PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Became Public Law No: 108-67.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Jan 7, 2003
Directs the Secretary of Agriculture to convey certain land in the Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit, Nevada, to the Secretary of the Interior, in trust for the Washoe Tribe of Nevada and California.Reserves for the United States a nonexclusive easement for public and administrative access to National Forest System land. Requires the Secretary to provide a reciprocal easement to the Tribe for vehicular access to such land to accommodate: (1) individuals with disabilities or who would otherwise have access difficulties; and (2) administrative or safety needs.Requires the Tribe to: (1) limit the use of the conveyed land to traditional and customary uses and stewardship conservation; (2) not permit any permanent or recreational development on, or commercial use of, such land (including commercial development, tourist accommodations, gaming, sale of timber, or mineral extraction); and (3) comply with environmental requirements that are no less protective than those that apply under the Regional Plan of the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency.
People & committees
Rep. Gibbons, Jim [R-NV-2] · R–NV
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Became Public Law No: 108-67.
Became Public Law No: 108-67.
Signed by President.
Signed by President.
Presented to President.
Presented to President.
Message on Senate action sent to the House.
Received in the Senate, read twice, considered, read the third time, and passed without amendment by Unanimous Consent. (consideration: CR S6905-9618)
Passed/agreed to in Senate: Received in the Senate, read twice, considered, read the third time, and passed without amendment by Unanimous Consent.(consideration: CR S6905-9618)
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 H6874)
Passed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill Agreed to by voice vote.(text: CR H6874)
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H.R. 74.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H6874)
Mr. Gibbons moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 93.
Reported by the Committee on Resources. H. Rept. 108-185.
Reported by the Committee on Resources. H. Rept. 108-185.
Ordered to be Reported by Unanimous Consent.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Executive Comment Requested from USDA, Interior.
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.
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.74 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.74 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.74 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.74 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.