Elijah Crane (R-AZ)
To require the Secretary of Agriculture to convey the Pleasant Valley Ranger District Administrative Site to Gila County, Arizona.
A Republican bill with no cosponsors
Last activity — Signed by President.
Became law
Passed both chambers and was signed by the President, or became law without a signature.
Nothing more in Congress: it is law. When it takes effect depends on the dates written into it — some parts start at once, others a year or more later.
Its path through Congress
- Introduced
- Passed House voice vote
- Passed Senate unanimous consent
- To President
- Became Law
No one's position on it was recorded: the House by voice vote (members called out yes or no together), and the Senate by unanimous consent (no one objected, so there was no vote).
What this bill would do
This bill requires the Secretary of Agriculture to give a specific property in Arizona to Gila County, if the County asks for it in writing within 180 days. The property is about 232.9 acres of National Forest System land known as the Pleasant Valley Ranger District Administrative Site. The County must pay all costs related to the transfer, including surveys and environmental analyses. Gila County must use this land exclusively to serve and support veterans of the Armed Forces. If the land is used for anything else, the property can go back to the United States at the Secretary's discretion.
Yes· 3 of 5
- Scored +6
Would veterans be better off under this, taking everything together?
The bill explicitly requires the land to be used to serve and support veterans.
- Scored +5
Does this increase the pay, pensions or support veterans receive?
The land transfer is intended to provide resources to serve and support veterans.
- Scored +4
Does this leave more decisions to the states?
The bill transfers federal land to a local county government.
The opposite
- Scored -2
Does this give the federal government more power?
The bill includes a reversion clause that maintains federal control over the land's use.
- Scored -2
Does this better protect public land such as parks and forests?
Transferring public land to a county may reduce direct federal oversight of the land.
Who it would affect, and how
Potential Positive Impacts for People
- Section (g) states that the land conveyed to Gila County must be used solely to serve and support veterans of the Armed Forces, which directly benefits veterans by providing dedicated resources and support.
Potential Negative Impacts for People
- Section (e) requires Gila County to pay all costs associated with the conveyance, including surveys, environmental analyses, and historic preservation compliance, which places a financial burden on the local government.
Groups and Interests Ranking
Every group the model scored this bill for, from -10 to +10. Tap or hover a score for the reason it gave.
- Demographic And Interest Groups
- Would veterans be better off under this, taking everything together? — The bill explicitly requires the land to be used to serve and support veterans. Would people in rural areas be better off under this? — The land transfer may provide new local resources and development opportunities for the rural county.
- National Security And Foreign Policy
- Does this increase the pay, pensions or support veterans receive? — The land transfer is intended to provide resources to serve and support veterans.
- Governance And Ideology
- Does this leave more decisions to the states? — The bill transfers federal land to a local county government. Does this give the federal government more power? — The bill includes a reversion clause that maintains federal control over the land's use.
- Environment Energy And Infrastructure
- Does this invest in rural communities? — The land transfer provides Gila County with assets to support local veteran-focused initiatives. Does this better protect public land such as parks and forests? — Transferring public land to a county may reduce direct federal oversight of the land.
- Enrolled Bill
The final version, on its way to the President
What changed from Reported to Senate: No change to the wording. Only the printed details that record the bill’s progress, such as the heading and dates, are different.
- 10/20/2026
- Signed by President.
- 10/15/2026
- Presented to President.
- 10/14/2026
- Message on Senate action sent to the House.
- 9/30/2026
- Passed/agreed to in Senate: Passed Senate without amendment by Unanimous Consent.
- Passed Senate without amendment by Unanimous Consent. (consideration: CR S5226)
- 9/17/2026
- Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Reported by Senator Lee without amendment. Without written report.
- Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 660.
- 2/4/2026
- Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Ordered to be reported without amendment favorably.
- 2/6/2025
- Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
- 2/5/2025
- Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
- Passed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill Agreed to by voice vote. (text: CR H480)
- On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill Agreed to by voice vote. (text: CR H480)
- DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H.R. 837.
- Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H480-481)
- Mr. Westerman moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill.
- 1/31/2025
- Referred to the House Committee on Natural Resources.
- Introduced in House
2 bills Congress.gov lists as related to this one — companions in the other chamber, earlier versions, and bills this one absorbed or was folded into.