PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 89.
Congressional Research Service
Version 18 · Reported to House amended, Part I · Jun 24, 2013
Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range Transfer Act of 2013 - Directs the Secretary of the Interior to transfer to the Secretary of the Navy administrative jurisdiction over certain public lands in Imperial and Riverside Counties, California, for inclusion within the Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range. Withdraws the mineral estate of such land from all forms of appropriation under the public land laws, including the mining laws and the mineral and geothermal leasing laws, for as long as the land is under the administrative jurisdiction of the Secretary of the Navy.
Requires the Secretary of the Navy to prepare an integrated natural resources management plan with respect to the transferred lands.
Requires the Secretary of the Navy, upon determining that there is no longer a military need for the lands transferred, to transfer such lands back to the Secretary of the Interior. Requires appropriate land decontamination preceding the retransfer.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Amends the California Military Lands Withdrawal and Overflights Act of 1994 to extend a land withdrawal and reservation period consistent with the above transfer.
Provides that nothing in this Act shall affect existing water rights on the transferred lands.
People & committees
Rep. Vargas, Juan [D-CA-51] · D–CA
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. 89.
Committee on Armed Services discharged.
Committee on Armed Services discharged.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Natural Resources. H. Rept. 113-124, Part I.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Natural Resources. H. Rept. 113-124, Part I.
Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by Unanimous Consent.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Subcommittee on Public Lands and Environmental Regulation Discharged.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Readiness.
Subcommittee Hearings Held.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Public Lands and Environmental Regulation.
Referred to the Committee on Natural Resources, and in addition to the Committee on Armed Services, 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 Natural Resources, and in addition to the Committee on Armed Services, 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: Jun 6, 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.1691 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.1691 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.1691 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.1691 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.