PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Became Public Law No: 113-107.
Congressional Research Service
Version 49 · Public Law · May 24, 2014
(This measure has not been amended since it was introduced. The expanded summary of the House reported version is repeated here.)
Authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture (USDA) to convey all interest of the United States in two parcels of land within the boundaries of the Coconino National Forest, Arizona, that contain private improvements that landowners developed based upon an erroneous survey conducted in May 1960, to the person or legal entity representing the majority of those landowners.
Requires the person or legal entity that represents such landowners to pay $20,000.00 to the Secretary as consideration for the conveyance of the parcels.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Requires the Secretary to deposit the consideration received under this Act into a special account in the fund established under the Sisk Act and to make such deposited funds available for the acquisition of land in the National Forest System.
Revokes public orders withdrawing any of the federal land from appropriation or disposal under the public land laws, to the extent necessary to permit the conveyance of all of the federal land.
Withdraws the federal land authorized for conveyance under this Act from entry and appropriation under the public land laws, location, entry, and patent under the mining laws, and operation of the mineral leasing and geothermal leasing laws until the completion of the conveyance.
Makes the conveyance authorized by this Act subject only to such surveys and clearances as are needed to protect U.S. interests.
Terminates the authority provided under this Act three years after this Act's enactment.
People & committees
Rep. Kirkpatrick, Ann [D-AZ-1] · D–AZ
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Became Public Law No: 113-107.
Became Public Law No: 113-107.
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 Unanimous Consent. (consideration: CR S3307-3308)
Passed/agreed to in Senate: Passed Senate without amendment by Unanimous Consent.(consideration: CR S3307-3308)
Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 360.
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Reported by Senator Landrieu without amendment. With written report No. 113-149.
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Reported by Senator Landrieu without amendment. With written report No. 113-149.
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Ordered to be reported without amendment favorably.
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources Subcommittee on Public Lands, Forests, and Mining. Hearings held. With printed Hearing: S.Hrg. 113-85.
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): 395 - 1 (Roll no. 247). (text: CR H3664)
House roll call 247 · 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): 395 - 1 (Roll no. 247).(text: CR H3664)
House roll call 247 · Individual votesConsidered as unfinished business. (consideration: CR H3668-3669)
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. 862.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H3664-3665)
Mr. Bishop (UT) moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 51.
Reported by the Committee on Natural Resources. H. Rept. 113-75.
Reported by the Committee on Natural Resources. H. Rept. 113-75.
Ordered to be Reported by Unanimous Consent.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Subcommittee on Public Lands and Environmental Regulation Discharged.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Public Lands and Environmental Regulation.
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.862 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.862 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.862 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.862 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.