PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 1014.
Congressional Research Service
Version 01 · Reported to Senate with amendment(s) · Sep 16, 2008
Colorado Northern Front Range Mountain Backdrop Protection Study Act - Requires the Secretary of Agriculture, acting through the Chief of the Forest Service, to conduct a study of the land within the study area (certain lands in southern Boulder, northern Jefferson, and northern Gilpin Counties, Colorado) and complete a report: (1) identifying the present ownership of the land within the study area; (2) identifying any undeveloped land that may be at risk of development; and (3) describing any actions that could be taken to preserve the open and undeveloped character of the land within the study area.
Requires the Secretary to conduct the study and develop the report with the support and participation of one or more specified state and local entities.
Allows the Secretary if such state and local entities do not support and participate in the study and report to: (1) decrease the area covered by the study area, as appropriate; or (2) opt not to conduct the study or develop the report and notify specified congressional committees of such decision.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Prohibits anything in this Act from authorizing the Secretary of Agriculture to take any action that would affect the use of any land not owned by the United States.
People & committees
Rep. Udall, Mark [D-CO-2] · D–CO
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 1014.
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Reported by Senator Bingaman with an amendment in the nature of a substitute. Without written report.
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Reported by Senator Bingaman with an amendment in the nature of a substitute. Without written report.
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Ordered to be reported with an amendment in the nature of a substitute favorably.
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests. Hearings held.
Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
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 H2128-2129)
Passed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill Agreed to by voice vote.(text: CR H2128-2129)
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H.R. 903.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H2128-2129)
Mr. Grijalva moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill.
Referred to the Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public Lands.
Referred to the House Committee on Natural Resources.
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR E280)
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
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 H.R.903 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.903 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.903 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.903 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.