PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
Congressional Research Service
Version 36 · Passed House amended · Jul 19, 2004
(This measure has not been amended since it was reported to the House on June 4, 2004. The summary of that version is repeated here.)
(Sec. 1) Amends Federal law to increase from one to three the number of ten-year permit renewals the Secretary of the Interior may issue for the Kaweah Project of Southern California Edison Company to continue its use of lands within Sequoia National Park.
(Sec. 2) Adds to the prohibition on expansion of the Project in the Park the following requirements such a permit must contain: (1) an independent safety assessment of the Project, and correction of any deficiencies identified; (2) an update for Congress by the Secretary of the July 1983 report on the impact on the Park of the operations of the Kaweah No. 3 facility; and (3) any other reasonable terms and conditions that the Secretary deems necessary and proper for the management and care of Sequoia National Park and the purposes for which it was established.
People & committees
Rep. Nunes, Devin [R-CA-21] · R–CA
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
The title of the measure was amended. Agreed to without objection.
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 H5940)
Passed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by voice vote.(text: CR H5940)
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H.R. 3932.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H5940-5941)
Mr. Hayworth moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 303.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Resources. H. Rept. 108-525.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Resources. H. Rept. 108-525.
Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by Unanimous Consent.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Subcommittee on National Parks, Recreation and Public Lands Discharged.
Subcommittee Hearings Held.
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.3932 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.3932 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.3932 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.3932 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.