PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Congressional Research Service
Version 01 · Reported to Senate with amendment(s) · Mar 9, 2004
Salt Cedar and Russian Olive Control Demonstration Act - Directs the Secretary of the Interior (the Secretary) , acting through the Commissioner of Reclamation and in cooperation with the Secretary of Agriculture and the Secretary of Defense to carry out a salt cedar (Tamarix spp) and Russian olive (Elaeagnus angustifolia) assessment and demonstration program to: (1) assess the extent of the infestation by salt cedar and Russian olive trees in the western United States; (2) to demonstrate strategic solutions for the long-term management of such trees and the reestablishment of native vegetation; and (3) assess economic means to dispose of biomass created as a result of removal of those trees.
Requires the Secretary to complete an assessment of the extent of the infestation on public and private land. Provides that, in addition to describing the acreage of and severity of infestation, the assessment shall: (1) consider existing research on methods to control salt cedar and Russian olive trees; (2) consider the feasibility of reducing water consumption by such trees; (3) consider methods of and challenges associated with the revegetation or restoration of infested land; and (4) estimate the costs of destruction of such trees, related biomass removal, and revegetation or restoration and maintenance of the infested land.
Instructs the Secretary to identify and document long-term management and funding strategies that: (1) could be implemented by Federal, State, and private land managers in addressing the infestation; and (2) should be tested as components of the five demonstration projects specified below.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Directs the Secretary to establish a program that selects and funds at least five demonstration projects proposed by and implemented in collaboration with Federal agencies, units of State and local government, national laboratories, Indian tribes, institutions of higher education, individuals, organizations, or soil and water conservation districts to demonstrate and evaluate the most effective methods of controlling salt cedar and Russian olive trees. Limits the Federal cost share of such projects not carried out on Federal land to: (1) 75 percent for each of the first five years of the project; and (2) for the purpose of long-term monitoring, 100 percent for each of such five-year extensions as the Secretary may grant. Permits the non-Federal share of the costs of such a project to be provided as in-kind contributions, including services provided by a State agency or any other public or private partner. Lists project requirements.
Directs the Secretary, in cooperation with the Secretary of Agriculture, to complete an analysis of economic means to use or dispose of biomass created as a result of removal of salt cedar and Russian olive trees. Requires such analysis to: (1) determine conditions under which removal of biomass is economically viable; (2) consider and build upon existing research by the Department of Agriculture and other agencies on beneficial uses of salt cedar and Russian olive tree fiber; and (3) consider economic development opportunities, including manufacture of wood products using biomass resulting from the demonstration projects under this Act as a means of defraying costs of control.
Sets monetary limits on costs under this Act and provides that activities under this Act, and any of the five demonstration projects that are carried out on Federal land, shall be at full Federal expense.
Directs the Secretary to subject the assessment, the identification and documentation of long-term management strategies, the projects, and the analysis to independent review.
Requires the Secretary to submit to Congress annual reports describing the results of carrying out this Act, including a synopsis of any such review and details of the manner and purposes for which funds are expended.
Instructs the Secretary to facilitate public access to all information that results from carrying out this Act.
Authorizes appropriations.
People & committees
Sen. Domenici, Pete V. [R-NM] · R–NM
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Held at the desk.
Message on Senate action sent to the House.
Received in the House.
Passed Senate with an amendment and an amendment to the Title by Unanimous Consent. (consideration: CR S5844-5845; text as passed Senate: CR S5844-5845)
Passed/agreed to in Senate: Passed Senate with an amendment and an amendment to the Title by Unanimous Consent.(consideration: CR S5844-5845; text as passed Senate: CR S5844-5845)
Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 445.
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Reported by Senator Domenici with an amendment in the nature of a substitute and an amendment to the title. With written report No. 108-235.
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Reported by Senator Domenici with an amendment in the nature of a substitute and an amendment to the title. With written report No. 108-235.
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 Water and Power. Hearings held. With printed Hearing: S.Hrg. 108-211.
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. (text of measure as introduced: CR 8/1/2003 S10638-10639)
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR S10638)
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.1516 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.1516 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.1516 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.1516 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.