PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Indefinitely postponed by Senate by Unanimous Consent. (consideration: CR S5530)
Congressional Research Service
Version 80 · Reported to Senate without amendment · Jun 26, 2007
(This measure has not been amended since it was introduced. The expanded summary of the House passed version is repeated here.)
Directs the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a special resource study relating to the First and Second Battles of Newtonia (Missouri) during the Civil War, including evaluating the suitability and feasibility of adding the battlefields and related sites as part of Wilson's Creek National Battlefield or designating such battlefields and sites as a unit of the National Park System.
Makes the criteria for the study of areas for potential inclusion in the National Park System applicable to such study.
Requires the Secretary to submit to specified congressional committees a report containing the results of such study and any conclusions and recommendations of the Secretary.
People & committees
Rep. Blunt, Roy [R-MO-7] · R–MO
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Indefinitely postponed by Senate by Unanimous Consent. (consideration: CR S5530)
Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 232.
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Reported by Senator Bingaman without amendment. With written report No. 110-102.
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Reported by Senator Bingaman without amendment. With written report No. 110-102.
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Ordered to be reported without amendment favorably.
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources Senate Subcommittee on National Parks. Hearings held. With printed Hearing: S.Hrg. 110-104.
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 Agreed to by voice vote. (text: CR H2133-2134)
Passed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill Agreed to by voice vote.(text: CR H2133-2134)
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H.R. 376.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H2133-2134)
Mr. Grijalva moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill.
Referred to the Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public Lands.
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.376 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.376 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.376 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.376 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.