PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on National Parks and Public Lands.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · Oct 14, 1999
Palace of the Governors Expansion Act - Requires the Secretary of the Interior, subject to the availability of appropriations, to award a grant to New Mexico to pay the Federal share of costs of the final design, construction, furnishing, and equipping of the Palace of the Governors Expansion Annex in Santa Fe. Conditions receipt of the grant on New Mexico, acting through the Office of Cultural Affairs: (1) submitting Annex architectural blueprints to the Secretary; (2) exercising due diligence to obtain an appropriation of at least $8 million from the New Mexico State Legislature; and (3) expeditiously executing a memorandum of understanding recognizing that time is of the essence for construction because 2010 marks the 400th anniversary of continuous use of the Palace.Sets the Federal share of costs at 50 percent.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.
Referred to the Subcommittee on National Parks and Public Lands.
Referred to the House Committee on Resources.
Received in the House.
Message on Senate action sent to the House.
Passed Senate with an amendment by Unanimous Consent. (text: CR S2808-2809)
Passed/agreed to in Senate: Passed Senate with an amendment by Unanimous Consent.(text: CR S2808-2809)
Measure laid before Senate by unanimous consent. (consideration: CR S2807-2810; text of measure as reported in Senate: CR S2807-2810)
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR S2809-2810)
Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 493.
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Reported to Senate by Senator Murkowski with amendments. With written report No. 106-263.
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Reported to Senate by Senator Murkowski with amendments. With written report No. 106-263.
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Ordered to be reported with amendments favorably.
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources Subcommittee on National Parks, Historic Preservation, and Recreation. Hearings held. With printed Hearing: S.Hrg. 106-594.
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. (text of measure as introduced: CR S12640-12641)
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR S12640)
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.1727 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.1727 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.1727 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.1727 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.