PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Subcommittee on Parks, Preservation and Recreation. Hearings held.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · May 23, 1996
Voyageurs National Park Accessibility and Partnership Act of 1996 - Amends Federal law to establish the Voyageurs National Park Intergovernmental Council, which shall develop and monitor a comprehensive management plan (plan) for the Voyageurs National Park, Minnesota. Sets forth provisions regarding Council membership and termination, procedural matters, compensation, and funding. Requires the Council: (1) to submit to the Secretary of the Interior and the Governor of Minnesota a plan for the park (to be developed and implemented by the responsible Federal agencies, the State of Minnesota, and local political subdivisions) and to submit a preliminary report to the Secretary; and (2) in developing the plan, to examine all relevant issues, including appropriate public access and recreational use, the proper distribution of visitors in the park, a comprehensive visitor education program, and the need for wilderness management for certain park areas. Bars the Council from considering removing park designation or allowing mining, logging, or commercial or residential development. Directs the Council to: (1) report to the International Joint Commission on water levels in the Rainy Lake Watershed; (2) submit the plan to the Secretary and Governor for review (and requires the Secretary to approve or disapprove the plan within 90 days); (3) review and monitor the implementation of the plan (and authorizes the Council, after public comment and approval by the Secretary, to modify the plan if the Council and the Secretary determine that the modification is necessary); and (4) advise and cooperate with appropriate Federal, State, local, and tribal governmental entities, before the approval of the plan, to minimize adverse impacts on the park. Bars the Secretary, from the date of enactment through the date a management plan is approved, from issuing regulations relating to the park, except for regulations required for routine business and emergency regulations.
People & committees
Sen. Grams, Rod [R-MN] · R–MN
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Subcommittee on Parks, Preservation and Recreation. Hearings held.
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 S5579-5580)
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.1805 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.1805 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.1805 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.1805 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.