PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public Lands.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Apr 6, 2011
Affirms and validates a specified patent and its associated land reconfiguration issued by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) as having been issued in compliance with the Nevada-Florida Land Exchange Authorization Act of 1988, the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, and the Federal Land Policy Management Act of 1976 for the benefit and recovery of the desert tortoise and other species and their habitat. Ratifies: (1) the process used by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the BLM for the reconfiguration of those lands as shown in a specified environmental impact statement; and (2) the reconfiguration provided for in a specified Army Corps of Engineers permit.
People & committees
Rep. Heller, Dean [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.
Referred to the Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public 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: Feb 7, 2024. 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.1400 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.1400 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.1400 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.1400 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.