PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 539.
Congressional Research Service
Version 80 · Reported to Senate without amendment · Aug 5, 2010
(This measure has not been amended since it was reported to the House on November 16, 2009. The summary of that version is repeated here.)
Removes the temporary reservation for park, scenic, or other public purposes of certain rocks, pinnacles, reefs, and islands in the Pacific Ocean within a mile of the coast of Orange County, California. Makes such rocks, pinnacles, reefs, and islands part of the California Coastal National Monument and requires that they be administered as part of the Monument.
Repeals the lighthouse reservation with respect to the San Juan and San Mateo Rocks and the two rocks in the vicinity of Laguna Beach, off the coast of Orange County.
People & committees
Rep. Campbell, John [R-CA-48] · R–CA
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. 539.
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Reported by Senator Bingaman without amendment. With written report No. 111-269.
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Reported by Senator Bingaman without amendment. With written report No. 111-269.
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.
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests. Hearings held. With printed Hearing: S.Hrg. 111-744.
Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
The title of the measure was amended. Agreed to without objection.
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): 397 - 4 (Roll no. 946). (text: CR 12/07/2009 H13534)
House roll call 946 · 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): 397 - 4 (Roll no. 946).(text: CR 12/07/2009 H13534)
House roll call 946 · Individual votesConsidered as unfinished business. (consideration: CR H14417-14418)
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. 86.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H13534-13535)
Ms. Bordallo moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 192.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Natural Resources. H. Rept. 111-334.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Natural Resources. H. Rept. 111-334.
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.86 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.86 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.86 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.86 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.