PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 461.
Congressional Research Service
Version 17 · Reported to House with amendment(s) · Apr 9, 2002
Bear River Migratory Bird Refuge Settlement Act of 2002 - Prohibits the Secretary of the Interior from entering into an agreement with the State of Utah for the transfer of lands or interests in land within the Bear River Migratory Bird Refuge unless the agreement requires: (1) the State to support the U.S. application to add an enlarged Hyrum Reservoir or another storage facility as an alternate place of storage under the Refuge's existing 1000 cubic feet per second State certified water right, contingent upon demonstration by the United States that no injury to water rights shall occur; (2) the State, if it prevails in a suit against the United States challenging the validity of the deed issued pursuant to such agreement, to pay the United States for property improvements, such as water control structures and buildings, and to repay amounts paid to the State by the United States pursuant to the agreement or because of U.S. ownership of the land; and (3) the Secretary to agree to pay $15 million to the State upon delivery of a quitclaim deed that meets Justice Department standards and covers all lands and interests claimed by the State within the Refuge, subject to the condition that the State use such payment for the purposes and in the amounts specified below.Requires the State to deposit $10 million into the Wetlands and Habitat Protection Account.Authorizes the Executive Director of the Utah Department of Natural Resources to use the interest on such amount for wetland or open space protection and for enhancement and acquisition of wildlife habitat in and near the Great Salt Lake.Authorizes the use of $5 million for: (1) the development, improvement, and expansion of motorized and non-motorized recreational trails on public and private lands (with priority given to providing trail access to the Lake as part of the proposed Shoshone and Ogden-Weber trail systems); and (2) preservation, reclamation, enhancement, and conservation of streams.Requires the Executive Director to maximize the use of such funds through coordination with nonprofit organizations, Federal agencies, other agencies of the State, and local governments, giving priority to those projects that include Federal, State, or private matching funds.Authorizes appropriations for such payment.
People & committees
Rep. Hansen, James V. [R-UT-1] · R–UT
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 461.
Committee on Environment and Public Works. Reported by Senator Jeffords without amendment. Without written report.
Committee on Environment and Public Works. Reported by Senator Jeffords without amendment. Without written report.
Committee on Environment and Public Works. Ordered to be reported without amendment favorably.
Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
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 the Yeas and Nays: (2/3 required): 396 - 6 (Roll no. 82). (text: CR H1100-1101)
House roll call 82 · Individual votesPassed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: (2/3 required): 396 - 6 (Roll no. 82).(text: CR H1100-1101)
House roll call 82 · Individual votesConsidered as unfinished business. (consideration: CR H1112-1113)
At the conclusion of debate, the Yeas and Nays were demanded and ordered. Pursuant to the provisions of clause 8, rule XX, the Chair announced that further proceedings on the motion would be postponed.
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H.R. 3958.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H1100-1101)
Mr. Hansen moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 224.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Resources. H. Rept. 107-386.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Resources. H. Rept. 107-386.
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
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.3958 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.3958 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.3958 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.3958 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.