PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.
H.R.1769 / 111th Congress

Alpine Lakes Wilderness Additions and Pratt and Middle Fork Snoqualmie Rivers Protection Act

Received in the Senate. Read twice. Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 325.

Official summary

Version 36 · Passed House amended · Mar 18, 2010

(This measure has not been amended since it was reported to the House on March 11, 2010. The summary of that version is repeated here.)

Alpine Lakes Wilderness Additions and Pratt and Middle Fork Snoqualmie Rivers Protection Act - Designates certain land in the Mount Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest in the state of Washington comprising approximately 22,173 acres within the proposed Alpine Lakes Wilderness additions boundary, which shall be considered to become a part of the Alpine Lakes Wilderness, as wilderness and as a component of the National Wilderness Preservation System.

Makes any land and interests within the proposed additions boundary which are acquired by the United States part of such Wilderness.

Amends the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act to designate the Middle Fork Snoqualmie and Pratt Rivers in Washington state as scenic and/or wild rivers.

Read the summary on Congress.gov
PlainBill analysis is coming later. This page presents official source data. We have not yet published a PlainBill explanation for this bill.

Who introduced it

Rep. Reichert, David G. [R-WA-8] · R–WA

Committees

  • Natural Resources Committee
6 cosponsorship records, including any withdrawals

Actions

A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.

  1. Received in the Senate. Read twice. Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 325.

  2. Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.

  3. On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by voice vote. (text: CR H1619-1620)

  4. Passed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by voice vote.(text: CR H1619-1620)

  5. DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H.R. 1769.

  6. Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H1619-1621)

  7. Ms. Bordallo moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended.

  8. Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 250.

  9. Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Natural Resources. H. Rept. 111-434.

  10. Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Natural Resources. H. Rept. 111-434.

  11. Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by Voice Vote.

  12. Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.

  13. Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public Lands Discharged.

  14. Subcommittee Hearings Held.

  15. Referred to the Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public Lands.

  16. Referred to the House Committee on Natural Resources.

  17. Introduced in House

  18. Introduced in House

Bill text & related measures

Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.

Related bills identified by Congress.gov

Source last updated: Dec 6, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.

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 H.R.1769 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 H.R.1769 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 H.R.1769 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 H.R.1769 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.

View full prompt & sources