PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
Congressional Research Service
Version 36 · Passed House amended · Apr 28, 2014
(This measure has not been amended since it was reported to the House on September 20, 2013. The summary of that version is repeated here.)
New Philadelphia, Illinois, Study Act - Directs the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a special resource study of the New Philadelphia archaeological site and the land surrounding it in Illinois (the study area).
Requires the Secretary to: (1) evaluate the national significance of the study area; (2) determine the suitability and feasibility of designating the study area as a unit of the National Park System (NPS); (3) consider other alternatives for preservation, protection, and interpretation of the study area by federal, state, or local governmental entities, or private and nonprofit organizations; and (4) determine the effect of the designation as an NPS unit on existing commercial and recreational activities as well as the authorization, construction, and operation of energy production and transmission infrastructure, and the effect on the authority of state and local officials to manage those activities.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Directs the Secretary also to identify any authorities, including condemnation, that will compel or permit the Secretary to influence or participate in local land use decisions (such as zoning) or place restrictions on non-federal land if the study area is designated as an NPS unit.
People & committees
Rep. Schock, Aaron [R-IL-18] · R–IL
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by voice vote. (text: CR H3214-3215)
Passed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by voice vote.(text: CR H3214-3215)
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H.R. 930.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H3214-3215)
Mr. Young (AK) moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 159.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Natural Resources. H. Rept. 113-219.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Natural Resources. H. Rept. 113-219.
Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by Unanimous Consent.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Subcommittee on Public Lands and Environmental Regulation Discharged.
Subcommittee Hearings Held.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Public Lands and Environmental Regulation.
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.930 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.930 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.930 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.930 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.