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 36 · Passed House amended · Oct 26, 2009
Amends the Washington Park Wilderness Act of 1988 to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to adjust the boundaries of the North Cascades National Park and the Stephen Mather Wilderness in Washington state in order to provide a corridor of up to 100-feet in width along which the Stehekin Valley Road may be rebuilt: (1) outside of the floodplain between mileposts 12.9 and 22.8; (2) within one mile of the route for such Road; (3) within the boundaries of the Park; and (4) outside of the boundaries of the Wilderness.
Requires that the boundary adjustments be such that equal federally owned acreage amounts are exchanged between the Wilderness and the Park.
Requires lands in the newly designated wilderness to include lands along the route of the Steheken Valley Road that are replaced by the reconstruction. Authorizes the Secretary, if such lands contain fewer acres than the corridor, to designate additional federal lands in the Park as wilderness, but bars such designation from exceeding the acreage amount needed to equalize the exchange. Instructs that these additional lands must be selected from lands that qualify as wilderness.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Prohibits anything in this Act from: (1) authorizing the sale or acquisition of any land or interest in land; and (2) being construed as requiring the Secretary to give this project precedence over the construction or repair of other similarly damaged roads in units of the National Park System.
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, as amended Agreed to by voice vote. (text: CR H11745-11746)
Passed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by voice vote.(text: CR H11745-11746)
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H.R. 2806.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H11745-11746)
Ms. Bordallo moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 163.
Reported by the Committee on Natural Resources. H. Rept. 111-293.
Reported by the Committee on Natural Resources. H. Rept. 111-293.
Ordered to be Reported by Voice Vote.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public Lands Discharged.
Subcommittee Hearings Held.
Subcommittee Hearings Held.
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.2806 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.2806 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.2806 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.2806 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.