PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Sep 23, 1998
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. Provides for the appeal of a rejected claim to the State court in which the claimant is domiciled. Grants a claimant the right to a civil trial by jury in the event the amount in dispute, litigation costs included, 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.
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.4610 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.4610 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.4610 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.4610 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.