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 36 · Passed House amended · Nov 13, 2014
Trinity County Land Exchange Act of 2014 - Provides for the exchange of approximately 47 acres of land known as the Sky Ranch Parcel and owned by the Trinity Public Utilities District of Trinity County, California, for approximately 100 acres of land in the Shasta-Trinity National Forest near the Weaverville Airport in Trinity County.
Intends for such land exchange to be an equal value exchange. Provides for cash equalization if the parcels are not of equal value. Requires any cash equalization payment received under this Act to be deposited into the fund established under the Sisk Act and the deposited amounts to be used for the improvement, maintenance, reconstruction, or construction of a facility or improvement for the National Forest System.
Requires the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to administer the Sky Ranch parcel as public land, except that public recreation and public access to and for recreation shall be the highest and best use of such parcel.
People & committees
Rep. Huffman, Jared [D-CA-2] · D–CA
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, as amended Agreed to by voice vote. (text: CR H7949)
Passed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by voice vote.(text: CR H7949)
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H.R. 3326.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H7949-7950)
Mr. Young (AK) moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 457.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Natural Resources. H. Rept. 113-615.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Natural Resources. H. Rept. 113-615.
Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by Unanimous Consent.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Subcommittee on Public Lands and Environmental Regulation Discharged.
Subcommittee Hearings Held.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Public Lands and Environmental Regulation.
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.
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.3326 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.3326 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.3326 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.3326 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.