PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Message on Senate action sent to the House.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Jan 28, 2003
Revokes Public Land Order 3442, dated August 21, 1964, insofar as it applies to specified lands in Imperial County, California (lands included in Cibola National Wildlife Refuge).Directs the Secretary of the Interior to resurvey and publish the new boundaries of the Refuge.
People & committees
Rep. Hunter, Duncan [R-CA-52] · R–CA
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Message on Senate action sent to the House.
Passed Senate with an amendment by Unanimous Consent.
Passed/agreed to in Senate: Passed Senate with an amendment by Unanimous Consent.
Measure laid before Senate by unanimous consent. (consideration: CR S5847)
Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 451.
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Reported by Senator Domenici without amendment. With written report No. 108-241.
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Reported by Senator Domenici without amendment. With written report No. 108-241.
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Ordered to be reported without amendment favorably.
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 Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: (2/3 required): 424 - 0 (Roll no. 69). (text: CR H1962)
House roll call 69 · Individual votesPassed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: (2/3 required): 424 - 0 (Roll no. 69).(text: CR H1962)
House roll call 69 · Individual votesConsidered as unfinished business. (consideration: CR H1989-1990)
At the conclusion of debate, the Yeas and Nays were demanded and ordered. Pursuant to the provisions of clause 8, rule XX, the Chair announced that further proceedings on the motion would be postponed.
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H.R. 417.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H1962-1963)
Mr. Pombo moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Fisheries Conservation, Wildlife and Oceans.
Referred to the House Committee on Resources.
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR E84)
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.417 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.417 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.417 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.417 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.