PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Resolution agreed to in Senate without amendment and with a preamble by Unanimous Consent. (consideration: CR S8900; text as passed Senate: CR S8900)
Congressional Research Service
Version 82 · Passed Senate without amendment · Aug 3, 2006
(This measure has not been amended since it was introduced. The summary of that version is repeated here.)
States that: (1) Channel Islands National Park, including Santa Rosa Island, should continue to be administered by the National Park Service (NPS); (2) the NPS should manage Santa Rosa Island in a manner that ensures that the natural, scenic, and cultural resources of the Island are properly protected, restored, and interpreted for the public and that visitors to the Park are provided with a safe and enjoyable Park experience; and (3) the NPS should not be directed to manage Santa Rosa Island in a manner that would result in the public being denied access to significant parts of the Island or that is inconsistent with the responsibility of NPS to protect native resources within the Park, including threatened and endangered species.
People & committees
Sen. Feinstein, Dianne [D-CA] · D–CA
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Resolution agreed to in Senate without amendment and with a preamble by Unanimous Consent. (consideration: CR S8900; text as passed Senate: CR S8900)
Passed/agreed to in Senate: Resolution agreed to in Senate without amendment and with a preamble by Unanimous Consent.(consideration: CR S8900; text as passed Senate: CR S8900)
Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 553.
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Reported by Senator Domenici without amendment. With written report No. 109-310.
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Reported by Senator Domenici without amendment. With written report No. 109-310.
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Ordered to be reported without amendment favorably.
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources Subcommittee on National Parks. Hearings held. With printed Hearing: S.Hrg. 109-547.
Referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. (text of measure as introduced: CR S4077)
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR S4077-4078)
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.Res.468 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.Res.468 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.Res.468 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.Res.468 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.