture.
Requires the Secretaries of the Interior and of Agriculture to: (1) establish and collect user fees; and (2) inspect and monitor mineral activities for compliance with certain environmental protection requirements.
Authorizes citizens' civil action suits for noncompliance with this Act.
Repeals the Building Stone Act and the Saline Placer Act.
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.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources.
Referred to the House Committee on Resources.
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR E2017-2018)
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 15, 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.3968 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.3968 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.3968 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.3968 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.