PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 541.
Congressional Research Service
Version 80 · Reported to Senate without amendment · Aug 5, 2010
(This measure has not been amended since it was introduced. The summary of that version is repeated here.)
Box Elder Utah Land Conveyance Act - Directs the Secretary of Agriculture to convey to the town of Mantua, Utah, all interest of the United States in and to parcels of National Forest System land in the Wasatch-Cache National Forest in Box Elder County, Utah, that are labeled as parcels A, B, and C on the map entitled "Box Elder Utah Land Conveyance Act" and dated July 14, 2008.
Requires the town to use the land conveyed under this Act for public purposes.
People & committees
Rep. Bishop, Rob [R-UT-1] · R–UT
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 541.
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Reported by Senator Bingaman without amendment. With written report No. 111-271.
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Reported by Senator Bingaman without amendment. With written report No. 111-271.
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Ordered to be reported without amendment favorably.
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): 396 - 1 (Roll no. 74). (text: CR H1626-1627)
House roll call 74 · 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): 396 - 1 (Roll no. 74).(text: CR H1626-1627)
House roll call 74 · Individual votesConsidered as unfinished business. (consideration: CR H1636)
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. 601.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H1626-1627)
Ms. Bordallo moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill.
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
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
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.601 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.601 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.601 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.601 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.