PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Became Public Law No: 105-76.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · Apr 16, 1997
Modifies the boundary of the Raggeds Wilderness, Gunnison and White River National Forests, Colorado, to exclude a specified parcel of real property. Directs the Secretary of Agriculture to convey such real property to certain private landowners whose real property in Gunnison County, Colorado, adjoins the excluded real property and who have occupied the excluded real property in good faith reliance on an erroneous survey.
People & committees
Sen. Campbell, Ben Nighthorse [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: 105-76.
Became Public Law No: 105-76.
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.
Passed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill Agreed to by voice vote.
Considered as unfinished business.
At the conclusion of debate, the chair put the question on the motion to suspend the rules. Mr. Faleomavaega objected to the Yea - Nay vote on the grounds that a quorum was not present. Further proceedings on the motion were postponed. The point of no quorum was withdrawn.
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H9925-9926, H9984)
Mrs. Chenoweth moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill.
Held at the desk.
Message on Senate action sent to the House.
Received in the House.
Passed Senate with an amendment by Unanimous Consent. (consideration: CR S10780)
Passed/agreed to in Senate: Passed Senate with an amendment by Unanimous Consent.(consideration: CR S10780)
Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 193.
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Reported to Senate by Senator Murkowski with an amendment in the nature of a substitute. With written report No. 105-98.
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Reported to Senate by Senator Murkowski with an amendment in the nature of a substitute. With written report No. 105-98.
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources requested executive comment from Department of Agriculture and Office of Management and Budget.
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Ordered to be reported with an amendment in the nature of a substitute favorably. Amendment incorporates provisions of H.R.1019.
Subcommittee on Forests and Public Lands. Hearings held. Hearings printed: S.Hrg. 105-158.
Referred to Subcommittee on Forests and Public Lands.
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR S3269-3270)
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.589 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.589 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.589 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.589 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.