PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
Congressional Research Service
Version 81 · Passed House without amendment · Dec 15, 2011
(This measure has not been amended since it was introduced. The summary of that version is repeated here.)
Rattlesnake Mountain Public Access Act of 2011 - Directs the Secretary of the Interior to provide access to the summit of Rattlesnake Mountain in the Hanford Reach National Monument in the state of Washington for educational, recreational, historical, scientific, cultural, and other purposes.
Authorizes the Secretary to enter into cooperative agreements to facilitate access to the summit of Rattlesnake Mountain for guided tours, including motorized tours, and to maintain the access road to the summit.
People & committees
Rep. Hastings, Doc [R-WA-4] · R–WA
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
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 Agreed to by recorded vote (2/3 required): 416 - 0 (Roll no. 935). (text: CR 12/14/2011 H8949)
House roll call 935 · Individual votesPassed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill Agreed to by recorded vote (2/3 required): 416 - 0 (Roll no. 935).(text: CR 12/14/2011 H8949)
House roll call 935 · Individual votesConsidered as unfinished business. (consideration: CR H8991-8992)
At the conclusion of debate, the chair put the question on the motion to suspend the rules. Mr. Hastings (WA) 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 The point of no quorum was withdrawn.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 on H.R. 2719.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H8949-8950)
Mr. Hastings (WA) moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 219.
Reported by the Committee on Natural Resources. H. Rept. 112-321.
Reported by the Committee on Natural Resources. H. Rept. 112-321.
Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife, Oceans, and Insular Affairs Discharged.
Ordered to be Reported by Unanimous Consent.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public Lands Discharged.
Subcommittee Hearings Held.
Re-referred to the Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife, Oceans, and Insular Affairs.
Re-referred to the Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public Lands.
Recalled by full committee.
Referred to the Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public Lands.
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.
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.2719 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.2719 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.2719 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.2719 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.