PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Became Public Law No: 106-491.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · Jul 14, 1999
Amends Federal law which established the Saint-Gaudens National Historic Site in New Hampshire to: (1) expand Site boundaries; and (2) increase the authorization of appropriations for Site activities.
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.
Became Public Law No: 106-491.
Became Public Law No: 106-491.
Signed by President.
Signed by President.
Presented to President.
Presented to President.
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill Agreed to by voice vote. (text: CR H10498)
Passed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill Agreed to by voice vote.(text: CR H10498)
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on S. 1367.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H10498-10499)
Mr. Young (AK) moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill.
Referred to the Subcommittee on National Parks and Public Lands.
Referred to the House Committee on Resources.
Received in the House.
Message on Senate action sent to the House.
Passed Senate with amendments by Unanimous Consent. (text: CR S9996)
Passed/agreed to in Senate: Passed Senate with amendments by Unanimous Consent.(text: CR S9996)
Measure laid before Senate by unanimous consent. (consideration: CR S9995-9996)
Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 632.
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Reported by Senator Murkowski with an amendment. With written report No. 106-314. (text of measure as reported in Senate: CR S9996)
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Reported by Senator Murkowski with an amendment. With written report No. 106-314.(text of measure as reported in Senate: CR S9996)
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Ordered to be reported with an amendment favorably.
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources Subcommittee on National Parks, Historic Preservation, and Recreation. Hearings held. With printed Hearing: S.Hrg. 106-693.
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. (text of measure as introduced: CR S8510)
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR S8510)
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.1367 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.1367 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.1367 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.1367 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.