PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Message on House action received in Senate and at desk: House amendments to Senate bill.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · Mar 18, 1997
Sudbury, Assabet, and Concord Wild and Scenic Rivers Act - Amends the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act to designate segments of the Sudbury, Assabet, and Concord Rivers in Massachusetts as components of the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. Requires the segments to be: (1) administered by the Secretary of the Interior through cooperative agreements between the Secretary and the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and its relevant political subdivisions; and (2) managed in accordance with the Sudbury, Assabet, and Concord Wild and Scenic River Study, River Conservation Plan which shall be deemed to satisfy the requirement for a comprehensive management plan pursuant to the Act. Requires the Director of the National Park Service to represent the Secretary in the implementation of the Conservation Plan and the provisions of the Act with respect to the segments. Authorizes appropriations.
People & committees
Sen. Kerry, John F. [D-MA] · D–MA
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Message on House action received in Senate and at desk: House amendments to Senate bill.
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
The title of the measure was amended. Agreed to without objection.
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
On passage Passed without objection.
Passed/agreed to in House: On passage Passed without objection.
Considered by unanimous consent. (consideration: CR H10425-10427)
Mr. Hansen asked unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's table and consider.
Held at the desk.
Message on Senate action sent to the House.
Received in the House.
Passed Senate with an amendment by Unanimous Consent. (consideration: CR S11368, S11376-11377)
Passed/agreed to in Senate: Passed Senate with an amendment by Unanimous Consent.(consideration: CR S11368, S11376-11377)
Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 561.
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Reported to Senate by Senator Murkowski with an amendment. With written report No. 105-320.
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Reported to Senate by Senator Murkowski with an amendment. With written report No. 105-320.
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 with an amendment favorably.
Subcommittee on Parks, Preservation and Recreation. Hearings held. Hearings printed: S.Hrg. 105-634.
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR S2478-2479)
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.469 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.469 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.469 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.469 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.