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 · Jul 10, 2006
(This measure has not been amended since it was reported to the House on April 25, 2006. The summary of that version is repeated here.)
Directs the Secretary of the Interior to convey to Park City, Utah, two parcels of property located in Park City that are currently under the management jurisdiction of the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and known as the White Acre and Gambel Oak properties.
Requires such conveyance to be made by a deed or deeds containing a restriction requiring that the lands be maintained as open space and used only for public recreation purposes or other purposes consistent with their maintenance as open space. Prohibits interpreting this restriction as prohibiting the construction or maintenance of recreational facilities, utilities, or other structures that are consistent with the maintenance of such lands as open space or its use for public recreation purposes.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Requires Park City to pay to the Secretary an amount consistent with conveyances to governmental entities for recreational purposes under the Recreation and Public Purposes Act.
Directs the Secretary to offer for sale two specified parcels of property located in Park City that are currently under the management jurisdiction of the BLM. Requires such land sale to be consistent with specified provisions under the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 through a competitive bidding process and for not less than fair market value. Sets forth requirements for the disposition and use of the proceeds derived from such sale, including providing for the use of such proceeds for environmental restoration projects on BLM-administered lands within the BLM Salt Lake City Field Office.
People & committees
Rep. Bishop, Rob [R-UT-1] · R–UT
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 H4923)
Passed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by voice vote.(text: CR H4923)
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H.R. 3462.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H4923-4924)
Mr. Radanovich moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 227.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Resources. H. Rept. 109-418.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Resources. H. Rept. 109-418.
Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by Unanimous Consent.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Subcommittee on Forests and Forest Health Discharged.
Subcommittee Hearings Held.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Forests and Forest Health.
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: 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.3462 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.3462 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.3462 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.3462 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.