Sante Fe National Forest Boundary Adjustment Act of 1994
Held at the desk.
Congressional Research Service
Official summary
Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · Mar 7, 1994
Santa Fe National Forest Boundary Adjustment Act of 1994 - Authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture to modify the boundary of the Santa Fe National Forest in New Mexico to include land acquired by exchange with the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). Allows the Secretary to transfer land within the National Forest to the BLM to offset the value of BLM land acquired. Prohibits the Secretary from transferring any land or interest in land within the boundary of the National Forest that is acquired pursuant to the boundary expansion. Authorizes the Secretary to convey to the State of New Mexico easements donated to, and accepted by, the United States. Requires land acquired by the boundary expansion to be managed consistent with the terms and conditions of any easement donated to, and accepted by, the United States with respect to any such land.
Passed Senate with an amendment by Voice Vote. (consideration: CR S10271)
Passed/agreed to in Senate: Passed Senate with an amendment by Voice Vote.(consideration: CR S10271)
Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 510.
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Reported to Senate by Senator Johnston under the authority of the order of Jun 27, 94 with an amendment in the nature of a substitute. With written report No. 103-304.
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Reported to Senate by Senator Johnston under the authority of the order of Jun 27, 94 with an amendment in the nature of a substitute. With written report No. 103-304.
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Ordered to be reported with an amendment in the nature of a substitute favorably.
Subcommittee on Public Lands, National Parks. Hearings held. Hearings printed: S.Hrg. 103-720.
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources requested executive comment from Department of Agriculture, Department of the Interior, and Office of Management and Budget.
Referred to Subcommittee on Public Lands, National Parks.
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR S2423)
Introduced in Senate
Primary sources
Bill text & related measures
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
Explore the bill from different angles
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.
Neutral evidence review
Objective
Analyze S.1897 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.
View full prompt & sources
Fairness and public impact
Progressive lens
Examine S.1897 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.
View full prompt & sources
Institutions and government scope
Conservative lens
Examine S.1897 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.
View full prompt & sources
Individual rights and government power
Liberty lens
Examine S.1897 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.