PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Became Public Law No: 119-105.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Feb 13, 2025
This bill directs the Department of the Interior to remove all deed restrictions from approximately 3.62 acres located at 2956 Park Avenue, on the Paducah Memorial Army Reserve Center in Paducah, Kentucky. The restrictions include easements, exceptions, reservations, terms, conditions, and covenants described in the quitclaim deed that was executed on April 27, 2012. The deed conveyed land from Interior to the City of Paducah, Kentucky.
People & committees
Rep. Comer, James [R-KY-1] · R–KY
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Became Public Law No: 119-105.
Became Public Law No: 119-105.
Signed by President.
Signed by President.
Presented to President.
Presented to President.
Message on Senate action sent to the House.
Passed Senate without amendment by Unanimous Consent. (consideration: CR S4551-4552)
Passed/agreed to in Senate: Passed Senate without amendment by Unanimous Consent.
Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources discharged by Unanimous Consent.
Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources discharged by Unanimous Consent.
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Ordered to be reported without amendment favorably.
Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
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 voice vote. (text: CR H5073)
Passed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by voice vote. (text: CR H5073)
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H.R. 1276.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H5073-5074)
Mr. Westerman moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 237.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Natural Resources. H. Rept. 119-281.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Natural Resources. H. Rept. 119-281.
Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by Unanimous Consent.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held
Subcommittee on Federal Lands Discharged
Subcommittee Hearings Held
Referred to the Subcommittee on Federal Lands.
Referred to the House Committee on Natural 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: Sep 28, 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.1276 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.1276 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.1276 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.1276 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.