PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Became Public Law No: 109-319.
Congressional Research Service
Version 49 · Public Law · Oct 11, 2006
(This measure has not been amended since it was passed by the House on February 28, 2006. The summary of that version is repeated here.)
Ste. Genevieve County National Historic Site Study Act of 2005 - Directs the Secretary of the Interior to study and report to specified congressional committees on the suitability and feasibility of designating an area comprising Ste. Genevieve County, Missouri, which includes the Bequette-Ribault, St. Gemme-Amoureaux, and Wilhauk homes and the related and supporting historical assets located in the County, as a unit of the National Park System. Requires the study to include the potential impact that designation of such Area as a national heritage area is likely to have on land within the proposed area or bordering the proposed area that is privately owned at the time that such study is conducted.
People & committees
Rep. Carnahan, Russ [D-MO-3] · D–MO
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Became Public Law No: 109-319.
Became Public Law No: 109-319.
Signed by President.
Signed by President.
Presented to President.
Presented to President.
Message on Senate action sent to the House.
Passed Senate without amendment by Unanimous Consent. (consideration: CR S10537)
Passed/agreed to in Senate: Passed Senate without amendment by Unanimous Consent.(consideration: CR S10537)
Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 408.
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Reported by Senator Domenici under authority of the order of the Senate of 04/07/2006 without amendment. With written report No. 109-246.
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Reported by Senator Domenici under authority of the order of the Senate of 04/07/2006 without amendment. With written report No. 109-246.
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Ordered to be reported without amendment favorably.
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 H397)
Passed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by voice vote.(text: CR H397)
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H.R. 1728.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H397)
Mr. Renzi moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 187.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Resources. H. Rept. 109-338.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Resources. H. Rept. 109-338.
Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by Unanimous Consent.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Subcommittee on National Parks Discharged.
Executive Comment Requested from Interior.
Referred to the Subcommittee on National Parks.
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.
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.1728 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.1728 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.1728 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.1728 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.