PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 592.
Congressional Research Service
Version 01 · Reported to Senate with amendment(s) · Sep 27, 2010
Upper Connecticut River Partnership Act - Directs the Secretary of the Interior to establish a Connecticut River Grants and Technical Assistance Program to provide financial and technical assistance to the states of New Hampshire and Vermont, through the Connecticut River Joint Commissions of New Hampshire and Vermont, to improve the management of the upper Connecticut River watershed.
Authorizes the Secretary to provide the Commissions with financial and technical assistance to further the purposes of this Act. .
Requires the Commissions to develop criteria to prioritize and determine the eligibility of applicants for assistance under the Program and to review and prioritize applications for such assistance.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Requires such criteria to be submitted by the Commissions for review by the Secretary. Sets forth procedures for the approval or disapproval of the criteria.
Allows the Commissions to use funds under this Act to provide financial and technical assistance to state and local governments, nonprofit organizations, and other public and private entities for the protection of the watershed.
Authorizes appropriations. Limits the federal share of the total cost of any activity funded by assistance under this Act to half of that activity's total cost. Permits the non-federal contribution towards such an activity to be in the form of in-kind contributions of fairly valued goods or services.
Terminates the authority of the Secretary to provide financial assistance under this Act 10 years after enactment.
People & committees
Sen. Leahy, Patrick J. [D-VT] · D–VT
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 592.
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Reported by Senator Bingaman with an amendment in the nature of a substitute. With written report No. 111-306.
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Reported by Senator Bingaman with an amendment in the nature of a substitute. With written report No. 111-306.
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Ordered to be reported with an amendment in the nature of a substitute favorably.
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources Subcommittee on National Parks. Hearings held. With printed Hearing: S.Hrg. 111-92.
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. (text of measure as introduced: CR S5823)
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR S5822-5823)
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.1117 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.1117 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.1117 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.1117 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.