PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Passed Senate with amendments by Unanimous Consent.
Congressional Research Service
Version 35 · Passed Senate amended · Dec 15, 2000
Hawaiian National Park Language Correction Act of 2000 - Title I: Correction in Designations of Hawaiian National Parks - Amends the National Parks and Recreation Act of 1978 and other Federal law to correct spelling errors in the statutory designations of specified Hawaiian National Parks.Title II: Peopling of America Theme Study - Peopling of America Theme Study Act - Directs the Secretary of the Interior to prepare and submit to Congress a national historic landmark theme study on the peopling of America. Requires the study to: (1) identify those things which illustrate and commemorate key events or decisions affecting the peopling of America; (2) recommend for designation new national historic landmarks; and (3) identify appropriate sites within the National Park System at which the peopling of America may be interpreted. Requires the Secretary, on the basis of the study, to recommend to Congress sites for which studies for potential inclusion in the Park System should be authorized.Authorizes the Secretary to enter into cooperative arrangements to preserve and interpret key sites in the peopling of America.Authorizes appropriations.Title III: Little Sandy River Watershed Protection, Oregon - Amends Federal law to reestablish and add acreage to the Bull Run Watershed Management Unit, Oregon.Directs the Secretary of Agriculture or the Interior, as appropriate, to prohibit the cutting of trees on Federal land in the entire Unit.Directs such Secretaries to identify any Oregon and California Railroad lands subject to a specified land reclassification. Directs the Secretary of the Interior to: (1) identify public domain lands in specified Oregon counties, areas, and districts subject to such reclassification; (2) submit to Congress and publish in the Federal Register a map of such lands; and (3) complete such land reclassification.Authorizes appropriations for Clackamas County, Oregon, for certain watershed restoration.
People & committees
Sen. Akaka, Daniel K. [D-HI] · D–HI
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Passed Senate with amendments by Unanimous Consent.
Passed/agreed to in Senate: Passed Senate with amendments by Unanimous Consent.
Measure laid before Senate by unanimous consent. (consideration: CR S11936-11937; text of measure as reported in Senate: CR S11936-11937)
Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 175.
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Reported to Senate by Senator Murkowski with amendments. With written report No. 106-93.
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Reported to Senate by Senator Murkowski with amendments. With written report No. 106-93.
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Ordered to be reported with amendments favorably.
Subcommittee on National Parks, Historic Preservation, and Recreation. Hearings held. With printed Hearing: S.Hrg. 106-191.
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources requested executive comment from Department of the Interior, OMB.
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.
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 S.939 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.939 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.939 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.939 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.