PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Became Public Law No: 108-312.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Jan 8, 2003
Mount Rainier National Park Boundary Adjustment Act of 2003 - Authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to acquire from willing owners certain privately owned land, and transfers specified national forest lands to the Secretary's administrative jurisdiction, for inclusion in Mount Rainier National Park.Requires: (1) the Park's boundaries to be modified to include such lands and (2) the Secretary to ensure that access over the Carbon River Bridge to national forest lands is maintained for commercial and other public use.Authorizes the Secretary to acquire from willing owners land in the vicinity of Wilkeson, Washington, to provide public information for visitors accessing public lands along the Carbon and Mowich Corridors.
People & committees
Rep. Dunn, Jennifer [R-WA-8] · R–WA
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Became Public Law No: 108-312.
Became Public Law No: 108-312.
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 S9360)
Passed/agreed to in Senate: Passed Senate without amendment by Unanimous Consent.(consideration: CR S9360)
Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 686.
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Reported by Senator Domenici under authority of the order of the Senate of 07/22/04 without amendment. With written report No. 108-330.
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Reported by Senator Domenici under authority of the order of the Senate of 07/22/04 without amendment. With written report No. 108-330.
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Ordered to be reported without amendment favorably.
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 voice vote. (text: CR H3561)
Passed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by voice vote.(text: CR H3561)
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H.R. 265.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H3561-3562)
Mr. Gibbons moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 282.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Resources. H. Rept. 108-495.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Resources. H. Rept. 108-495.
Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by Unanimous Consent.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Forwarded by Subcommittee to Full Committee (Amended) by Voice Vote.
Subcommittee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Referred to the Subcommittee on National Parks, Recreation and Public Lands.
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.
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.265 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.265 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.265 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.265 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.