PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to Subcommittee on Parks, Preservation and Recreation.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · Jan 26, 1996
Los Caminos del Rio National Heritage Area Act of 1996 - Directs the Secretary of the Interior to establish the Los Caminos del Rio National Heritage Area in Texas. Sets forth provisions regarding criteria for designation as a heritage area under this Act. Directs the Secretary to participate in an administrative entity to be known as the heritage partnership. Directs the partnership to unite the State task force for the Los Caminos del Rio Heritage Project appointed by the Governor of Texas, participating Federal agencies, Los Caminos del Rio of Texas, Incorporated, and other heritage partners in a single organization to provide coordination and leadership for the heritage area. Sets forth provisions regarding: (1) the establishment of the heritage area; (2) coordination and the mission of the heritage partnership; (3) development of a compact and a prohibition on land use restrictions; (4) public meetings; (5) a prohibition of acquisition of real property; and (6) the duration of eligibility for assistance. Requires the heritage partnership, in conjunction with private landowners within the heritage area, local governments, Federal and State agencies, and the public to develop a management plan to ensure proper management of significant cultural and heritage resources within the heritage area. Sets forth provisions regarding: (1) the withdrawal of the heritage area designation; (2) the duties of the Secretary (regarding technical and financial assistance, and coordination with Mexico) and of other Federal entities; (3) land use regulation; (4) fishing and hunting; (5) private property protection; (6) the effect of environmental and other standards; (7) multiple use of the land; and (8) reporting requirements. Authorizes appropriations. Limits assistance for a management plan to 75 percent of the cost for such plan.
People & committees
Sen. Hutchison, Kay Bailey [R-TX] · R–TX
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
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 S510)
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.1539 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.1539 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.1539 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.1539 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.