PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Became Public Law No: 117-345.
Congressional Research Service
Version 49 · Public Law · Jan 5, 2023
Butterfield Overland National Historic Trail Designation Act
This act designates the trail extending approximately 3,292 miles and following the route operated by the Butterfield Overland Mail Company, known as the Ox-Bow Route, to transport mail and passengers between the eastern end points of St. Louis, Missouri, and Memphis, Tennessee, and extending westward through the states of Arkansas, Oklahoma, Texas, New Mexico, and Arizona, to the western end point of San Francisco, California, as the Butterfield Overland National Historic Trail.
The United States shall not acquire for the trail any land or interest in land outside of the exterior boundary of any federally administered area without the consent of the owner of such land or interest in land.
The Department of the Interior may not use eminent domain or condemnation in carrying out this act.
People & committees
Sen. Boozman, John [R-AR] · R–AR
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Became Public Law No: 117-345.
Became Public Law No: 117-345.
Signed by President.
Signed by President.
Presented to President.
Presented to President.
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 H10010-10011)
Passed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill Agreed to by voice vote.
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on S. 3519.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H10010-10011)
Mr. Tonko moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill.
Held at the desk.
Received in the House.
Message on Senate action sent to the House.
Passed Senate with an amendment by Unanimous Consent. (text of amendment in the nature of a substitute: CR S9614)
Passed/agreed to in Senate: Passed Senate with an amendment by Unanimous Consent.
Measure laid before Senate by unanimous consent. (consideration: CR S9614)
Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources discharged by Unanimous Consent.
Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources discharged by Unanimous Consent.
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources Subcommittee on National Parks. Hearings held. With printed Hearing: S.Hrg. 117-297.
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.
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.3519 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.3519 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.3519 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.3519 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.