PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Became Public Law No: 107-341.
Congressional Research Service
Version 36 · Passed House amended · May 14, 2002
Directs the Secretary of the Interior, in consultation with the State of Texas, the city of Waco, and other appropriate organizations, to carry out a special resource study and report within three years to specified congressional committees on the national significance, suitability, and feasibility of designating the Waco Mammoth Site Area in Waco, Texas, as a National Park System unit.
People & committees
Rep. Edwards, Chet [D-TX-11] · D–TX
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Became Public Law No: 107-341.
Became Public Law No: 107-341.
Signed by President.
Signed by President.
Presented to President.
Presented to President.
Message on Senate action sent to the House.
Passed Senate without amendment by Unanimous Consent. (consideration: CR 11/19/2002 S11652-11655)
Passed/agreed to in Senate: Passed Senate without amendment by Unanimous Consent.(consideration: CR 11/19/2002 S11652-11655)
Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 581.
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Reported by Senator Bingaman without amendment. With written report No. 107-264.
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Reported by Senator Bingaman without amendment. With written report No. 107-264.
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Ordered to be reported without amendment favorably.
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources Subcommittee on National Parks. Hearings held.
Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by voice vote. (text: CR H2398)
Passed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by voice vote.(text: CR H2398)
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H.R. 1925.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H2398-2399)
Mr. Souder moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 192.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Resources. H. Rept. 107-317.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Resources. H. Rept. 107-317.
Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by Unanimous Consent.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Forwarded by Subcommittee to Full Committee (Amended) by Unanimous Consent.
Subcommittee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Executive Comment Received from Interior.
Subcommittee Hearings Held.
Executive Comment Requested from Interior.
Referred to the Subcommittee on National Parks, Recreation and Public Lands.
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: Sep 8, 2026. 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.1925 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.1925 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.1925 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.1925 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.