A bill to direct the Secretary of Agriculture to convey the city of Sisters, Oregon, a certain parcel of land for use in connection with a sewage treatment facility.
Became Public Law No: 106-144.
Congressional Research Service
Official summary
Version 17 · Reported to House with amendment(s) · Nov 5, 1999
Directs the Secretary of Agriculture, as soon as practicable and upon completion of any documents or analysis required by any environmental law, but within 180 days after the enactment of this Act, to convey a specified parcel of land to the city of Sisters, Oregon, for use by the city for a sewage treatment facility and for the disposal of treated effluent. Conditions such conveyance on the city: (1) conducting a public process before the final determination is made regarding land use for the disposition of such effluent; (2) being responsible for system development charges, mainline construction costs, and equivalent dwelling unit monthly service fees (provides for adjustments in such fees based on the appraised value of the conveyed land); and (3) paying the cost of preparation of any documents required by any environmental law in connection with the conveyance.Directs the Secretary to acquire land within Oregon, and within or in the vicinity of the Deschutes National Forest, of an acreage equivalent to that of the land to be conveyed under this Act, to be added to and administered as part of such National Forest.
Senate agreed to House amendment to Senate bill by Unanimous Consent. (CR S15223-15224)
Resolving differences -- Senate actions: Senate agreed to House amendment to Senate bill by Unanimous Consent.(CR S15223-15224)
Message on House action received in Senate and at desk: House amendment to Senate bill.
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by voice vote. (text: CR H12130)
Passed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by voice vote.(text: CR H12130)
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on S. 416.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H12130-12131)
Mrs. Chenoweth-Hage moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 262.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Resources. H. Rept. 106-453.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Resources. H. Rept. 106-453.
Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by Voice Vote.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Subcommittee on Forests and Forest Health Discharged.
Subcommittee Hearings Held.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Forests and Forest Health.
Comment requested from the Department of Agriculture.
Referred to the House Committee on Resources.
Message on Senate action sent to the House.
Received in the House.
Passed Senate with amendments by Unanimous Consent. (text: CR S8185-8186)
Passed/agreed to in Senate: Passed Senate with amendments by Unanimous Consent.(text: CR S8185-8186)
Measure laid before Senate by unanimous consent. (consideration: CR S8184-8186)
Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 130.
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Reported to Senate by Senator Murkowski under the authority of the order of May 27, 99 without recommendation with amendments. With written report No. 106-60.
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Reported to Senate by Senator Murkowski under the authority of the order of May 27, 99 without recommendation with amendments. With written report No. 106-60.
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Ordered to be reported with amendments without recommendation.
Subcommittee on Forests and Public Land Management. Hearings held. With printed Hearing: S.Hrg. 106-120.
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources requested executive comment from Department of Agriculture, OMB.
Referred to Subcommittee on Forests and Public Lands.
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. (text of measure as introduced printed CR S1442-1443)
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR S1442-1443)
Introduced in Senate
Primary sources
Bill text & related measures
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
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.416 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.416 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.416 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.416 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.