PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Ordered to be reported with an amendment favorably.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · Oct 5, 1999
Chugach Alaska Natives Settlement Implementation Act of 1999 - Title I: Easement for Access - Directs the Secretary of Agriculture to grant to the Chugach Alaska Corporation (Chugach) a perpetual easement for access to and utilization and development of land interests in the vicinity of Carbon Mountain, Alaska, that were conveyed to Chugach pursuant to the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA).States that, if within six months the Secretary and Chugach fail to agree on easement terms and conditions, then such easement is hereby granted to Chugach as a conveyance under ANCSA.Title II: Cemetery Sites and Historic Places - Directs the Secretary to withdraw from all forms of appropriations: (1) all public lands for which Chugach filed an application for conveyance pursuant to ANCSA as a cemetery site or historical place which application was denied because the land was selected by and conveyed to a Village Corporation; and (2) all lands that the Federal Government acquired from Village Corporations or other private parties in the Chugach Region in connection with the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Restoration Program. Outlines Chugach application requirements for the withdrawn lands and requires lands previously selected by Chugach for such purposes to be evaluated for their eligibility as cemetery sites and historical places. Provides a reinstatement period for Chugach to refile an application for lands previously requested.Title III: Forest System Land Management - Directs the Secretary to coordinate the development, maintenance, and revision of land and resource management plans for units of the National Forest System in Alaska with the plans of the Alaska Native Corporations for the utilization of lands which are intermingled with, adjacent to, or dependent for access upon National Forest System lands.
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.
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Ordered to be reported with an amendment favorably.
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Hearings held. Hearings printed: S.Hrg. 106-414.
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR S11952)
Introduced in Senate
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
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.1686 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.1686 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.1686 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.1686 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.