PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Received in the Senate.
Congressional Research Service
Version 36 · Passed House amended · Sep 28, 2004
Colorado River Indian Reservation Boundary Correction Act - Declares that the boundaries of the Colorado River Indian Reservation are the boundaries delineated by the Robbins Survey of 1875 and affirmed by the Harrington Resurvey of 1912 (which include 16,000 acres known as the La Paz lands).
Restores to the Reservation all right, title, and interest of the United States to those lands within such boundaries that were excluded from the Reservation pursuant to Executive Order No. 2273 (November 22, 1915), which shall be held in trust by the United States on behalf of the Colorado River Indian Tribes. (Excludes from such restored lands specified lands under title to the Arizona State Lands Department.)
Subjects the restored lands to all existing rights-of-way, easements, leases, and mining claims. Declares that the United States reserves the right to continue all Reclamation projects, including the right to access and remove mineral materials for Colorado River maintenance on the restored lands. Requires the Secretary of the Interior to grant additional rights-of-way, expansions, or renewals of existing rights-of-way for roads, utilities, and other accommodations to adjoining landowners or existing right-of-way holders, if certain criteria are met.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Prohibits gaming on lands taken into trust under this Act.
People & committees
Rep. Grijalva, Raúl M. [D-AZ-7] · D–AZ
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Received in the Senate.
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 H7685)
Passed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by voice vote.(text: CR H7685)
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H.R. 2941.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H7685-7686)
Mr. Radanovich moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 429.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Resources. H. Rept. 108-701.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Resources. H. Rept. 108-701.
Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by Unanimous Consent.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Committee Hearings Held.
Executive Comment Requested from Interior.
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: 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.2941 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.2941 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.2941 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.2941 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.