PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Congressional Research Service
Version 49 · Public Law · Oct 8, 2008
(This measure has not been amended since it was introduced. The summary has been expanded because action occurred on the measure.)
Oregon Surplus Federal Land Act of 2008 - Requires transfer of administrative jurisdiction over Coast Guard lands in Coos County, Oregon (including Cape Arago Light Station on Chief's Island), in the areas commonly known as Gregory Point and Chief's Island, to the Secretary of the Interior to hold in trust for the benefit of the Confederated Tribes of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians. Requires that, before the transfer, the Coast Guard commandant comply with all environmental and cultural resources laws. Requires that the land be included in the reservation of those tribes. Allows the Coast Guard to retain easements for access to aids to navigation.
People & committees
Rep. DeFazio, Peter A. [D-OR-4] · D–OR
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Became Public Law No: 110-364.
Became Public Law No: 110-364.
Signed by President.
Signed by President.
Presented to President.
Presented to President.
Message on Senate action sent to the House.
Cleared for White House.
Passed Senate without amendment by Unanimous Consent. (consideration: CR S9434)
Passed/agreed to in Senate: Passed Senate without amendment by Unanimous Consent.(consideration: CR S9434)
Received in the Senate.
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 H8530)
Passed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill Agreed to by voice vote.(text: CR H8530)
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H.R. 6370.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H8530-8532)
Mr. DeFazio moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill.
Reported by the Committee on Transportation. H. Rept. 110-865.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 562.
Reported by the Committee on Transportation. H. Rept. 110-865.
Ordered to be Reported by Voice Vote.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Subcommittee on Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Discharged.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation.
Referred to the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Dec 10, 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.6370 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.6370 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.6370 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.6370 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.