PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 306.
Congressional Research Service
Version 80 · Reported to Senate without amendment · Mar 2, 2010
(This measure has not been amended since it was introduced. The expanded summary of the House passed version is repeated here.)
Upper Elk River Wild and Scenic Study Act - Amends the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act to designate a specified segment of the Elk River in West Virginia from the confluence of the Old Field Fork and the Big Spring Fork in Pocahontas County to the Pocahontas and Randolph County line for study as a potential addition to the Wild and Scenic Rivers System.
Directs the Secretary of Agriculture to complete the study of such segment within a specified time period and report results to Congress. Requires the report to include an analysis of the potential impact of the designation on private lands within a five-mile segment of the Elk River or abutting that area.
Specifies this Act's effect on: (1) access for recreational activities, including hunting, fishing, and trapping; and (2) state authority to regulate fish and wildlife under state law or regulations.
People & committees
Rep. Rahall, Nick J., II [D-WV-3] · D–WV
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 306.
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Reported by Senator Bingaman without amendment. With written report No. 111-156.
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Reported by Senator Bingaman without amendment. With written report No. 111-156.
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Ordered to be reported without amendment favorably.
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources Senate Subcommittee on National Parks. Hearings held.
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 Agreed to by voice vote. (text: CR H9755)
Passed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill Agreed to by voice vote.(text: CR H9755)
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H.R. 3113.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H9755-9756)
Ms. Bordallo moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 147.
Reported by the Committee on Natural Resources. H. Rept. 111-262.
Reported by the Committee on Natural Resources. H. Rept. 111-262.
Ordered to be Reported by Unanimous Consent.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public Lands Discharged.
Subcommittee Hearings Held.
Referred to the Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public Lands.
Referred to the House Committee on Natural Resources.
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR E1642-1643)
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
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 H.R.3113 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.3113 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.3113 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.3113 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.