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 00 · Introduced in House · Jun 12, 2002
Los Padres National Forest Land Exchange Act of 2002 - Authorizes an exchange of approximately 340 acres held by the United Water Conservation District of California and approximately 420 acres of National Forest System lands. Allows the Secretary of Agriculture to reserve easements in the conveyance of National Forest System lands for access roads and trails, including perpetual unrestricted rights of pedestrian access to the Potholes trailhead of Los Padres National Forest. Requires the Secretary to provide reasonable access to privately owned inholdings in the District lands acquired under this Act. Stipulates that the District must construct a gravel parking area for the Potholes trailhead. Exempts water rights from this land exchange. Permits the District and the Secretary to equalize this exchange through a cash payment. Adds the District lands acquired under this Act to the Los Padres National Forest.
People & committees
Rep. Gallegly, Elton [R-CA-23] · 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 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 voice vote. (text: CR H6503)
Passed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill Agreed to by voice vote.(text: CR H6503)
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H.R. 4917.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H6503-6504)
Mr. Hansen moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 385.
Reported by the Committee on Resources. H. Rept. 107-636.
Reported by the Committee on Resources. H. Rept. 107-636.
Subcommittee on Forests and Forest Health Discharged.
Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by Unanimous Consent.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Subcommittee Hearings Held.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Forests and Forest Health.
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.4917 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.4917 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.4917 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.4917 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.