PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 302.
Congressional Research Service
Version 01 · Reported to Senate with amendment(s) · Mar 2, 2010
Amends the Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009 (the Act), with respect to the Battlefield Acquisition Grant Program, to: (1) expand the current definition of "battlefield report" to include the report entitled "Report to Congress on the Historic Preservation of Revolutionary War and War of 1812 Sites in the United States"; and (2) expand the Program to permit the acquisition not only of an "interest in an eligible site," but also an "eligible site."
Requires acquisitions of lands or interests under the Act to be from willing sellers only.
Requires the Secretary of the Interior to submit to Congress a report on related activities, including: (1) preservation carried out at the battlefields and associated sites identified in the battlefield report; (2) changes in their condition; and (3) other relevant developments related to such battlefields and sites.
Authorizes appropriations to the Secretary to provide grants under the Program through FY2019 for the protection of Civil War, Revolutionary War, and War of 1812 battlefields.
People & committees
Rep. Holt, Rush [D-NJ-12] · D–NJ
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. 302.
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Reported by Senator Bingaman with amendments. With written report No. 111-152.
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Reported by Senator Bingaman with amendments. With written report No. 111-152.
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.
The title of the measure was amended. Agreed to without objection.
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 H4528)
Passed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by voice vote.(text: CR H4528)
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H.R. 1694.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H4528-4530)
Mrs. Christensen moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended.
Referred to the Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public Lands.
Referred to the House Committee on 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: 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.1694 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.1694 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.1694 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.1694 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.