PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Committee on Energy and Natural Resources Subcommittee on Public Lands, Forests, and Mining. Hearings held.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Jan 23, 2025
The Dalles Watershed Development Act
This bill provides for the conveyance of approximately 150 acres of National Forest System land located in the Mount Hood National Forest in Oregon from the Forest Service to the City of The Dalles, Oregon. If the city requests Interior to convey the land within a year of this bill's enactment, then the Forest Service must convey the land to the city as soon as practicable.
The exact acreage and legal description of the National Forest System land to be conveyed must be determined by a survey satisfactory to the Forest Service.
The conveyance must be (1) subject to valid existing rights; (2) made without consideration (i.e., made without the transfer of value, such as money); (3) made by a quitclaim deed; and (4) subject to such additional terms and conditions as the Forest Service determines to be appropriate to protect the interests of the United States.
As a condition of the conveyance, the city must pay the costs associated with the conveyance, including the cost of a survey.
People & committees
Rep. Bentz, Cliff [R-OR-2] · R–OR
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources Subcommittee on Public Lands, Forests, and Mining. 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, as amended Agreed to by voice vote. (text: CR H5075)
Passed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by voice vote. (text: CR H5075)
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H.R. 655.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H5075-5076)
Mr. Hurd (CO) moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 233.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Natural Resources. H. Rept. 119-277.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Natural Resources. H. Rept. 119-277.
Ordered to be Reported in the Nature of a Substitute by Unanimous Consent.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held
Subcommittee on Federal Lands Discharged
Subcommittee Hearings Held
Referred to the Subcommittee on Federal 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.
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.655 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.655 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.655 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.655 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.