PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
Congressional Research Service
Version 79 · Reported to House without amendment · Sep 6, 2006
(This measure has not been amended since it was introduced. The summary has been expanded because action occurred on the measure.)
Authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to use a specified amount from entrance fees collected at the Grand Canyon National Park to pay subcontractors of Pacific General, Inc. (PGI) for work performed at the Park between fiscal years 2002 and 2003 under a General Services Administration (GSA) indefinite deliver/indefinite quantity contract (IDIQ), provided that: (1) the primary contract between PGI and the National Park Service is terminated; (2) the amount owed to the subcontractors is verified; (3) all reasonable legal avenues or recourse have been exhausted by the subcontractors to recoup amounts owed directly from PGI; and (4) the subcontractors provide a written statement that payment of the amount verified represents payment in full by the United States for all work performed at the Park under the IDIQ with PGI between fiscal years 2002 and 2003.
People & committees
Rep. Renzi, Rick [R-AZ-1] · R–AZ
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
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 Agreed to by voice vote. (text: CR H6938)
Passed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill Agreed to by voice vote.(text: CR H6938)
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H.R. 3961.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H6938)
Mr. Renzi moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 368.
Reported by the Committee on Resources. H. Rept. 109-628.
Reported by the Committee on Resources. H. Rept. 109-628.
Ordered to be Reported by Unanimous Consent.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Subcommittee on National Parks Discharged.
Subcommittee Hearings Held.
Referred to the Subcommittee on National Parks.
Referred to the House Committee on Resources.
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR E1987-1988)
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.3961 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.3961 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.3961 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.3961 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.