PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 658.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · Jul 18, 2002
Champlain Valley National Heritage Partnership Act of 2002 - Establishes the Champlain Valley National Heritage Partnership (the "Partnership") within the States of Vermont and New York.Directs the Partnership's management entity, the Lake Champlain Basin Program (the "Program"), to develop a management plan (the "plan") for the Partnership. Requires the plan to include: (1) recommendations for funding, managing, and developing the Partnership; (2) a description of activities to be carried out by public and private organizations to protect the Partnership's resources; and (3) recommendations for collaboration with Canada and the Province of Quebec in implementing this Act.Authorizes the Program to enter into partnerships with various public and private entities to carry out this Act, and to issue grants to such entities. Allows the Secretary of the Interior to provide assistance (including financial assistance) to carry out this Act.Prohibits the Program from using Federal funds made available by this Act to acquire real property or any interest in real property.States that nothing in this Act: (1) grants the Program powers of zoning or land use; (2) changes the authority of government to manage or regulate any use of land under any law (including regulations); or (3) obstructs or limits private business development or resource development activities.Prohibits Federal assistance under this Act after 15 years after its enactment.
People & committees
Sen. Jeffords, James M. [I-VT] · I–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. 658.
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Reported by Senator Bingaman with an amendment in the nature of a substitute. Without written report.
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Reported by Senator Bingaman with an amendment in the nature of a substitute. Without written report.
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Ordered to be reported with an amendment favorably.
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR S7040-7041)
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.2756 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.2756 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.2756 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.2756 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.