PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Congressional Research Service
Version 49 · Public Law · Oct 9, 2018
Fort Ontario Study Act
(Sec. 3) This bill directs the Department of the Interior to conduct a special resource study of Fort Ontario in Oswego, New York.
Interior shall: (1) evaluate the fort's national significance, and (2) determine the suitability and feasibility of designating it as a unit of the National Park System.
People & committees
Rep. Katko, John [R-NY-24] · R–NY
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Became Public Law No: 115-255.
Became Public Law No: 115-255.
Signed by President.
Signed by President.
Presented to President.
Presented to President.
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
On motion that the House agree to the Senate amendment Agreed to without objection. (text as House agreed to Senate Amendment: CR H8861)
Resolving differences -- House actions: On motion that the House agree to the Senate amendment Agreed to without objection.(text as House agreed to Senate Amendment: CR H8861)
Mr. McClintock asked unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's Table and agree to the Senate amendment. (consideration: CR H8861)
Message on Senate action sent to the House.
Passed Senate with an amendment by Voice Vote. (consideration: CR S6258-6259)
Passed/agreed to in Senate: Passed Senate with an amendment by Voice Vote.(consideration: CR S6258-6259)
Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 147.
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Reported by Senator Murkowski with an amendment in the nature of a substitute. With written report No. 115-110.
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Reported by Senator Murkowski with an amendment in the nature of a substitute. With written report No. 115-110.
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Ordered to be reported with an amendment in the nature of a substitute favorably.
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
Received in the Senate.
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 H712)
Passed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill Agreed to by voice vote.(text: CR H712)
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H.R. 46.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H712-713)
Mr. McClintock moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill.
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR H712-713)
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.46 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.46 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.46 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.46 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.