PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Became Public Law No: 112-79.
Congressional Research Service
Version 49 · Public Law · Dec 23, 2011
(This measure has not been amended since it was passed by the House on December 16, 2011. The summary of that version is repeated here.)
Sugar Loaf Fire Protection District Land Exchange Act of 2011 - Requires the Secretary of Agriculture (USDA), if the Sugar Loaf Fire Protection District of Boulder, Colorado, offers to convey non-federal land in unincorporated Boulder County and the offer is acceptable to the Secretary, to accept the offer and to convey federal land in the Arapaho-Roosevelt National Forests in Colorado.
Applies provisions of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 relating to the exchange of public lands and interests within the National Forest System to the land exchange authorized under this Act, except that: (1) the Secretary may accept a cash equalization payment in excess of 25% of the value of the federal land, and (2) the District shall pay costs relating to any land surveys and appraisals of the federal and non-federal lands and enter into an agreement that allocates any other administrative costs between the Secretary and the District.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Expresses the intent of Congress that such land exchange be completed within one year of enactment of this Act. Authorizes the Secretary to offer to sell the federal land to the District if the exchange is not completed by such deadline. Permits the Secretary to offer to sell such land to the District for its fair market value.
Sets forth requirements for the disposition and use of the proceeds received as the result of any cash equalization payment or any sale specified above.
Requires the acquired non-federal land to become part of the Arapaho-Roosevelt National Forests.
Revokes any public orders withdrawing the federal land from entry, appropriation, or disposal under the public land laws to the extent necessary to permit the conveyance of the federal land to the District.
Withdraws such land on the date of enactment, if it is not already withdrawn or segregated from entry and appropriation under the public land laws and the Geothermal Steam Act of 1970, until it is conveyed to the District.
People & committees
Sen. Udall, Mark [D-CO] · D–CO
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Became Public Law No: 112-79.
Became Public Law No: 112-79.
Signed by President.
Signed by President.
Presented to President.
Presented to President.
Message on Senate action sent to the House.
Senate agreed to the House amendment by Unanimous Consent. (consideration: CR S8780; text of measure as agreed to in House: CR S8780)
Resolving differences -- Senate actions: Senate agreed to the House amendment by Unanimous Consent.(consideration: CR S8780; text of measure as agreed to in House: CR S8780)
Message on House action received in Senate and at desk: House amendment to Senate bill.
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 recorded vote (2/3 required): 413 - 0 (Roll no. 940). (text: CR 12/14/2011 H8950-8952)
House roll call 940 · Individual votesPassed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by recorded vote (2/3 required): 413 - 0 (Roll no. 940).(text: CR 12/14/2011 H8950-8952)
House roll call 940 · Individual votesConsidered as unfinished business. (consideration: CR H9822-9823)
At the conclusion of debate, the chair put the question on the motion to suspend the rules. Mr. Hastings (WA) 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 on S. 278.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H8950-8952)
Mr. Hastings (WA) moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended.
Held at the desk.
Received in the House.
Message on Senate action sent to the House.
Passed Senate without amendment by Unanimous Consent. (consideration: CR S7089-7090; text as passed Senate: CR S7090)
Passed/agreed to in Senate: Passed Senate without amendment by Unanimous Consent.(consideration: CR S7089-7090; text as passed Senate: CR S7090)
Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 131.
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Reported by Senator Bingaman under authority of the order of the Senate of 08/02/2011 without amendment. With written report No. 112-51.
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Reported by Senator Bingaman under authority of the order of the Senate of 08/02/2011 without amendment. With written report No. 112-51.
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. With printed Hearing: S.Hrg. 112-39.
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. (text of measure as introduced: CR S547-548)
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR S547)
Introduced in Senate
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
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.278 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.278 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.278 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.278 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.