PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 355.
Congressional Research Service
Version 17 · Reported to House with amendment(s) · May 9, 2002
Harmful Invasive Weed Control Act of 2002 - Directs the Secretary of the Interior (Secretary) to establish a program to provide financial assistance through States to eligible weed management entities to control or eradicate harmful, invasive weeds on public and private land.(Sec. 5) Requires the allocation of funds to States and Indian tribes to provide funding to weed management entities to carry out approved projects. Reserves five percent of such funds for allocation to Indian tribes (to be administered by the National Invasive Species Council).Requires the Secretary to determine the amount of Federal funds allocated to a State or tribe on the basis of: (1) the severity of the weed problem; (2) the extent to which the Federal funds will be used to leverage non-Federal funds to address the problem; and (3) the progress the State or tribe has made in addressing weed problems.(Sec. 6) Requires a State that receives an allocation of funds to use: (1) not more than 25 percent to make an incentive payment to weed management entities established in the State to encourage the formation of new weed management entities or to carry out at least one project to improve the effectiveness of existing entities or programs; and (2) not less than 75 percent to make financial awards to such entities to pay the Federal share of the cost of carrying out weed control or eradication projects selected by the State.Makes weed management entities eligible to receive incentive payments for not more than three years in the aggregate. Limits the Federal cost share for a project to 50 percent. Allows a Governor of a State that makes either such a payment or an award to increase, to a maximum of 100 percent, such Federal share of a project that is necessary to meet the needs of an underserved area.Requires States to select projects for funding on a competitive basis, taking into consideration: (1) the seriousness of the weed problem; (2) the likelihood that the project will prevent or resolve the problem or increase knowledge about resolving similar problems; and (3) the extent to which the payment will leverage non-Federal funds to address the problem, the entity has made progress in addressing weed problems, the project will provide a comprehensive approach to weed control or eradication, the project will reduce the total population of a harmful, nonnative weed within the State, and the project uses the principles of integrated vegetation management.Permits weed management entities to use an incentive payment or financial award to carry out a project to address the harmful, invasive weed problem of more than one State only if the entity meets the requirements of all applicable State laws.Allows a weed management entity to use an incentive payment or financial award to carry out a project on any public or private land with the owner's or operator's approval.Prohibits such assistance from being used to carry out projects to: (1) control or eradicate animal pests or submerged or floating harmful, invasive aquatic weeds; or (2) protect an agricultural commodity other than livestock or an animal- or insect-based product.Prohibits the use of more than five percent of Federal funding made available under this Act to pay administrative costs, including the costs of complying with Federal environmental laws.Requires weed management entities in States that received an incentive payment or financial award under this Act to submit to the Council a report that describes the purposes and results of each funded project.(Sec. 7) Allows an Indian tribe, if the funds allocated to tribes are not sufficient to provide such assistance to each weed management entity of a tribe, to seek additional funding by participating as a local stakeholder in the establishment of such an entity. Requires any excess funds to be reserved by the Council for use in carrying out this Act the following fiscal year. Requires weed management entities of tribes to report to the Council on fund use.(Sec. 8) Directs the Secretary of Agriculture and the Council to make recommendations to the Secretary on the annual allocation of funds and other related issues.(Sec. 9) Permits any activity involving real property to be carried out only with the consent of the landowner.(Sec. 10) Requires any activity carried out under this Act to comply with all other Federal laws, including the Endangered Species Act of 1973.(Sec. 12) Authorizes appropriations.
People & committees
Rep. Hefley, Joel [R-CO-5] · R–CO
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 355.
Committee on Agriculture discharged.
Committee on Agriculture discharged.
House Committee on Agriculture Granted an extension for further consideration ending not later than July 19, 2002.
House Committee on Agriculture Granted an extension for further consideration ending not later than June 10, 2002.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Resources. H. Rept. 107-451, Part I.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Resources. H. Rept. 107-451, Part I.
Subcommittee on Fisheries Conservation, Wildlife and Oceans Discharged.
Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by Voice Vote.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Forwarded by Subcommittee to Full Committee (Amended) by Voice Vote.
Subcommittee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Subcommittee Hearings Held.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Department Operations, Oversight, Nutrition and Forestry.
Executive Comment Requested from Interior.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Fisheries Conservation, Wildlife and Oceans.
Referred to the Subcommittee on National Parks, Recreation and Public Lands.
Referred to the Committee on Resources, and in addition to the Committee on Agriculture, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Referred to the Committee on Resources, and in addition to the Committee on Agriculture, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Referred to the Committee on Resources, and in addition to the Committee on Agriculture, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
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: Apr 7, 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.1462 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.1462 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.1462 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.1462 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.