PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 528.
Congressional Research Service
Version 01 · Reported to Senate with amendment(s) · Aug 5, 2010
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; (3) consider other alternatives for the preservation, protection, and interpretation of the study area and identify the costs associated with such alternatives; and (4) consult with specified public and private entities.
Requires the Secretary to report to Congress on the study's results, as well as any conclusions and recommendations of the Secretary.
People & committees
Sen. Burris, Roland [D-IL] · D–IL
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. 528.
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Reported by Senator Bingaman with amendments. With written report No. 111-258.
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Reported by Senator Bingaman with amendments. With written report No. 111-258.
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Ordered to be reported with amendments favorably.
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources Subcommittee on National Parks. Hearings held. With printed Hearing: S.Hrg. 111-476.
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
Introduced in Senate
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 S.1629 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 S.1629 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 S.1629 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 S.1629 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.