PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Executive Comment Requested from Interior.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Jan 4, 1995
Directs the Secretary of the Interior to: (1) conduct a study to identify potential means to preserve, develop, and interpret Fort King, Florida, and the surrounding area; and (2) propose, as part of the study, alternatives for cooperation in the preservation and interpretation of Fort King and recommendations with respect to the suitability and feasibility of establishing Fort King as a unit of the National Park System. Requires that the study contain findings with respect to: (1) the role played by Fort King in the Second Seminole War; (2) identification of the historical, cultural, and archaeological material found in Fort King and the surrounding area relating to life at the time of and preceding such war; (3) the types of Federal, State, and local programs that are available to preserve and develop Fort King and the surrounding area and to make the fort and the surrounding area accessible for public use and enjoyment; and (4) the potential use of, and coordination with, Federal, State, and local programs to manage, in the public interest, the historical and cultural resources found at and around Fort King. Directs the Secretary to submit a report detailing the results of the study to the committees of jurisdiction of the House of Representatives and the Senate within 12 months. Authorizes appropriations.
People & committees
Rep. Stearns, Cliff [R-FL-6] · R–FL
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Executive Comment Requested from Interior.
Referred to the Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Lands.
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.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Apr 7, 2025. 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.369 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.369 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.369 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.369 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.