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 36 · Passed House amended · Oct 3, 2011
(This measure has not been amended since it was reported to the House on July 20, 2011. The summary of that version is repeated here.)
Utah National Guard Readiness Act - Directs the Secretary of the Interior, through the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to convey to the state of Utah, without consideration, certain lands located within the boundaries of the public lands currently withdrawn for military use by the Utah National Guard and known as "Camp Williams" for the purpose of permitting the Utah National Guard to use such conveyed land.
Provides for the supersedence of a specified Executive Order only insofar as it affects the lands identified for conveyance. Reverts conveyed lands to the United States if the Secretary of Defense (DOD) determines that the land, or any part of such land, is sold or attempted to be sold, or that it or any part is used for non-National Guard or non-national defense purposes.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Requires the state, with respect to any part of the land conveyed that the Secretary of Defense determines is subject to reversion, if such Secretary determines that the part contains hazardous materials, to pay the United States the fair market value of that part of the conveyed land. Bars the application of the reversionary interest to that part of the land.
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.
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 the Yeas and Nays: (2/3 required): 400 - 0 (Roll no. 742). (text: CR H6470)
House roll call 742 · Individual votesPassed/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): 400 - 0 (Roll no. 742).(text: CR H6470)
House roll call 742 · Individual votesConsidered as unfinished business. (consideration: CR H6485-6486)
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. 686.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H6470-6471)
Mr. Bishop (UT) moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 108.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Natural Resources. H. Rept. 112-163.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Natural Resources. H. Rept. 112-163.
Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by Unanimous Consent.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public Lands Discharged.
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
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.686 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.686 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.686 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.686 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.