PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on Fisheries and Oceans.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Jul 26, 2005
Highway Claims Resolution Act of 2005 - Permits, for a four-year period following the enactment of this Act, the filing of claims asserting the existence and validity of right-of-ways, pursuant to a repealed section of the Revised Statutes (R.S. 2477), to build highways across public land not reserved for public uses. Deems a failure to make and prove such claim a relinquishment of all right-of-way rights. Requires claimants to submit evidence in support of a claim within six years of the claim filing.
Declares that claimants shall have the burden of proof that the grant of a right-of-way was validly accepted.
Directs an authorized officer (designated by the Secretary of the Interior) to review evidence submitted and determine whether the claim is presumptively valid. Subjects to judicial review the administrative record of the final decision of an authorized officer.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Prohibits charging a state, county, or local government a fee for the filing of a claim.
Allows the United States to retain exclusive possession or control of federal conservation, tribal, or defense lands traversed by a valid right-of-way, upon payment to the claimant of an amount set by the relevant district court.
Requires the recording of recognized claims.
Recognizes the prior adjudication of claimed rights-of-way by courts of competent jurisdiction. States that nothing in this Act shall be construed to alter provisions of the: (1) Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 regarding rights-of-way with respect to public lands and National Forest System lands; or (2) Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act regarding Alaska's transportation and utility network.
People & committees
Rep. Udall, Mark [D-CO-2] · D–CO
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Fisheries and Oceans.
Referred to the Subcommittee on National Parks.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Forests and Forest Health.
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR E1622-1624)
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.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Aug 15, 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.3447 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.3447 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.3447 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.3447 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.