PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 542.
Congressional Research Service
Version 80 · Reported to Senate without amendment · Aug 5, 2010
(This measure has not been amended since it was introduced. The expanded summary of the House reported version is repeated here.)
Affirms and validates a specified patent and its associated land reconfiguration issued by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) as having been issued in compliance with the Nevada-Florida Land Exchange Authorization Act of 1988, the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, and the Federal Land Policy Management Act of 1976 for the benefit and recovery of the desert tortoise and other species and their habitat. Ratifies: (1) the process used by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the BLM for the reconfiguration of those lands as shown in a specified environmental impact statement; and (2) the reconfiguration provided for in a specified Army Corps of Engineers permit.
People & committees
Rep. Heller, Dean [R-NV-2] · R–NV
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. 542.
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Reported by Senator Bingaman without amendment. With written report No. 111-272.
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Reported by Senator Bingaman without amendment. With written report No. 111-272.
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Ordered to be reported without amendment favorably.
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests. 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 Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: (2/3 required): 413 - 0 (Roll no. 542). (text: CR 7/15/2009 H8050-8051)
House roll call 542 · 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): 413 - 0 (Roll no. 542).(text: CR 7/15/2009 H8050-8051)
House roll call 542 · Individual votesConsidered as unfinished business. (consideration: CR H8116-8117)
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. 762.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H8050-8051)
Ms. Bordallo moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 95.
Reported by the Committee on Natural Resources. H. Rept. 111-178.
Reported by the Committee on Natural Resources. H. Rept. 111-178.
Ordered to be Reported 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.762 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.762 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.762 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.762 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.