PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Committee on Energy and Natural Resources Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests. Hearings held.
Congressional Research Service
Version 36 · Passed House amended · Jul 19, 2004
(This measure has not been amended since it was reported to the House on May 20, 2004. The summary of that version is repeated here.)
Directs the Secretary of the Interior to convey to S.C.D.P. Management, Inc. (doing business as Father Joe's Villages), without consideration and subject to valid existing rights, specified Federal lands in Riverside County, California, to provide a homeless shelter, a training center, and affordable housing.
Provides that if the Villages or any subsequent owner of the land transferred under this Act uses that land for purposes other than those specified above, all right, title, and interest to such land (and any improvements thereon) shall revert to the United States to be administered by the Bureau of Land Management, if the Secretary determines that such a reversion is in the best interests of the United States.
People & committees
Rep. Bono, Mary [R-CA-45] · R–CA
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests. Hearings held.
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.
Passed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by voice vote.
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H.R. 3874.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H5928-5929)
Mr. Hayworth moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 293.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Resources. H. Rept. 108-512.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Resources. H. Rept. 108-512.
Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by Unanimous Consent.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Forwarded by Subcommittee to Full Committee by Unanimous Consent.
Subcommittee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Subcommittee Hearings Held.
Executive Comment Requested from Interior.
Referred to the Subcommittee on National Parks, Recreation and Public Lands.
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.3874 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.3874 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.3874 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.3874 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.