PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.
Congressional Research Service
Version 81 · Passed House without amendment · Oct 31, 2017
(This measure has not been amended since it was introduced. The expanded summary of the House reported version is repeated here.)
(Sec. 2) This bill directs the Department of Agriculture (USDA) to sell a parcel of real property, including improvements, located at 4500 Glenwood Drive in Riverside, California, consisting of approximately 8.75 acres and administered by the Natural Resources Conservation Service, to the Riverside Corona Resource Conservation District for such property's appraised value.
USDA and the district may survey such property to facilitate its purchase.
USDA shall: (1) not reserve any future interest in such property except as may be acceptable to the district; and (2) be required to meet the disclosure requirements for, but shall not be required to remediate or abate any such releases of, hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants on such property.
In conjunction with or in addition to the purchase of such property, USDA may enter into leases, contracts, and cooperative agreements with the district.
USDA may lease real property from the district on a noncompetitive basis.
People & committees
Rep. Calvert, Ken [R-CA-42] · R–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 Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill Agreed to by voice vote. (text: CR H8283)
Passed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill Agreed to by voice vote.(text: CR H8283)
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H.R. 3567.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H8283-8284)
Mr. Crawford moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 272.
Reported by the Committee on Agriculture. H. Rept. 115-372.
Reported by the Committee on Agriculture. H. Rept. 115-372.
Ordered to be Reported by Voice Vote.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Conservation and Forestry.
Referred to the House Committee on Agriculture.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Apr 7, 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.3567 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.3567 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.3567 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.3567 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.