PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
Congressional Research Service
Version 36 · Passed House amended · Apr 28, 2014
(This measure has not been amended since it was reported to the House on December 2, 2013. The summary of that version is repeated here.)
Directs the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a special resource study to evaluate the significance of the Mill Springs Battlefield in Kentucky (relating to the Battle of Mill Springs fought on January 19, 1862, in Pulaski and Wayne Counties during the Civil War) and the feasibility of its inclusion in the National Park System (NPS).
Requires such study, among other things, to analyze: (1) the effect of the Battlefield's designation as a unit of the NPS on existing commercial and recreational activities, energy production and transmission infrastructure, and the authority of state and local governments to manage those activities; and (2) the identification of any authorities, including condemnation, that will compel or permit the Secretary to influence or participate in local land use decisions (such as zoning) or place restrictions on non-federal lands if the Battlefield is designated as an NPS unit.
Requires owners of private property adjacent to the Battlefield to be notified of the commencement and scope of this study.
People & committees
Rep. Rogers, Harold [R-KY-5] · R–KY
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by voice vote. (text: CR H3212-3213)
Passed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by voice vote.(text: CR H3212-3213)
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H.R. 298.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H3212-3214)
Mr. Young (AK) moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 201.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Natural Resources. H. Rept. 113-280.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Natural Resources. H. Rept. 113-280.
Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by Unanimous Consent.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Subcommittee on Public Lands and Environmental Regulation Discharged.
Subcommittee Hearings Held.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Public Lands and Environmental Regulation.
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.298 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.298 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.298 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.298 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.