PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Became Public Law No: 108-340.
Congressional Research Service
Version 81 · Passed House without amendment · Sep 28, 2004
(This measure has not been amended since it was reported to the Senate on May 20, 2004. The summary of that version is repeated here.)
Manhattan Project National Historical Park Study Act - Directs the Secretary of the Interior (the Secretary) to conduct a study of the historically significant sites associated with the Manhattan Project (the study area), including the Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico, the Hanford Site in the State of Washington, and the Oak Ridge Reservation in Tennessee, to assess the national significance, suitability, and feasibility of designating one or more sites within such area as a unit of the National Park System (NPS).
Instructs the Secretary to: (1) evaluate, in coordination with the Secretary of Energy, the compatibility of designating one or more sites within the study area as an NPS unit with maintaining the security, productivity, and management goals of the Department of Energy (DOE) and public health and safety; and (2) consider existing research by DOE on the historical significance and feasibility of preserving and interpreting the various sites and structures in such area.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Requires the Secretary to submit to Congress a report on the findings of the study and the conclusions and recommendations of the Secretary.
Authorizes appropriations.
People & committees
Sen. Bingaman, Jeff [D-NM] · D–NM
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Became Public Law No: 108-340.
Became Public Law No: 108-340.
Signed by President.
Signed by President.
Presented to President.
Presented to President.
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill Agreed to by voice vote. (text: CR H7670-7671)
Passed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill Agreed to by voice vote.(text: CR H7670-7671)
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on S. 1687.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H7670-7671)
Mr. Radanovich moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill.
Held at the desk.
Message on Senate action sent to the House.
Received in the House.
Passed Senate with an amendment by Unanimous Consent. (consideration: CR S9328-9329; text as passed Senate: CR S9328-9329)
Passed/agreed to in Senate: Passed Senate with an amendment by Unanimous Consent.(consideration: CR S9328-9329; text as passed Senate: CR S9328-9329)
Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 525.
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Reported by Senator Domenici with an amendment in the nature of a substitute. With written report No. 108-270.
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Reported by Senator Domenici with an amendment in the nature of a substitute. With written report No. 108-270.
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. 108-485.
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. (text of measure as introduced: CR S12198-12199)
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR S12197-12198)
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.1687 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.1687 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.1687 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.1687 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.