PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Executive Comment Requested from Interior.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Feb 6, 2001
Directs the Secretary of the Interior to reimburse all private and public entities for all monetary damages incurred as a result of bonding regulations promulgated on February 28, 1997, that were determined by the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia on May 13, 1998, to have been adopted in violation of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.Allows any private or public entity to submit a claim for such damages. Directs the Secretary to reimburse a claimant within 90 days unless the Secretary finds that the damages were not caused by such regulations. Grants any such entity that submits such a claim that is rejected by the Secretary: (1) a right to an appeal to State court; and (2) the right to a civil trial by jury if the amount in dispute, including litigation costs, is $20,000 or greater.
People & committees
Rep. Gibbons, Jim [R-NV-2] · R–NV
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.
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: Jan 2, 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.447 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.447 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.447 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.447 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.