PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 69.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Jan 17, 1995
Increases from $10 to $25 per trip the amount authorized to be collected by the Secretary of the Interior as a commercial operations fee for the use of Highway 209 in the Delaware Water Gap National Recreation Area. Extends indefinitely the authority to collect such fee.
People & committees
Rep. McDade, Joseph M. [R-PA-10] · R–PA
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 69.
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Reported to Senate by Senator Murkowski without amendment. With written report No. 104-46.
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Reported to Senate by Senator Murkowski without amendment. With written report No. 104-46.
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Ordered to be reported without amendment favorably.
Referred to Subcommittee on Parks, Preservation and Recreation.
Received in the Senate and read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
The title of the measure was amended. Agreed to without objection.
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): 401 - 22 (Roll No. 233).
House roll call 233 · 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): 401 - 22 (Roll No. 233).
House roll call 233 · Individual votesConsidered as unfinished business.
At the conclusion of debate, the Yeas and Nays were demanded and ordered. Pursuant to the provisions of clause 5, rule I, the chair announced that further proceedings on the motion would be postponed.
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H3104-3105, H3117)
Mr. Hansen moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 30.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Resources. H. Rept. 104-57.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Resources. H. Rept. 104-57.
Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by Voice Vote.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Forwarded by Subcommittee to Full Committee (Amended) by Voice Vote.
Subcommittee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Subcommittee Hearings Held.
Executive Comment Requested from Interior.
Referred to the Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and 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.
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.536 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.536 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.536 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.536 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.