PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on National Parks and Public Lands.
Congressional Research Service
Version 01 · Reported to Senate with amendment(s) · Apr 29, 1998
National Discovery Trails Act of 1998 - Amends the National Trails System Act to provide for the establishment, as components of the National Trails System, of national discovery trails which shall be extended, continuous interstate trails located so as to provide for outdoor recreation and travel and to connect representative examples of America's trails and communities. Permits such trails to be designated on nonfederal lands, with an owner's consent. Prohibits a trail from being considered feasible and desirable for designation as a national discovery trail unless it: (1) links one or more areas within the boundaries of a metropolitan area and joins with other trails, tying the National Trails System to significant recreation and resources areas; (2) is supported by a competent trailwide nonprofit organization and has extensive local and trailwide support by the public, user groups, and affected State and local governments; and (3) extends and passes through more than one State and, at a minimum, is a continuous, walkable route. Requires the appropriate Secretary for each national discovery trail to administer the trail in cooperation with at least one competent trailwide volunteer-based organization. Designates as a national discovery trail the 6,000-mile American Discovery Trail which shall extend from Cape Henlopen State Park in Delaware to Point Reyes National Seashore in California, traveling northern and southern routes from Cincinnati, Ohio, to Denver, Colorado. Requires the administering Federal agency, within three complete fiscal years after designation of a national discovery trail, to submit a comprehensive plan for the protection, management, development, and use of the Federal portions of the trail to specified congressional committees and provide technical assistance to States, local units of government, and private landowners, as requested, for nonfederal portions of the trail.
People & committees
Sen. Murkowski, Frank H. [R-AK] · R–AK
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the Subcommittee on National Parks and Public Lands.
Referred to the House Committee on Resources.
Message on Senate action sent to the House.
Received in the House.
Passed Senate with an amendment by Unanimous Consent. (consideration: CR S8534-8535)
Passed/agreed to in Senate: Passed Senate with an amendment by Unanimous Consent.(consideration: CR S8534-8535)
Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 349.
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Reported to Senate by Senator Murkowski with an amendment in the nature of a substitute. With written report No. 105-177.
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Reported to Senate by Senator Murkowski with an amendment in the nature of a substitute. With written report No. 105-177.
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Ordered to be reported with an amendment in the nature of a substitute favorably.
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Hearings held. Hearings printed: S.Hrg. 105-475.
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR S8153)
Introduced in Senate
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 S.1069 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 S.1069 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 S.1069 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 S.1069 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.