PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.By Senator Murkowski from Committee on Energy and Natural Resources filed written report. Report No. 115-406.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Apr 27, 2018
Camp Nelson Heritage National Monument Act
This bill establishes, as a unit of the National Park System, the Camp Nelson Heritage National Monument in Nicholasville, Kentucky, in order to preserve, protect, and interpret the nationally significant historic resources of Camp Nelson and its role in the Civil War, Reconstruction, and African-American history and civil rights.
People & committees
Rep. Barr, Andy [R-KY-6] · R–KY
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
By Senator Murkowski from Committee on Energy and Natural Resources filed written report. Report No. 115-406.
By Senator Murkowski from Committee on Energy and Natural Resources filed written report. Report No. 115-406.
Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 693.
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Reported by Senator Murkowski with an amendment in the nature of a substitute and an amendment to the title. Without written report.
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Reported by Senator Murkowski with an amendment in the nature of a substitute and an amendment to the title. Without written report.
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Ordered to be reported with an amendment in the nature of a substitute favorably.
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources Subcommittee on National Parks. Hearings held. With printed Hearing: S.Hrg. 115-526.
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 the Yeas and Nays: (2/3 required): 376 - 4 (Roll no. 233). (text: CR H4753)
House roll call 233 · Individual votesPassed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: (2/3 required): 376 - 4 (Roll no. 233).(text: CR H4753)
House roll call 233 · Individual votesConsidered as unfinished business. (consideration: CR H4760-4761)
At the conclusion of debate, the Yeas and Nays were demanded and ordered. Pursuant to the provisions of clause 8, rule XX, the Chair announced that further proceedings on the motion would be postponed.
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H.R. 5655.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H4753-4754)
Mr. Bishop (UT) moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 538.
Reported by the Committee on Natural Resources. H. Rept. 115-695.
Reported by the Committee on Natural Resources. H. Rept. 115-695.
Ordered to be Reported by Unanimous Consent.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
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.5655 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.5655 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.5655 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.5655 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.