PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Became Public Law No: 106-548.
Congressional Research Service
Version 35 · Passed Senate amended · Oct 5, 2000
Directs the Secretary of Agriculture to convey to the town of Dolores, Colorado, the parcel of land comprising the site of the Joe Rowell Park for open space, park, and recreational purposes.
People & committees
Sen. Allard, Wayne [R-CO] · R–CO
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Became Public Law No: 106-548.
Became Public Law No: 106-548.
Signed by President.
Signed by President.
Presented to President.
Presented to President.
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
On passage Passed without objection. (text: CR H11936)
Passed/agreed to in House: On passage Passed without objection.(text: CR H11936)
Mr. Gibbons asked unanimous consent to discharge from committee and consider.
Considered by unanimous consent. (consideration: CR H11936)
Committee on Resources discharged.
Committee on Resources discharged.
On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill Failed by the Yeas and Nays: (2/3 required): 201 - 145 (Roll no. 596). (text: CR H11847)
House roll call 596 · Individual votesMotion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
Failed of passage/not agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill Failed by the Yeas and Nays: (2/3 required): 201 - 145 (Roll no. 596).(text: CR H11847)
House roll call 596 · Individual votesConsidered as unfinished business. (consideration: CR H11851-11852)
At the conclusion of debate, the Yeas and Nays were demanded and ordered. Pursuant to the provisions of clause 8, rule XX, the Chair announced that further proceedings on the motion would be postponed.
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on S. 1972.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H11847-11848)
Mr. Doolittle moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Forests and Forest Health.
Referred to the House Committee on Resources.
Received in the House.
Message on Senate action sent to the House.
Passed Senate with amendments by Unanimous Consent. (consideration: CR S9975-9976, S9980; text: CR S9980)
Passed/agreed to in Senate: Passed Senate with amendments by Unanimous Consent.(consideration: CR S9975-9976, S9980; text: CR S9980)
Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 753.
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Reported by Senator Murkowski under authority of the order of the Senate of 07/26/2000 with amendments. With written report No. 106-375.
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Reported by Senator Murkowski under authority of the order of the Senate of 07/26/2000 with amendments. With written report No. 106-375.
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Ordered to be reported with an amendment favorably.
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources Subcommittee on Forests and Public Land Management. Hearings held. With printed Hearing: S.Hrg. 106-714.
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
Introduced in Senate
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: 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.1972 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.1972 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.1972 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.1972 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.