PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Committee on Energy and Natural Resources Subcommittee on Public Lands, Forests, and Mining. Hearings held. With printed Hearing: S.Hrg. 113-433.
Congressional Research Service
Version 36 · Passed House amended · Jan 27, 2014
Good Samaritan Search and Recovery Act - Directs the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture (USDA) to implement a process to provide eligible organizations and individuals expedited access to federal lands to conduct good Samaritan search-and-recovery missions.
Requires such process to include provisions that clarify that: (1) an eligible organization or eligible individual granted access shall be acting for private purposes and shall not be considered a federal volunteer, (2) an eligible organization or eligible individual shall not be considered a volunteer under the Volunteers in the Parks Act of 1969, and (3) neither the Federal Torts Claim Act nor the Federal Employee Compensation Act shall apply to an eligible organization or eligible individual.
Bars the Secretaries from requiring an eligible organization or eligible individual to have liability insurance as a condition of accessing federal lands under this Act if it: (1) acknowledges and consents, in writing, to these clarifying provisions; and (2) signs a waiver releasing the federal government from all liability related to the access granted.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Sets forth procedures for the approval or denial of requests made by eligible organizations or individuals to carry out a good Samaritan search-and-recovery mission.
Requires the Secretaries to develop search-and-recovery focused partnerships with search-and-recovery organizations to: (1) coordinate good Samaritan search-and-recovery missions on such lands, and (2) expedite and accelerate mission efforts for missing individuals on such lands.
Requires the Secretaries to submit a joint report to Congress that describes: (1) their plans for developing such partnerships, and (2) the efforts being taken to expedite and accelerate such mission efforts.
People & committees
Rep. Heck, Joseph J. [R-NV-3] · R–NV
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources Subcommittee on Public Lands, Forests, and Mining. Hearings held. With printed Hearing: S.Hrg. 113-433.
Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: (2/3 required): 394 - 0 (Roll no. 24). (text: CR H1255)
House roll call 24 · Individual votesPassed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: (2/3 required): 394 - 0 (Roll no. 24).(text: CR H1255)
House roll call 24 · Individual votesConsidered as unfinished business. (consideration: CR H1259-1260)
At the conclusion of debate, the Yeas and Nays were demanded and ordered. Pursuant to the provisions of clause 8, rule XX, the Chair announced that further proceedings on the motion would be postponed.
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H.R. 2166.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H1255-1257)
Mrs. Lummis moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 247.
Committee on Agriculture discharged.
Committee on Agriculture discharged.
Reported by the Committee on Natural Resources. H. Rept. 113-331, Part I.
Reported by the Committee on Natural Resources. H. Rept. 113-331, Part I.
Ordered to be Reported by Unanimous Consent.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Subcommittee on Public Lands and Environmental Regulation Discharged.
Subcommittee Hearings Held.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Conservation, Energy, and Forestry.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Public Lands and Environmental Regulation.
Referred to the Committee on Natural Resources, and in addition to the Committee on Agriculture, 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 Agriculture, 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.
Source last updated: Sep 8, 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.2166 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.2166 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.2166 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.2166 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.