PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Congressional Research Service
Version 36 · Passed House amended · May 11, 1993
Bodie Protection Act of 1993 - Prohibits the Bodie Bowl (California) from being available for any mineral mining, leasing, or disposal activities, except under valid existing claims. Directs the Secretary of the Interior to undertake an expedited validity review of all unpatented mining claims located within the Bodie Bowl. Prescribes limitations for the issuance of patents for mining and mill site claims on such lands. Directs the Secretary to require that mineral activities be conducted in the Bodie Bowl so as to: (1) avoid adverse effects on the historic, cultural, recreational, and natural resource values of the Bowl; and (2) minimize other adverse impacts to the environment. Mandates reclamation of the effects of mining exploration by mining operators. Exempts the holder of any unpatented mining or mill site claim within the Bodie Bowl from specified statutory expenditure and filing requirements. Declares that, in lieu of filing a certain affidavit of assessment work, such holder shall only be required to file a specified notice of intention to hold certain mining claims. Directs the Secretary to: (1) review possible actions to preserve specified characteristics of the Bodie Bowl; and (2) report to certain congressional committees recommendations to achieve such preservation.
People & committees
Rep. Lehman, Richard H. [D-CA-19] · D–CA
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
For Further Action See H.R.518.
Subcommittee on Public Lands, National Parks. Hearings held.
Referred to Subcommittee on Public Lands, National Parks.
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.
Passed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by voice vote.
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H2380-2382)
Mr. Lehman moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 42.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Natural Resources. H. Rept. 103-87.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Natural Resources. H. Rept. 103-87.
Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by Voice Vote.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Forwarded by Subcommittee to Full Committee (Amended).
Subcommittee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Subcommittee Hearings Held.
Executive Comment Requested from Interior.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources.
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.240 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.240 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.240 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.240 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.