PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Committee on Energy and Natural Resources requested executive comment from Department of the Interior, OMB.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · Feb 3, 1999
Amends the Cache La Poudre River Corridor Act to replace any reference to Larimer County with Weld County regarding the boundaries of the Cache La Poudre River Corridor in Colorado. Modifies: (1) provisions concerning the establishment of the Cache La Poudre Corridor Commission; and (2) the Commission's duties to include administering the Corridor and providing certain services under the Act.
People & committees
Sen. Allard, Wayne [R-CO] · R–CO
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources requested executive comment from Department of the Interior, OMB.
Subcommittee on National Parks, Historic Preservation, and Recreation. Hearings held. With printed Hearing: S.Hrg. 106-72.
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 S1151)
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.340 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.340 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.340 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.340 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.