PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Became Public Law No: 115-110.
Congressional Research Service
Version 49 · Public Law · Jan 10, 2018
(This measure has not been amended since it was introduced. The expanded summary of the House passed version is repeated here.)
Mount Hood Cooper Spur Land Exchange Clarification Act
(Sec. 2) This bill amends the Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009 to revise details of the Cooper Spur-Government Camp land exchange between the United States and Oregon.
After the final appraised value of the federal and nonfederal lands is determined and approved by the Department of Agriculture (USDA), USDA shall not be required to reappraise or update that value for up to three years, unless the condition of any of the lands is significantly and substantially altered by fire, windstorm, or other events.
The bill revises conveyance conditions regarding reservation of a conservation easement to protect identified wetland, reservation of a nonexclusive trail easement, and equalization of values of the exchange properties.
People & committees
Rep. Walden, Greg [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.
Became Public Law No: 115-110.
Became Public Law No: 115-110.
Signed by President.
Signed by President.
Presented to President.
Presented to President.
Message on Senate action sent to the House.
Passed Senate without amendment by Voice Vote. (consideration: CR S8267-8269)
Passed/agreed to in Senate: Passed Senate without amendment by Voice Vote.(consideration: CR S8267-8269)
Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 72.
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Reported by Senator Murkowski without amendment. With written report No. 115-59.
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Reported by Senator Murkowski without amendment. With written report No. 115-59.
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): 415 - 1 (Roll no. 100). (text: CR H1331)
House roll call 100 · 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): 415 - 1 (Roll no. 100).(text: CR H1331)
House roll call 100 · Individual votesConsidered as unfinished business. (consideration: CR H1337)
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. 699.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H1331-1332)
Mr. McClintock moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill.
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.
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.699 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.699 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.699 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.699 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.