PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
Congressional Research Service
Version 81 · Passed House without amendment · Jul 26, 2017
(This measure has not been amended since it was introduced. The expanded summary of the House reported version is repeated here.)
Escambia County Land Conveyance Act
(Sec. 3) This bill authorizes Escambia County, Florida, to convey its interest in any part of the former Santa Rosa Island National Monument land that was conveyed to it by the federal government in 1947 to any person or entity, without restriction.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
The bill prohibits any person or entity holding a leasehold interest in such land from being required to involuntarily accept a fee interest to such land in place of the leasehold interest.
The bill states that all interest of Escambia County in any part of such land that is within the jurisdictional boundaries of Santa Rosa County, Florida, shall be conveyed by Escambia County to such county within two years of the enactment of this bill.
Santa Rosa County or any other person to whom such county reconveys such land may reconvey any part of it.
Any proceeds from the conveyance of such land by either county (other than the amounts that are paid for the direct and incidental costs associated with the conveyance) shall be considered to be windfall profits that shall revert to the United States.
Escambia County must preserve in perpetuity those areas of the monument land conveyed under this bill that, as of this bill's enactment, are dedicated for conservation, preservation, public recreation access, and public parking.
People & committees
Rep. Gaetz, Matt [R-FL-1] · R–FL
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
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 Agreed to by voice vote. (text: CR H6329)
Passed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill Agreed to by voice vote.(text: CR H6329)
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H.R. 2370.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H6328-6330)
Mr. McClintock moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 168.
Reported by the Committee on Natural Resources. H. Rept. 115-236.
Reported by the Committee on Natural Resources. H. Rept. 115-236.
Ordered to be Reported by Voice Vote.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session 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 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.2370 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.2370 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.2370 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.2370 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.