PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Became Public Law No: 107-350.
Congressional Research Service
Version 17 · Reported to House with amendment(s) · Apr 9, 2002
Directs the Secretary of the Interior to convey specified parcels of public land in Clark County, Nevada, to the County: (1) for establishment of a centralized shooting facility in the Las Vegas Valley; and (2) to provide the public with opportunities for education and recreation and to provide a location for competitive events and marksmanship training. Prohibits such parcels from being disposed of by the county.Declares that parcels to be conveyed that comprise a portion of the Quail Springs Wilderness Study Area are no longer subject to requirements under the Federal Land Management Policy Act of 1976 pertaining to the management of wilderness study areas.Directs the Secretary to require that the county pay all survey costs and other administrative costs necessary for the preparation and completion of any patents of, and transfer of title to, such property.
People & committees
Rep. Gibbons, Jim [R-NV-2] · R–NV
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Became Public Law No: 107-350.
Became Public Law No: 107-350.
Signed by President.
Signed by President.
Presented to President.
Presented to President.
Message on Senate action sent to the House.
Passed Senate without amendment by Unanimous Consent.
Passed/agreed to in Senate: Passed Senate without amendment by Unanimous Consent.
Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources discharged by Unanimous Consent. (consideration: CR 11/19/2002 S11652-11655)
Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources discharged by Unanimous Consent.(consideration: CR 11/19/2002 S11652-11655)
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. (text: CR H1099)
Passed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by voice vote.(text: CR H1099)
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H.R. 2937.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H1099-1100)
Mr. Hansen moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Resources. H. Rept. 107-387.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 225.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Resources. H. Rept. 107-387.
Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by Unanimous Consent.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Forwarded by Subcommittee to Full Committee (Amended) by Voice Vote.
Subcommittee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Executive Comment Received from Interior.
Subcommittee Hearings Held.
Executive Comment Requested from Interior.
Referred to the Subcommittee on National Parks, Recreation and Public Lands.
Referred to the House Committee on 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.2937 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.2937 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.2937 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.2937 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.