PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Became Public Law No: 109-391.
Congressional Research Service
Version 49 · Public Law · Dec 12, 2006
(This measure has not been amended since it was introduced. The expanded summary of the House passed version is repeated here.)
Ouachita National Forest Boundary Adjustment Act of 2006 - Modifies the boundaries of the Ouachita National Forest, Oklahoma and Arkansas.
Directs that: (1) any federally-owned lands that have been or hereafter may be acquired for National Forest System (NFS) purposes within the boundaries of the Ouachita National Forest as modified by this Act be managed as lands acquired under the Weeks Act and in accordance with the other laws and regulations pertaining to the NFS; and (2) for purposes of the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965, the boundaries of the Ouachita National Forest as modified by this Act be considered to be boundaries of such forest as of January 1, 1965.
Prohibits anything in this Act from limiting the authority of the Secretary to adjust the boundaries of Ouachita National Forest pursuant to section 11 (concerning the division of national forest land for administrative purposes) of the Weeks Act.
People & committees
Rep. Boren, Dan [D-OK-2] · D–OK
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Became Public Law No: 109-391.
Became Public Law No: 109-391.
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 S11096; text as passed Senate: CR S11096)
Passed/agreed to in Senate: Passed Senate without amendment by Unanimous Consent.(consideration: CR S11096; text as passed Senate: CR S11096)
Received in the Senate, read twice.
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 H7661)
Passed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill Agreed to by voice vote.(text: CR H7661)
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H.R. 5690.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H7661-7662)
Mr. Gohmert moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill.
Subcommittee Hearings Held.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Forests and Forest Health.
Executive Comment Requested from USDA.
Referred to the House Committee on 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: Apr 7, 2025. 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.5690 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.5690 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.5690 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.5690 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.