PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 478.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Jun 11, 2002
Revises penalties for violations of the rules regulating the use of fire by visitors of public lands if such violation results in damage to public or private property. Changes the maximum $1,000 fine to a minimum $1,000 fine with respect to public lands under the Bureau of Land Management. Changes penalties with respect to National Park and National Forest Systems from a maximum $500 fine and six months imprisonment to a minimum $1,000 and maximum 12 months imprisonment.Makes money collected from fines imposed for violation of fire rules under this Act available for the purpose of conducting hazardous fuels reduction activities under the National Fire Plan.
People & committees
Rep. Tancredo, Thomas G. [R-CO-6] · R–CO
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 478.
Committee on Agriculture discharged.
Committee on Agriculture discharged.
House Committee on Agriculture Granted an extension for further consideration ending not later than Oct. 21, 2002.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Resources. H. Rept. 107-763, Part I.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Resources. H. Rept. 107-763, Part I.
Subcommittee on Forests and Forest Health Discharged.
Subcommittee on National Parks, Recreation and Public Lands Discharged.
Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by Voice Vote.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Department Operations, Oversight, Nutrition and Forestry.
Executive Comment Requested from USDA, Interior.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Forests and Forest Health.
Referred to the Subcommittee on National Parks, Recreation and Public Lands.
Referred to the Committee on Resources, and in addition to the Committee on Agriculture, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Referred to the Committee on Resources, and in addition to the Committee on Agriculture, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Referred to the Committee on Resources, and in addition to the Committee on Agriculture, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
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.4912 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.4912 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.4912 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.4912 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.