PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Congressional Research Service
Version 49 · Public Law · Dec 20, 2006
(This measure has not been amended since it was reported to the House on September 6, 2006. The summary of that version is repeated here.)
River Raisin National Battlefield Study Act - Directs the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a special resource study of, and report to specified congressional committees on, sites in Monroe County, Michigan, relating to the Battles of the River Raisin on January 18 and 22, 1813, and their aftermath to determine: (1) the national significance of the sites; and (2) the suitability and feasibility of including them in the National Park System (NPS).
Requires the study to include the Secretary's analysis and recommendations on: (1) the effect on Monroe County, Michigan, of including the sites in the NPS; and (2) whether the sites could be included in an existing NPS unit.
People & committees
Rep. Dingell, John D. [D-MI-15] · D–MI
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Became Public Law No: 109-429.
Became Public Law No: 109-429.
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 S11537-11543)
Passed/agreed to in Senate: Passed Senate without amendment by Unanimous Consent.(consideration: CR S11537-11543)
Read the second time. Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 650.
Read the first time. Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under Read the First Time.
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, as amended Agreed to by voice vote. (text: CR H6949)
Passed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by voice vote.(text: CR H6949)
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H.R. 5132.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H6949-6950)
Mr. Pearce moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 377.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Resources. H. Rept. 109-637.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Resources. H. Rept. 109-637.
Ordered to be Reported in the Nature of a Substitute (Amended) by Unanimous Consent.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Subcommittee on National Parks Discharged.
Subcommittee Hearings Held.
Executive Comment Requested from Interior.
Referred to the Subcommittee on National Parks.
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: Dec 5, 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.5132 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.5132 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.5132 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.5132 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.