PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Became Public Law No: 106-486.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · Mar 24, 1999
Directs the Secretary of the Interior to report to specified congressional committees on the suitability and feasibility of: (1) recovering the costs of high altitude rescues on Mt. McKinley, within Denali National Park and Preserve; and (2) requiring climbers to provide proof of medical insurance prior to the issuance of a climbing permit by the National Park Service. Requires the report also to review the amount of fees charged for a climbing permit, and make any appropriate recommendations for changing the fee structure.
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: 106-486.
Became Public Law No: 106-486.
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 H10572)
Passed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill Agreed to by voice vote.(text: CR H10572)
Considered as unfinished business. (consideration: CR H10702)
At the conclusion of debate, the chair put the question on the motion to suspend the rules. Mrs. Christensen objected to the vote on the grounds that a quorum was not present. Further proceedings on the motion were postponed. The point of no quorum was withdrawn.
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on S. 698.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H10572-10573)
Mr. Hansen moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill.
Referred to the House Committee on Resources.
Message on Senate action sent to the House.
Held at the desk.
Received in the House.
Passed Senate without amendment by Unanimous Consent. (consideration: CR S15159; text: CR S15159)
Passed/agreed to in Senate: Passed Senate without amendment by Unanimous Consent.(consideration: CR S15159; text: CR S15159)
Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 142.
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Reported to Senate by Senator Murkowski without amendment. With written report No. 106-71.
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Reported to Senate by Senator Murkowski without amendment. With written report No. 106-71.
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources requested executive comment from Department of the Interior, OMB.
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Ordered to be reported without amendment favorably.
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Hearings held. Hearings printed: S.Hrg. 106-130.
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR S3252-3253)
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.698 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.698 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.698 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.698 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.