PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.By Senator Johnston from Committee on Energy and Natural Resources filed written report under the authority of the order of Nov 17, 93. Report No. 103-214.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Jul 15, 1993
Amends the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act to designate segments of the Maurice River, the Menantico Creek, the Manumuskin River, and the Muskee Creek in New Jersey as components of the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. Requires the Secretary of the Interior to manage such segments through cooperative agreements with appropriate political jurisdictions except that publicly-owned lands within the boundaries of the segments shall be managed by the agency having jurisdiction over them. Requires cooperative agreements for the management of the segments to provide for the long-term protection, preservation, and enhancement of the segments and to be consistent with the comprehensive management plan prepared by the Secretary and with the local river management plans prepared by appropriate local political jurisdictions in conjunction with the Secretary. Directs the Secretary to review compliance with the local river management plans biennially and to report to specified congressional committees on any deviation which may diminish the values for which the river segment was designated. Encourages the Secretary to work with municipalities to negotiate agreement for designating additional eligible segments of the Maurice River and its tributaries. Designates the eligible segments for study as potential additions to the National Wild and Scenic Rivers system. Authorizes appropriations.
People & committees
Rep. Hughes, William J. [D-NJ-2] · D–NJ
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
By Senator Johnston from Committee on Energy and Natural Resources filed written report under the authority of the order of Nov 17, 93. Report No. 103-214.
By Senator Johnston from Committee on Energy and Natural Resources filed written report under the authority of the order of Nov 17, 93. Report No. 103-214.
Became Public Law No: 103-162.
Became Public Law No: 103-162.
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 Voice Vote. (consideration: CR 11/18/1993 S16188-16189)
Passed/agreed to in Senate: Passed Senate without amendment by Voice Vote.(consideration: CR 11/18/1993 S16188-16189)
Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 293.
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Reported to Senate by Senator Johnston without amendment. Without written report.
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Reported to Senate by Senator Johnston without amendment. Without written report.
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Ordered to be reported without amendment favorably.
Subcommittee on Public Lands, National Parks. Hearings held.
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources requested executive comment from Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Department of the Interior, and Office of Management and Budget.
Referred to Subcommittee on Public Lands, National Parks.
Received in the Senate and read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
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 H7690-7693)
Mr. Vento moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 155.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Natural Resources. H. Rept. 103-282.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Natural Resources. H. Rept. 103-282.
Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by Voice Vote.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Forwarded by Subcommittee to Full Committee.
Subcommittee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Hearings Held by the Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public Lands Prior to Referral (Aug 5, 93).
Referred to the Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public Lands.
Referred to the House Committee on Natural Resources.
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (similar to H.R. 32) (CR E1800-1801)
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
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 H.R.2650 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.2650 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.2650 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.2650 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.