PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Became Public Law No: 108-389.
Congressional Research Service
Version 49 · Public Law · Oct 30, 2004
Chickasaw National Recreation Area Land Exchange Act of 2004 - Directs the Secretary of the Interior, not later than six months after the Chickasaw Nation conveys all interest in specified non-Federal land (formerly owned by the City of Sulphur, Oklahoma, located adjacent to the existing boundary of the Chickasaw National Recreation Area), to take specified Federal land (in that Area) into trust for the benefit of the Chickasaw Nation.
Requires that the value of the Federal and non-Federal land be determined by an appraisal acceptable to the Secretary and the Chickasaw Nation. Directs that if the values of the lands are not equal they may be equalized through a cash equalization payment by the Secretary or the Chickasaw Nation.
Conditions the land conveyance on the completion of all items included in the Preliminary Exchange Agreement among the City of Sulphur, the Chickasaw Nation, and the National Park Service, executed on July 16, 2002, but makes inapplicable the item providing that the Federal land be taken into trust for the benefit of the Chickasaw Nation.
People & committees
Rep. Cole, Tom [R-OK-4] · R–OK
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Became Public Law No: 108-389.
Became Public Law No: 108-389.
Signed by President.
Signed by President.
Presented to President.
Presented to President.
Message on Senate action sent to the House.
Passed Senate without amendment by Unanimous Consent. (consideration: CR S11127-11183; text as passed Senate: CR S11182-11183)
Passed/agreed to in Senate: Passed Senate without amendment by Unanimous Consent.(consideration: CR S11127-11183; text as passed Senate: CR S11182-11183)
Received in the Senate. Read twice. Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 745.
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 H7661-7662)
Passed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by voice vote.(text: CR H7661-7662)
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H.R. 4066.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H7661-7662)
Mr. Radanovich moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 430.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Resources. H. Rept. 108-702.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Resources. H. Rept. 108-702.
Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by Unanimous Consent.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Subcommittee on National Parks, Recreation and Public Lands Discharged.
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.
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.4066 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.4066 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.4066 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.4066 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.