Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 810.
Congressional Research Service
Official summary
Version 80 · Reported to Senate without amendment · Jun 16, 2008
(This measure has not been amended since it was passed by the House on October 22, 2007. The summary of that version is repeated here.)
Douglas County, Washington, PUD Conveyance Act - Directs the Secretary of the Interior, if the Public Utility District No. 1 of Douglas County, Washington (PUD), submits to the Secretary an offer to acquire certain public land managed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for the appraised value, to convey to the PUD all interest of the United States in and to the public land.
Requires: (1) the PUD to pay to the Secretary an amount equal to the appraised value of the public land, as determined according to this Act; and (2) any costs related to such conveyance to be paid by the PUD.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Read full official summaryShow less
Requires the deposit of the proceeds from such land sale in the Federal Land Disposal Account established pursuant to the Federal Land Transaction Facilitation Act, which shall be spent for improving access to public lands administered by the BLM in the state of Washington.
Withdraws the public land from: (1) all forms of entry, appropriation, or disposal under the public land laws; (2) location, entry, and patenting under the mining laws; and (3) operation of the mineral leasing, mineral materials, and geothermal leasing laws. Terminates such requirement for withdrawal of the public land two years after enactment of this Act or upon the completion of the conveyance under this Act.
Instructs the Secretary to retain the authority to place conditions on the license granted to the Secretary under the Federal Power Act to insure adequate protection and utilization of the public land until the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) has issued a new license for the Wells Hydroelectric Project to replace the original license expiring on May 31, 2012.
Passed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: (2/3 required): 377 - 0 (Roll no. 984).(text: CR H11789)
Considered as unfinished business. (consideration: CR H11818-11819)
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. 523.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H11789-11790)
Mr. Grijalva moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 252.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Natural Resources. H. Rept. 110-398.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Natural Resources. H. Rept. 110-398.
Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by Unanimous Consent.
Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests, and Public Lands Discharged.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Subcommittee Hearings Held.
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
Bill text & related measures
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
Explore the bill from different angles
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.
Neutral evidence review
Objective
Analyze H.R.523 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.
View full prompt & sources
Fairness and public impact
Progressive lens
Examine H.R.523 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.
View full prompt & sources
Institutions and government scope
Conservative lens
Examine H.R.523 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.
View full prompt & sources
Individual rights and government power
Liberty lens
Examine H.R.523 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.