PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Jan 27, 2009
Hardrock Mining and Reclamation Act of 2009 - Applies this Act to any mining claim, millsite claim, or tunnel site claim located under the general mining laws or used for beneficiation or mineral processing activities, regardless of whether legal and beneficial title to the mineral is held by the United States.
Conditions federal issuance of a patent for any such mining or millsite claim upon specified determinations by the Secretary of the Interior.
Subjects production of locatable minerals to a royalty of 8% of the gross income from mining.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Imposes a 4% royalty upon federal lands subject to an existing permit, and specified royalties on certain federal land added to an existing operations permit.
Prescribes a hardrock mining claim maintenance fee for each unpatented mining claim, mill, or tunnel site on federally owned lands.
Designates certain wilderness study areas, areas of critical environmental concern, and related areas as not open to location of mining claims.
Permits a state or local government or Indian tribe to petition the Secretary of the Interior for withdrawal of specific federal land from operation of the general mining laws in order to protect specific values.
Instructs the Secretary to ensure that mineral activities on federal land subject to a claim are carefully controlled to prevent undue degradation of public lands and resources.
Prescribes requirements for the exploration permit process and for operations permits, including financial assurances.
Requires restoration of lands to a condition capable of supporting prior uses or other beneficial uses.
Establishes the Locatable Minerals Fund composed of: (1) penalties, fees, and royalties; (2) the Hardrock Reclamation Account, and (3) the Hardrock Community Impact Assistance Account.
Amends the National Materials and Minerals Policy, Research and Development Act of 1980 to direct the Secretary of Agriculture to initiate prompt actions to improve the availability and analysis of mineral data in public land use decision-making with respect to National Forest System lands.
Amends the Energy Policy Act of 1992 to subject certain oil shale claims to the reclamation requirements of 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.
Subcommittee Hearings Held.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources.
Referred to the House Committee on Natural Resources.
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR E148)
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 14, 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.699 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.699 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.699 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.699 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.