PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Committee on Energy and Natural Resources Subcommittee on Energy. Hearings held.
Congressional Research Service
Version 36 · Passed House amended · Jul 21, 2009
Requires the Department of Energy (DOE) to designate as protected outdoor research reserves for the purpose of conducting long-term environmental research on the impacts of human activities on the natural environment: (1) Savannah River National Environmental Research Park; (2) Idaho National Environmental Research Park; (3) Los Alamos National Environmental Research Park; (4) Fermi Lab National Environmental Research Park; (5) Oak Ridge National Environmental Research Park; and (6) Nevada National Environmental Research Park.
Requires each site to support environmental research and monitoring activities to characterize and monitor site conditions and serve as control areas for comparison with environmental impacts of DOE land management, energy technology development, remediation, and other site activities outside the Park areas. Authorizes areas of research and monitoring on the sites to include: (1) ecology of the site and the region; (2) population biology and ecology; (3) radioecology; (4) effects of climate variability and change on ecosystems; (5) ecosystem science; (6) pollution fate and transport research; (7) surface and groundwater modeling; (8) student training; and (9) environmental impacts of development and use of energy generation technologies, including renewable energy technologies.
Requires DOE to enter into a cooperative agreement with a university, community college, or consortium of institutions of higher education with expertise in ecology and environmental science of the region in which the Park is located to ensure the independence of the research, monitoring, public education, and outreach activities.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Requires each site to support an outreach program to inform the public of the diverse ecological activities conducted and to educate students at various levels in environmental science.
Requires DOE to designate a National Environmental Research Park Coordinator within the Department of Energy Office of Science to: (1) coordinate research activities among the Parks; (2) ensure that information on best practices for research, education, and outreach activities is shared among the sites; and (3) serve as liaison to other federal agencies to facilitate collaborative work at the Parks.
Authorizes appropriations for FY2010-FY2014.
Authorizes the Parks to be utilized to provide educational opportunities through the Summer Institutes program authorized in the Department of Energy Science Education Enhancement Act.
People & committees
Rep. Luján, Ben Ray [D-NM-3] · D–NM
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 Subcommittee on Energy. 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 the Yeas and Nays: (2/3 required): 330 - 96 (Roll no. 597). (text: CR 7/20/2009 H8363)
House roll call 597 · 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): 330 - 96 (Roll no. 597).(text: CR 7/20/2009 H8363)
House roll call 597 · Individual votesConsidered as unfinished business. (consideration: CR H8445-8446)
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. 2729.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H8362-8364)
Mr. Lujan moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 113.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Science and Technology. H. Rept. 111-207.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Science and Technology. H. Rept. 111-207.
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.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Energy and Environment.
Hearings Held by the Subcommittee on Energy and Environment Prior to Referral.
Referred to the House Committee on Science and Technology.
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR E1315-1316)
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.2729 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.2729 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.2729 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.2729 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.