PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to Subcommittee on Forests and Public Lands.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Jan 4, 1995
Fort Carson-Pinon Canyon Military Lands Withdrawal Act - Withdraws from appropriation under public land, mining, mineral, geothermal leasing, and mineral materials disposal laws, and reserves for military use by the Army, specified lands at the Fort Carson Military Reservation and Pinon Canyon Maneuver Site (both in Colorado). Requires the Secretary of the Army to manage such lands for military purposes covered by this Act and to authorize their use by other U.S. military agencies. Directs the Secretary, with the concurrence of the Secretary of the Interior, to develop a management plan for such reserved and withdrawn lands. Terminates such land withdrawals and reservations 15 years after enactment of this Act. Requires the Secretary of the Army to: (1) decontaminate relinquished lands (but authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to refuse to accept lands if such decontamination is not practicable or economically feasible, if the lands cannot be decontaminated sufficiently to allow them to be opened to the operation of the public land laws, or if insufficient funds are appropriated for the purpose of decontaminating the lands); (2) if the Secretary of the Interior declines to accept jurisdiction of lands proposed for relinquishment under such provision or determines that some of the lands withdrawn by this Act are contaminated to an extent that prevents opening the contaminated lands to operation of the public land laws, warn the public of risks of entry, conduct only decontamination activities on such lands after the expiration of the withdrawal, and make a status report to the Secretary of the Interior and to the Congress; and (3) maintain a program of decontamination of the lands withdrawn by this Act at least at the level of effort carried out during FY 1992, subject to specified limitations. Directs that the United States be held harmless and not liable for any injuries or damages to persons or property suffered in the course of any mining, mineral activity, or geothermal leasing activity conducted on lands comprising the Fort Carson Reservation or Pinon Canyon Maneuver Site, including liabilities to non-Federal entities under specified provisions of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 or the Solid Waste Disposal Act. Authorizes appropriations.
People & committees
Rep. Hefley, Joel [R-CO-5] · R–CO
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to Subcommittee on Forests and Public Lands.
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.
Passed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill Agreed to by voice vote.
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H3828-3831)
Mr. Hefley moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 15.
Reported by the Committee on National Security. H. Rept. 104-28, Part II.
Reported by the Committee on National Security. H. Rept. 104-28, Part II.
Reported by the Committee on Resources. H. Rept. 104-28, Part I.
Reported by the Committee on Resources. H. Rept. 104-28, Part I.
Subcommittee on Military Installations and Facilities Discharged.
Ordered to be Reported by Voice Vote.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Executive Comment Requested from DOD.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Military Installations.
Ordered to be Reported by the Yeas and Nays: 42 - 0.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Executive Comment Requested from Interior, Army.
Referred to the Committee on National Security, and in addition to the Committee on Resources, 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 National Security, and in addition to the Committee on Resources, 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 National Security, and in addition to the Committee on Resources, 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: 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.256 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.256 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.256 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.256 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.