PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
Congressional Research Service
Version 36 · Passed House amended · Mar 14, 2005
Gullah/Geechee Cultural Heritage Act - Establishes the Gullah/Geechee Cultural Heritage Corridor (Heritage Corridor) to: (1) recognize the important contributions made to American culture and history by African-Americans known as the Gullah/Geechee who settled in the coastal counties of South Carolina, North Carolina, Florida, and Georgia; (2) assist State and local governments and public and private entities in South Carolina, North Carolina, Florida, and Georgia in interpreting the story of the Gullah/Geechee and preserving Gullah/Geechee folklore, arts, crafts, and music; and (3) assist in identifying and preserving sites, historical data, artifacts, and objects associated with the Gullah/Geechee for the benefit and education of the public.
Provides that the Heritage Corridor shall be comprised of lands and waters depicted on a map entitled "Gullah/Geechee Cultural Heritage Corridor" dated September 2004 and on file at the National Park Service.
Establishes the Gullah/Geechee Cultural Heritage Corridor Commission to assist Federal, State, and local authorities to develop and implement a management plan for Gullah/Geechee lands and waters.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Sets forth the duties of the Commission, including the preparation and submission of a management plan to the Secretary of the Interior and annual reporting to the Secretary. Authorizes the Commission to make grants and enter into cooperative agreements with the States of South Carolina, North Carolina, Florida, and Georgia to prepare and implement the management plan.
Provides for technical and financial assistance to the Commission.
Requires the Commission to establish one or more Coastal Heritage Centers in the Heritage Corridor in accordance with the Low Country Gullah Culture Special Resource Study and Environmental Impact Study, December 2003, and additional appropriate sites.
Sets forth protections for private landowners in the Heritage Corridor.
Authorizes appropriations.
Terminates the authorities under this Act 15 years after enactment.
People & committees
Rep. Clyburn, James E. [D-SC-6] · D–SC
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by voice vote. (text: CR H1383-1385)
Passed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by voice vote.(text: CR H1383-1385)
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H.R. 694.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H1383-1386)
Mr. Jones (NC) moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended.
Referred to the Subcommittee on National Parks.
Referred to the House Committee on Resources.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
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 H.R.694 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 H.R.694 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 H.R.694 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 H.R.694 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.