PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Armed Services.
Congressional Research Service
Version 36 · Passed House amended · Jul 15, 2009
Port Chicago Naval Magazine National Memorial Enhancement Act of 2009 - Amends the Port Chicago National Memorial Act of 1992 to require the Secretary of the Interior to administer the Port Chicago Naval Magazine National Memorial as a unit of the National Park System.
Directs the Secretary of Defense to transfer a specified parcel of land within the proposed boundary on the map entitled "Port Chicago Naval Magazine National Memorial, Proposed Boundary," dated August 2005, to the administrative jurisdiction of the Secretary of the Interior if: (1) the land is excess to military needs; and (2) all environmental remediation actions necessary to respond to environmental contamination have been completed.
Authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to enter into an agreement with the Secretary of Defense to provide as much public access as possible to the Memorial without interfering with military needs. Makes such authority no longer applicable if the Memorial ceases to be an enclave within the Concord Naval Weapons Station.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to enter into an agreement with the city of Concord, California, and the East Bay Regional Park District to establish and operate a facility for visitor orientation and parking, administrative offices, and curatorial storage for the Memorial.
Expresses the sense of Congress that the Secretary of Defense should remediate remaining environmental contamination related to the land.
Expresses the sense of Congress that the Secretaries of Defense and the Interior should work together to develop a process by which future repairs and necessary modifications to the Memorial can be achieved in as timely and cost-effective a manner as possible.
People & committees
Rep. Miller, George [D-CA-7] · D–CA
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Armed Services.
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: (2/3 required): 415 - 3 (Roll no. 540). (text: CR 7/14/2009 H8046-8047)
House roll call 540 · Individual votesPassed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: (2/3 required): 415 - 3 (Roll no. 540).(text: CR 7/14/2009 H8046-8047)
House roll call 540 · Individual votesConsidered as unfinished business. (consideration: CR H8115)
At the conclusion of debate, the Yeas and Nays were demanded and ordered. Pursuant to the provisions of clause 8, rule XX, the Chair announced that further proceedings on the motion would be postponed.
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H.R. 1044.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H8046-8048)
Ms. Bordallo moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended.
Referred to the Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public Lands.
Referred to House Armed Services
Referred to the Committee on Natural Resources, and in addition to the Committee on Armed Services, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Referred to House Natural Resources
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Jun 6, 2025. 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 H.R.1044 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 H.R.1044 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 H.R.1044 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 H.R.1044 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.