PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Became Public Law No: 103-365.
Congressional Research Service
Version 35 · Passed Senate amended · Jun 24, 1994
Arizona Wilderness Land Title Resolution Act of 1994 - Requires the Secretary of the Treasury to pay a specified sum, without interest, to Perrin Properties, Inc., upon being notified by the Attorney General that the appellants in Santa Fe Pacific Railroad Company et al. v. Secretary of the Interior have executed all documents necessary to: (1) dismiss with prejudice all litigation involving the title to certain lands in the Prescott National Forest, Arizona; and (2) release and quitclaim to the United States all right, title, and interest of the appellants and of Perrin Properties, Inc., in and to such lands. Requires the lands to be managed in accordance with the laws, rules, and regulations pertaining to the National Forest System and in accordance with the Wilderness Act if the lands lie within the boundaries of a wilderness area.
People & committees
Sen. DeConcini, Dennis [D-AZ] · 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: 103-365.
Became Public Law No: 103-365.
Signed by President.
Signed by President.
Presented to President.
Presented to President.
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill Agreed to by recorded vote (2/3 required): 381 - 15 (Roll no. 459).
House roll call 459 · Individual votesPassed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill Agreed to by recorded vote (2/3 required): 381 - 15 (Roll no. 459).
House roll call 459 · Individual votesConsidered as unfinished business. (consideration: CR H10611)
At the conclusion of debate, the chair put the question on the motion to suspend the rules. Mr. Rohrabacher objected to the vote on the grounds that a quorum was not present. Further proceedings on the motion were postponed. The point of no quorum was withdrawn.
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H10470-10471)
Mr. Brooks moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 421.
Reported by the Committee on Natural Resources. H. Rept. 103-773, Part II.
Reported by the Committee on Natural Resources. H. Rept. 103-773, Part II.
Reported by the Committee on Judiciary. H. Rept. 103-773, Part I.
Reported by the Committee on Judiciary. H. Rept. 103-773, Part I.
Ordered to be Reported.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Ordered to be Reported by Voice Vote.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Forwarded by Subcommittee to Full Committee.
Subcommittee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Administrative Law and Governmental Relations.
Late Referral to the Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public Lands (Nov 30, 94).
Referred jointly to the House Committee on Natural Resources.
Referred jointly to the House Committee on Judiciary.
Held at the desk.
Received in the House.
Message on Senate action sent to the House.
Passed Senate with amendments by Voice Vote. (consideration: CR S7658)
Passed/agreed to in Senate: Passed Senate with amendments by Voice Vote.(consideration: CR S7658)
Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 445.
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Reported to Senate by Senator Johnston with amendments. With written report No. 103-274.
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Reported to Senate by Senator Johnston with amendments. With written report No. 103-274.
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Ordered to be reported with amendments favorably.
Subcommittee on Public Lands, National Parks. Hearings held. Hearings printed: S.Hrg. 103-594.
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources requested executive comment from Department of the Interior, and Office of Management and Budget.
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources requested executive comment from Department of Agriculture, Department of the Interior, Department of Justice, Department of the Treasury, and Office of Management and Budget.
Referred to Subcommittee on Public Lands, National Parks.
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR S8823-8825)
Introduced in Senate
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 S.1233 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 S.1233 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 S.1233 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 S.1233 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.