PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Congressional Research Service
Version 35 · Passed Senate amended · Dec 30, 2012
(This measure has not been amended since it was reported to the Senate on January 13, 2012. The summary of that version is repeated here.)
Natchez Trace Parkway Land Conveyance Act of 2011 - Requires the Secretary of the Interior to convey to Mississippi, by quitclaim deed and without consideration, all interest of the United States in two parcels of land totaling approximately 67 acres that are identified on a map entitled "Natchez Trace Parkway, Proposed Boundary Change."
Requires the deed of conveyance to the parcel of land located southeast of U.S. route 61/84, and which is commonly known as the bean field property, to reserve an easement to the United States that restricts the use of such parcel only to uses which are compatible with the Parkway.
Adjusts the boundary of the Parkway to exclude the conveyed land and provides for inclusion in the Parkway of the approximately ten acres identified as the proposed addition.
People & committees
Sen. Cochran, Thad [R-MS] · R–MS
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Held at the desk.
Message on Senate action sent to the House.
Received in the House.
Passed Senate with an amendment by Unanimous Consent. (consideration: CR S8552-8556; text of measure as reported in Senate: CR S8553; text as passed Senate: CR S8553)
Passed/agreed to in Senate: Passed Senate with an amendment by Unanimous Consent.(consideration: CR S8552-8556; text of measure as reported in Senate: CR S8553; text as passed Senate: CR S8553)
Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 268.
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Reported by Senator Bingaman under authority of the order of the Senate of 12/17/2011 with an amendment. With written report No. 112-106.
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Reported by Senator Bingaman under authority of the order of the Senate of 12/17/2011 with an amendment. With written report No. 112-106.
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Ordered to be reported with an amendment favorably.
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources Subcommittee on National Parks. Hearings held. With printed Hearing: S.Hrg. 112-214.
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
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.264 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.264 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.264 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.264 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.