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 53 · Passed House · Dec 3, 2020
Land Grant-Mercedes Traditional Use Recognition and Consultation Act
(Sec. 3) This bill requires the Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the Department of the Interior to issue guidance related to certain community land grants in New Mexico made by Spain or Mexico to individuals, groups, and communities to promote the settlement of the southwestern United States (land grant-mercedes).
The guidance shall set forth the policies and procedures for notice and comment on planning decisions, routine engagement, and major federal actions that could impact historical-traditional uses of a qualified land grant-merced.
(Sec. 4) In developing, maintaining, and revising land management plans and National Forest System land and resource management plans, as applicable, the USDA or Interior shall consider and, as appropriate, provide for and evaluate impacts to historical-traditional uses by qualified land grant-mercedes.
(Sec. 5) The USDA shall initiate negotiated rulemaking procedures to promulgate such regulations as are necessary to carry out and implement the Forest Service's Acequia Guidance Document, dated July 2, 2019.
People & committees
Rep. Luján, Ben Ray [D-NM-3] · D–NM
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.
The title of the measure was amended. Agreed to without objection.
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 H6124-6125)
Passed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by voice vote.(text: CR H6124-6125)
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H.R. 3682.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H6124-6126)
Mr. Case moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 495.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Natural Resources. H. Rept. 116-602.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Natural Resources. H. Rept. 116-602.
Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by Unanimous Consent.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Subcommittee on Water, Oceans, and Wildlife Discharged.
Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests, and Public Lands Discharged.
Subcommittee Hearings Held.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Water, Oceans, and Wildlife.
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: 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.3682 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.3682 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.3682 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.3682 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.