PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Subcommittee on Parks, Preservation and Recreation. Hearings held.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · Nov 1, 1995
Amends Federal law to revise provisions concerning rules and regulations promulgated by the Secretary of Agriculture with respect to the use of motorized and nonmotorized river craft on the Snake River within the Hells Canyon National Recreation Area in Oregon and Idaho to: (1) permit such river craft access to, and use of, the entire River within the Area at all times during the year; (2) provide that concurrent use by motorized and nonmotorized river craft shall not be considered a conflict; (3) allow use of the commercial and private river craft to continue throughout each year at levels not less than those occurring in an average of the three calendar years preceding the enactment of this Act and in daily and seasonal use patterns similar to those experienced in those years; and (4) allow owners of private property to use such river craft on the River within the Area for traveling purposes to or from their property in their usual and accustomed manner.
People & committees
Sen. Craig, Larry E. [R-ID] · R–ID
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Subcommittee on Parks, Preservation and Recreation. Hearings held.
Referred to Subcommittee on Parks, Preservation and Recreation.
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
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.1374 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.1374 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.1374 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.1374 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.