PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Congressional Research Service
Version 49 · Public Law · Dec 19, 2011
(This measure has not been amended since it was passed by the Senate on November 2, 2011. The summary of that version is repeated here.)
Box Elder Utah Land Conveyance Act - Directs the Secretary of Agriculture (USDA), upon submission of a request by the town of Mantua, Utah, within one year of enactment of this Act, to convey to the town, without consideration and by quitclaim deed, all interest of the United States in and to parcels of National Forest System land in Box Elder County, Utah, that are labeled as parcels A, B, and C on the map entitled "Box Elder Utah Land Conveyance Act" and dated June 23, 2011.
Requires the town to pay reasonable survey and other administrative costs associated with such conveyance.
Requires the town to use the land conveyed under this Act only for public purposes.
People & committees
Sen. Lee, Mike [R-UT] · R–UT
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Became Public Law No: 112-70.
Became Public Law No: 112-70.
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 voice vote. (text: CR 12/05/2011 H8132-8133)
Passed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill Agreed to by voice vote.(text: CR 12/05/2011 H8132-8133)
Considered as unfinished business. (consideration: CR H8245)
At the conclusion of debate, the chair put the question on the motion to suspend the rules. Mr. Lujan 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 The point of no quorum was withdrawn.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. 683.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H8132-8133)
Mr. Hastings (WA) moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill.
Held at the desk.
Received in the House.
Message on Senate action sent to the House.
Passed Senate with amendments by Unanimous Consent. (consideration: CR S7090-7091; text of measure as reported in Senate: CR S7090-7091; text as passed Senate: CR S7090)
Passed/agreed to in Senate: Passed Senate with amendments by Unanimous Consent.(consideration: CR S7090-7091; text of measure as reported in Senate: CR S7090-7091; text as passed Senate: CR S7090)
Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 140.
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Reported by Senator Bingaman under authority of the order of the Senate of 08/02/2011 with amendments. With written report No. 112-60.
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Reported by Senator Bingaman under authority of the order of the Senate of 08/02/2011 with amendments. With written report No. 112-60.
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Ordered to be reported with amendments 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.
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.683 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.683 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.683 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.683 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.