PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Became Public Law No: 107-373.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Jun 13, 2002
Cedar Creek Battlefield and Belle Grove Plantation National Historical Park Act - Establishes the Cedar Creek Battlefield and Belle Grove Plantation National Historical Park as a unit of the National Park System.Allows the Secretary of the Interior to acquire from willing sellers: (1) land or interests within the Park's boundaries and associated personal property for interpretation of the Park; (2) conservation easements to protect the scenic, natural, and historic resources on adjacent lands and preserve the Park's natural or historic setting; and (3) up to 50 acres of land outside the Park to develop facilities for visitors, administrative functions, museums, curatorial functions, and/or maintenance.Requires the Secretary to submit to Congress a Park management plan which addresses the needs of non-Federal landowners, including independent nonprofit organizations.Establishes the Cedar Creek Battlefield and Belle Grove Plantation National Historical Park Advisory Commission.Authorizes the Secretary to receive and expend funds from an endowment to be established with the National Park Foundation.Allows the Secretary to provide technical and financial assistance for: (1) preserving historic structures; (2) maintaining the Park's natural or cultural landscape; (3) local preservation planning, interpretation, and management of public visitation; and (4) furthering the goals of the Shenandoah Valley Battlefields Foundation.
People & committees
Rep. Wolf, Frank R. [R-VA-10] · R–VA
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Became Public Law No: 107-373.
Became Public Law No: 107-373.
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 11/19/2002 S11652-11655)
Passed/agreed to in Senate: Passed Senate without amendment by Unanimous Consent.(consideration: CR 11/19/2002 S11652-11655)
Received in the Senate, read twice.
The title of the measure was amended. Agreed to without objection.
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 H6869-6871)
Passed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by voice vote.(text: CR H6869-6871)
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H.R. 4944.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H6869-6872)
Mr. Hansen moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 444.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Resources. H. Rept. 107-713.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Resources. H. Rept. 107-713.
Subcommittee on National Parks, Recreation and Public Lands Discharged.
Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by Unanimous Consent.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Executive Comment Requested from Interior.
Referred to the Subcommittee on National Parks, Recreation and Public Lands.
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR E1050-1051)
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: 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.4944 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.4944 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.4944 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.4944 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.