PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Congressional Research Service
Version 49 · Public Law · Aug 12, 2009
(This measure has not been amended since it was passed by the House on March 31, 2009. The summary of that version is repeated here.)
Miami Dade College Land Conveyance Act - Directs the Attorney General to convey a parcel of land held by the Bureau of Prisons to Miami Dade College in Miami-Dade County, Florida, so that the college can use the site for a new educational building that includes a parking area with designated parking spaces for the Bureau of Prisons.
Permits the Attorney General to revert the land to the United States if it is not being used in accordance with the purpose specified above. Requires any determination of the Attorney General concerning such a reversion to be made on the record after an opportunity for a hearing.
Allows the Attorney General to have the exact size and legal description of the land to be conveyed determined by a survey and requires the College to bear the cost of the survey.
Makes inapplicable to such land conveyance requirements under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 for an environmental impact statement.
People & committees
Rep. Ros-Lehtinen, Ileana [R-FL-18] · R–FL
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Became Public Law No: 111-48.
Became Public Law No: 111-48.
Signed by President.
Signed by President.
Presented to President.
Presented to President.
Cleared for White House.
Message on Senate action sent to the House.
Passed Senate without amendment by Unanimous Consent. (text: CR S8211)
Passed/agreed to in Senate: Passed Senate without amendment by Unanimous Consent.(text: CR S8211)
Senate Committee on the Judiciary discharged by Unanimous Consent. (consideration: CR S8211)
Senate Committee on the Judiciary discharged by Unanimous Consent.(consideration: CR S8211)
Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
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 H4214)
Passed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by voice vote.(text: CR H4214)
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H.R. 838.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H4214-4215)
Ms. Jackson-Lee moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security.
Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Aug 10, 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.838 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.838 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.838 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.838 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.