PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Became Public Law No: 105-81.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Feb 12, 1997
Requires the Secretary of the Interior to study and report to the Congress concerning grazing use in Grand Teton National Park, Wyoming, and associated use of specified agricultural and ranch lands within and adjacent to the Park. Requires that the study: (1) determine the significance of the ranching use and pastoral character of the land and the significance of that use and character to the purposes for which the Park was established; and (2) identify any need and practicable means for preservation of the land that is necessary to protect that use and character. Requires the Secretary to: (1) reinstate and extend for the duration of such study the grazing privileges in the Park and adjacent lands under the same terms and conditions as were in effect before their expiration; and (2) cancel the extension with respect to any portion of the land that is disposed of in a manner that would result in it no longer being used for ranching or other agricultural purposes.
People & committees
Rep. Cubin, Barbara [R-WY-At Large] · R–WY
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Became Public Law No: 105-81.
Became Public Law No: 105-81.
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 S11706)
Passed/agreed to in Senate: Passed Senate without amendment by Unanimous Consent.(consideration: CR S11706)
Received in the Senate. Read twice. Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 219.
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 voice vote.
Passed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by voice vote.
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H8860-8861)
Mr. Hansen moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 171.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Resources. H. Rept. 105-300.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Resources. H. Rept. 105-300.
Executive Comment Received from Interior.
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 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: Apr 7, 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.708 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.708 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.708 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.708 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.