PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.By Senator Murkowski from Committee on Energy and Natural Resources filed written report. Report No. 104-375.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · Mar 23, 1995
Establishes the New Bedford Whaling National Historical Park in New Bedford, Massachusetts, to be administered as a unit of the national park system. Requires expenditures to consist of: (1) one dollar of Federal funds for each four dollars of non-Federal funds for cooperative agreements entered into under this Act; and (2) non-Federal funds matching Federal funds for visitor and interpretive facilities (other than operation and maintenance costs). Requires the Secretary of the Interior to submit to specified congressional committees and to implement a general management plan for the Park. Authorizes appropriations. Limits the amount that may be appropriated for visitor and interpretive facilities and directional and visitor orientation signage. Prohibits the use of appropriations authorized under this Act for operation or maintenance of the Schooner Ernestina and limits the amount of Federal funds that may be used annually for interpretive and educational programs for the Schooner Ernestina pursuant to cooperative grants under this Act.
People & committees
Sen. Kennedy, Edward M. [D-MA] · D–MA
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
By Senator Murkowski from Committee on Energy and Natural Resources filed written report. Report No. 104-375.
By Senator Murkowski from Committee on Energy and Natural Resources filed written report. Report No. 104-375.
Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 599.
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Reported to Senate by Senator Murkowski with amendments. Without written report.
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Reported to Senate by Senator Murkowski with amendments. Without written report.
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Ordered to be reported with amendments favorably.
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources; Senate Subcommittee on Parks, Preservation and Recreation. Hearings held. Hearings printed: S.Hrg. 104-375.
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources requested executive comment from Department of the Interior, and Office of Management and Budget.
Referred to Subcommittee on Parks, Preservation and Recreation.
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR S4508)
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.608 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.608 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.608 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.608 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.