PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Subcommittee Hearings Held.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Aug 1, 2007
Southeast Arizona Land Exchange and Conservation Act of 2007 - Directs the Secretary of Agriculture (the Secretary) to convey to Resolution Copper Mining, LLC, all and interest of the United States in and to specified federal land in Pinal County, Arizona, in exchange for Resolution Copper conveying to the United States title to: (1) the Secretary to specified non-federal land in Gila, Yavapai, Maricopa, Pinal, and Coconino Counties, Arizona, and (2) the Secretary of the Interior to specified non-federal land in Pinal and Gila Counties, Arizona.
Directs the Secretary to convey specified land in Pinal County to the town of Superior, Arizona.
Instructs Resolution Copper to deliver to the Secretary an executed document reviewed by, and acceptable to, the Secretary which grants a permanent conservation easement to the easement area (the surface estate of the Apache Leap Natural and Cultural Resource Conservation Easement Area) to one or more of the following grantees: (1) a qualified unit of government or Indian tribe; or (2) a land trust or other qualified organization. Requires Resolution Copper and the grantee or grantees to determine whether the area covered by the easement should be managed to establish additional cultural and historic resource protections or measures.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Directs: (1) the Secretary to construct in the Global Ranger District of the Tonto National Forest one or more replacement campgrounds for the Oak Flat Campground; and (2) the Secretary of the Interior to immediately convey to the Arizona State Parks Board approximately 2,000 acres of land under such Secretary's jurisdiction within the exterior boundary of the proposed Tam O'Shanter Area State Park for the establishment of such Park.
Requires the Secretary of the Interior, immediately upon request by the Board, to grant the Board a right-of-way for a State Park access road across any federal lands on the Tam O' Shanter Access Road in order to provide public access to the proposed State Park.
People & committees
Rep. Pastor, Ed [D-AZ-4] · D–AZ
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Subcommittee Hearings Held.
Referred to the Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public 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: Aug 14, 2025. 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.3301 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.3301 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.3301 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.3301 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.