PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 472.
Congressional Research Service
Version 01 · Reported to Senate with amendment(s) · Jun 27, 1996
American Heritage Corridor Study Act of 1996 - Authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to provide technical and financial assistance to State and local partners (a cooperative working group comprised of Vermont and New York State and local officials and other interested persons) in developing and conducting a study of the area of the Champlain Valley, upper Hudson River Valley, and Lake George in Vermont and New York (Corridor) to: (1) determine the important conflicts that occurred in the Corridor between 1609 and 1865; (2) identify the cultural and natural resources associated with these conflicts; (3) determine which resources best illustrate such conflicts; (4) assess the suitability and feasibility for incorporation of those resources into the Corridor; (5) conduct an economic analysis of the effects that incorporation would have on the immediate area that contains the resources; and (6) identify potential management entities to coordinate resources included in the Corridor. Directs the Secretary to facilitate consultation among the Secretary, the State and local partners, and officials of Canada and the Province of Quebec to determine means of linking historic sites along the Richelieu River and related U.S. sites in the Corridor. Provides that after completion of the study, the Secretary is: (1) authorized to provide assistance to the State and local partners in preparation of a general management plan for the Corridor; and (2) required to make recommendations to the Congress on the areas within the Corridor that should be included in a congressionally designated American Heritage Corridor. Prohibits inclusion of private property within such recommendations without the owner's consent. Authorizes appropriations.
People & committees
Sen. Jeffords, James M. [R-VT] · R–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. 472.
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Reported to Senate by Senator Murkowski with an amendment in the nature of a substitute and an amendment to the title. With written report No. 104-297.
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Reported to Senate by Senator Murkowski with an amendment in the nature of a substitute and an amendment to the title. With written report No. 104-297.
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources requested executive comment from Department of the Interior, and Office of Management and Budget.
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Ordered to be reported with an amendment in the nature of a substitute favorably.
Subcommittee on Parks, Preservation and Recreation. Hearings held. Hearings printed: S.Hrg. 104-580.
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources requested executive comment from Department of the Interior, and Office of Management and Budget.
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 E12961)
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.1225 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.1225 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.1225 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.1225 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.