PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Became Public Law No: 108-23.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Jan 8, 2003
Ottawa National Wildlife Refuge Complex Expansion and Detroit River International Wildlife Refuge Expansion Act - Expands the Ottawa National Wildlife Refuge Complex to include specified land and water in the State of Ohio. Permits the Secretary of the Interior to acquire by donation, purchase, or exchange the land and water and interests in land and water within the boundaries of the Complex.Directs the Secretary, acting through the Director of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, to study and report to Congress on fish and wildlife habitat and aquatic and terrestrial communities in and around two specified dredge spoil disposal sites in Toledo Harbor.Expands the southern boundary of the Detroit River International Wildlife Refuge (the Refuge) to include additional land and water located in the State of Michigan east of Interstate Route 75.Prescribes requirements for administration of the Complex.Directs the Secretary to ensure that hunting, trapping, fishing, wildlife observation and photography, and environmental education and interpretation shall be the priority public uses of the Complex.Requires the Secretary to encourage the State of Ohio to use authority under the recreational trails program under Federal law to provide funding for the acquisition and development of trails within the boundaries of the Complex.
People & committees
Rep. Kaptur, Marcy [D-OH-9] · D–OH
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Became Public Law No: 108-23.
Became Public Law No: 108-23.
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 S5691)
Passed/agreed to in Senate: Passed Senate without amendment by Unanimous Consent.(consideration: CR S5691)
Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 67.
Committee on Environment and Public Works. Reported by Senator Inhofe without amendment. Without written report.
Committee on Environment and Public Works. Reported by Senator Inhofe without amendment. Without written report.
Committee on Environment and Public Works. Ordered to be reported without amendment favorably.
Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
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 H2535-2537)
Passed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by voice vote.(text: CR H2535-2537)
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H.R. 289.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H2535-2538)
Mr. Renzi moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended.
Executive Comment Requested from Interior.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Fisheries Conservation, Wildlife and Oceans.
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.289 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.289 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.289 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.289 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.