PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Became Public Law No: 109-370.
Congressional Research Service
Version 49 · Public Law · Nov 27, 2006
(This measure has not been amended since it was reported to the Senate on December 8, 2005. The summary of that version is repeated here.)
Lower Farmington River and Salmon Brook Wild and Scenic River Study Act of 2005 - Amends the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act to designate a specified segment of the lower Farmington River and Salmon Brook in Connecticut for study for potential addition to the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. Authorizes appropriations.
People & committees
Sen. Dodd, Christopher J. [D-CT] · D–CT
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Became Public Law No: 109-370.
Became Public Law No: 109-370.
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 H8587)
Passed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill Agreed to by voice vote.(text: CR H8587)
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on S. 435.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H8587-8588)
Mr. Radanovich moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill.
Referred to the Subcommittee on National Parks.
Referred to the House Committee on Resources.
Message on Senate action sent to the House.
Received in the House.
Passed Senate with an amendment by Unanimous Consent. (consideration: CR S13934)
Passed/agreed to in Senate: Passed Senate with an amendment by Unanimous Consent.(consideration: CR S13934)
Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 308.
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Reported by Senator Domenici under authority of the order of the Senate of 11/18/2005 with an amendment. With written report No. 109-189. (text of measure as reported in Senate: CR 12/16/2005 S13934)
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Reported by Senator Domenici under authority of the order of the Senate of 11/18/2005 with an amendment. With written report No. 109-189.(text of measure as reported in Senate: CR 12/16/2005 S13934)
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Ordered to be reported with an amendment favorably.
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources Subcommittee on National Parks. Hearings held. With printed Hearing: S.Hrg. 109-213.
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.435 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.435 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.435 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.435 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.