PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Became Public Law No: 115-201.
Congressional Research Service
Version 49 · Public Law · Jul 20, 2018
(Sec. 1) This bill authorizes the licensee for the Terror Lake Hydroelectric Project in Kodiak Island, Alaska, to occupy not more than 20 acres of federal land to construct, operate, and maintain the Upper Hidden Basin Diversion Expansion without further authorization under the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act or from the Department of the Interior.
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: 115-201.
Became Public Law No: 115-201.
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 Unanimous Consent. (consideration: CR S4809)
Passed/agreed to in Senate: Passed Senate without amendment by Unanimous Consent.(consideration: CR S4809)
Received in the Senate. Read twice. Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 159.
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 the Yeas and Nays: (2/3 required): 424 - 1 (Roll no. 330). (text: CR H5204)
House roll call 330 · Individual votesPassed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: (2/3 required): 424 - 1 (Roll no. 330).(text: CR H5204)
House roll call 330 · Individual votesConsidered as unfinished business. (consideration: CR H5218-5219)
At the conclusion of debate, the Yeas and Nays were demanded and ordered. Pursuant to the provisions of clause 8, rule XX, the Chair announced that further proceedings on the motion would be postponed.
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H.R. 220.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H5204-5205)
Mr. Cook moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 101.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Natural Resources. H. Rept. 115-154.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Natural Resources. H. Rept. 115-154.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by Unanimous Consent.
Subcommittee on Water, Power and Oceans Discharged.
Subcommittee on Federal Lands Discharged.
Subcommittee Hearings Held.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Federal Lands.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Water, Power and Oceans.
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 6, 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.R.220 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.220 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.220 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.220 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.