To amend the Reclamation Recreation Management Act of 1992 in order to provide for the security of dams, facilities, and resources under the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Reclamation.
Became Public Law No: 107-69.
Congressional Research Service
Official summary
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Sep 21, 2001
Amends the Reclamation Recreation Management Act of 1992 to provide for criminal penalties for any person who violates any regulation lawfully issued pursuant to such Act regarding protection of reclamation lands and projects.Allows any person charged with a violation to be tried and sentenced by any U.S. magistrate judge.Authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to: (1) authorize law enforcement personnel of the Department of the Interior, other Federal agencies that have law enforcement authority, or any State or local government, including Indian tribes, to act as law enforcement officers within a reclamation project or on reclamation lands; (2) cooperate with any State or local government in the enforcement of the laws or ordinances of that State or local government; and (3) provide reimbursement to a State or local government for expenditures incurred in connection with law enforcement activities within reclamation projects or lands.
Passed Senate without amendment by Unanimous Consent. (consideration: CR S11248)
Passed/agreed to in Senate: Passed Senate without amendment by Unanimous Consent.(consideration: CR S11248)
Received in the Senate, read twice.
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 of measure as passed House: CR H7150-7151)
Passed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by voice vote.(text of measure as passed House: CR H7150-7151)
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H.R. 2925.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H7150-7151)
Mr. Calvert moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended.
Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by Unanimous Consent.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Referred to the House Committee on Resources.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Bill text & related measures
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Apr 7, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Explore the bill from different angles
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.
Neutral evidence review
Objective
Analyze H.R.2925 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.
View full prompt & sources
Fairness and public impact
Progressive lens
Examine H.R.2925 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.
View full prompt & sources
Institutions and government scope
Conservative lens
Examine H.R.2925 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.
View full prompt & sources
Individual rights and government power
Liberty lens
Examine H.R.2925 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.