PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Became Public Law No: 115-20.
Congressional Research Service
Version 49 · Public Law · Apr 3, 2017
(This measure has not been amended since it was introduced. The summary of that version is repeated here.)
This joint resolution nullifies the rule finalized by the Department of the Interior on August 5, 2016, relating to non-subsistence takings of wildlife and public participation and closure procedures on National Wildlife Refuges in Alaska.
People & committees
Rep. Young, Don [R-AK-At Large] · R–AK
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Became Public Law No: 115-20.
Became Public Law No: 115-20.
Signed by President.
Signed by President.
Presented to President.
Presented to President.
Message on Senate action sent to the House.
Passed Senate without amendment by Yea-Nay Vote. 52 - 47. Record Vote Number: 92.
Senate roll call 92 · Individual votesPassed/agreed to in Senate: Passed Senate without amendment by Yea-Nay Vote. 52 - 47. Record Vote Number: 92.
Senate roll call 92 · Individual votesMeasure laid before Senate by motion. (consideration: CR S1864-1884)
Motion to proceed to consideration of measure agreed to in Senate by Voice Vote. (consideration: CR S1864)
Received in the Senate, read twice.
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
On passage Passed by the Yeas and Nays: 225 - 193 (Roll no. 98). (text: CR H1260)
House roll call 98 · Individual votesPassed/agreed to in House: On passage Passed by the Yeas and Nays: 225 - 193 (Roll no. 98).(text: CR H1260)
House roll call 98 · Individual votesConsidered as unfinished business. (consideration: CR H1278-1279)
POSTPONED PROCEEDINGS - At the conclusion of debate on H.J. Res. 69, the Chair put the question on passage and by voice vote, announced that the ayes had prevailed. Mr. Beyer demanded the yeas and nays and the Chair postponed further proceedings on passage until a time to be announced.
The previous question was ordered pursuant to the rule.
DEBATE - The House proceeded with one hour of debate on H.J. Res. 69.
The resolution provides for one hour of general debate on both H.J.Res. 43 and H.J.Res. 69; and provides for proceedings during the period from February 17, 2017, through February 24, 2017.
Considered under the provisions of rule H. Res. 123. (consideration: CR H1259-1268)
Rule H. Res. 123 passed House.
Rules Committee Resolution H. Res. 123 Reported to House. The resolution provides for one hour of general debate on both H.J.Res. 43 and H.J.Res. 69; and provides for proceedings during the period from February 17, 2017, through February 24, 2017.
Referred to the House Committee on Natural Resources.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Dec 5, 2025. 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 H.J.Res.69 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 H.J.Res.69 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 H.J.Res.69 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 H.J.Res.69 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.