PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 562.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · May 20, 1997
Directs the Secretary of Agriculture, with respect to the Emigrant Wilderness in the Stanislaus National Forest, California, to retain and maintain certain concrete dams and weirs that were located in such Wilderness when it was so designated (1975).
People & committees
Rep. Doolittle, John T. [R-CA-4] · R–CA
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 562.
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Reported to Senate by Senator Murkowski without amendment. With written report No. 105-321.
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Reported to Senate by Senator Murkowski without amendment. With written report No. 105-321.
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Ordered to be reported without amendment favorably.
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources requested executive comment from Department of Agriculture and Office of Management and Budget.
Subcommittee on Forests and Public Lands. Hearings held.
Referred to Subcommittee on Forests and Public Lands.
Received in the Senate and read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
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 recorded vote (2/3 required): 424 - 2 (Roll no. 292).
House roll call 292 · Individual votesPassed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by recorded vote (2/3 required): 424 - 2 (Roll no. 292).
House roll call 292 · Individual votesConsidered 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 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 The point of no quorum was withdrawn.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 H5504-5505, H5545-5546)
Mrs. Chenoweth moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 118.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Resources. H. Rept. 105-192.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Resources. H. Rept. 105-192.
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.
Executive Comment Requested from USDA.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Forests and Forest Health.
Referred to the House Committee on Resources.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
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 H.R.1663 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.R.1663 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.R.1663 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.R.1663 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.