PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 578.
Congressional Research Service
Version 01 · Reported to Senate with amendment(s) · Sep 9, 2002
Directs the Secretary of the Interior to conduct and submit to specified congressional committees a National Historic Landmark theme study to identify sites and resources in the United States that are significant to the Cold War. Requires the Secretary to: (1) consider the inventory of Cold War sites and resources completed pursuant to the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 1991; (2) consider historical studies and research of Cold War sites and resources, such as intercontinental ballistic missiles, nuclear weapons sites (such as the Nevada test site) flight training centers, manufacturing facilities, communications and command centers, defensive radar networks, and strategic and tactical aircraft; and (3) inventory and consider associated nonmilitary sites and resources. Requires such study to include recommendations on sites: (1) for potential inclusion in the National Park System; and (2) for which new national historic landmarks should be nominated.Requires the Secretary to prepare and publish an interpretive handbook on the Cold War and to disseminate information gathered through the study through means in addition to the handbook.Authorizes appropriations.
People & committees
Rep. Hefley, Joel [R-CO-5] · R–CO
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. 578.
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Reported by Senator Bingaman with amendments. With written report No. 107-261.
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Reported by Senator Bingaman with amendments. With written report No. 107-261.
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Ordered to be reported with amendments favorably.
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources Subcommittee on National Parks. Hearings held.
Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
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 voice vote. (text: CR H10181)
Passed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by voice vote.(text: CR H10181)
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H.R. 107.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H10181)
Mr. Hefley moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 132.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Resources. H. Rept. 107-220.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Resources. H. Rept. 107-220.
Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by Voice Vote.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Forwarded by Subcommittee to Full Committee (Amended) by Voice Vote.
Subcommittee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Subcommittee Hearings Held.
Referred to the Subcommittee on National Parks, Recreation and Public Lands.
Referred to the House Committee on Resources.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
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 H.R.107 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.107 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.107 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.107 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.