PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 608.
Congressional Research Service
Version 80 · Reported to Senate without amendment · Sep 6, 2016
(This measure has not been amended since it was passed by the House on September 16, 2015. The summary of that version is repeated here.)
Medgar Evers House Study Act
(Sec. 3) Directs the Department of the Interior to conduct a special resource study of the home of the late civil rights activist Medgar Evers, which is located at 2332 Margaret Walker Alexander Drive in Jackson, Mississippi.
Requires Interior to: (1) evaluate the national significance of the site; (2) determine the suitability and feasibility of designating the site as a unit of the National Park System (NPS); (3) determine the effect of the site's designation on existing commercial and recreational uses, and the effect on state and local governments to manage those activities; and (4) identify any authorities, including condemnation, that will compel or permit the Department of the Interior to influence or participate in local land use decisions (such as zoning) or place restrictions on nonfederal land if the site is designated as an NPS unit.
People & committees
Rep. Thompson, Bennie G. [D-MS-2] · D–MS
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 608.
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Reported by Senator Murkowski without amendment. With written report No. 114-335.
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Reported by Senator Murkowski without amendment. With written report No. 114-335.
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Ordered to be reported without amendment favorably.
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources Senate Subcommittee on National Parks. Hearings held. With printed Hearing: S.Hrg. 114-496.
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, as amended Agreed to by voice vote. (text: CR H5994)
Passed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by voice vote.(text: CR H5994)
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H.R. 959.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H5994-5995)
Mr. McClintock moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 190.
Reported by the Committee on Natural Resources. H. Rept. 114-251.
Reported by the Committee on Natural Resources. H. Rept. 114-251.
Subcommittee on Federal Lands Discharged.
Ordered to be Reported by Unanimous Consent.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Subcommittee Hearings Held.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Federal Lands.
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.959 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.959 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.959 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.959 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.