PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Executive Comment Requested from Commerce.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Feb 14, 2001
Personal Watercraft Responsible Use Act of 2001 - Directs the Secretary of Commerce to withhold up to ten percent of grants made to a coastal State for development and administration of a management program for the land and water resources of its coastal zone in each fiscal year unless such State implements certain enforceable policies prohibiting a person from operating a personal watercraft in excess of no-wake speed in its coastal waters. Requires a coastal State's management program to include provisions that designate sensitive areas of its coast with respect to the enforcement of such policies in such areas.Directs the Secretary of Transportation to establish certain guidelines and standards for the operation of personal watercraft, consistent with the enforceable policies, in the national boating safety program. Authorizes the Secretary of Transportation, subject to the availability of appropriations, to make recreational boating law enforcement grants to States that have: (1) implemented a recreational boating safety program incorporating the national guidelines and standards for personal watercraft; and (2) adopted the enforceable policies under this Act, if the State is a coastal State.Authorizes the Secretary of Transportation, subject to the availability of appropriations, to make grants to States to support the activities of collaborative task forces to minimize conflicts between personal watercraft and other recreational and commercial users.
People & committees
Rep. Saxton, Jim [R-NJ-3] · R–NJ
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Executive Comment Requested from Commerce.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Fisheries Conservation, Wildlife and Oceans.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment.
Referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, and in addition to the Committee on Resources, 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 Transportation and Infrastructure, and in addition to the Committee on Resources, 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 Transportation and Infrastructure, and in addition to the Committee on Resources, 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: Aug 19, 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.702 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.702 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.702 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.702 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.