Lindsey Graham (R-SC)
Camden National Battlefield Park Study Act
A Republican bill with 1 Republican cosponsor · See the cosponsor
Last activity — Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Hearings held.
In committee
Introduced and handed to a committee in the chamber it started in.
The committee holds it, and most bills are never heard from again. A hearing or a committee vote would be news; silence is the usual outcome, and it kills the bill without anyone voting against it.
Its path through Congress
- Introduced
- In Committee
What this bill would do
This bill is known as the Camden National Battlefield Park Study Act. It requires the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a special resource study. The purpose is to check if the Camden Battlefield area in South Carolina is suitable and feasible to become a unit of the National Park System. The study area includes the site of the Battle of Camden fought on August 16, 1780, related Revolutionary War resources, and Historic Camden. The Secretary must look at national significance, protection methods, local partnerships, and cost estimates. A report with the study results and recommendations must be given to specific congressional committees within 3 years of funding.
Yes· 3 of 4
- Scored +5
Does this better protect public land such as parks and forests?
The act initiates a study for the potential management of new National Park System units.
- Scored +4
Would people in rural areas be better off under this?
The study may lead to new federal management and potential economic activity in the Camden area.
- Scored +3
Does this better protect air, water and wildlife?
The study assesses the potential for federal protection of historic and battleground resources.
The opposite
No question was scored the opposite.
Who it would affect, and how
Potential Positive Impacts for People
-
Section 2(b)(1): This section requires the Secretary to evaluate the area and determine ways to protect and interpret the site. This could benefit people by preserving historical Revolutionary War resources for the public.
-
Section 2(b)(2): This provision requires the Secretary to consult with interested Federal agencies, State and local governments, private and nonprofit organizations, and interested individuals. This gives everyday people and local groups a voice in the process.
Potential Negative Impacts for People
- Based on the provided text, there are no specific sections or provisions identified that outline negative consequences or burdens for individuals or groups of people in the United States.
Groups and Interests Ranking
Every group the model scored this bill for, from -10 to +10. Tap or hover a score for the reason it gave.
- Environment Energy And Infrastructure
- Does this better protect public land such as parks and forests? — The act initiates a study for the potential management of new National Park System units. Does this better protect air, water and wildlife? — The study assesses the potential for federal protection of historic and battleground resources.
- Demographic And Interest Groups
- Would people in rural areas be better off under this? — The study may lead to new federal management and potential economic activity in the Camden area.
- Governance And Ideology
- Does this give the federal government more power? — The bill explores bringing local historic sites under federal National Park Service management.
- 9/16/2026
- Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Hearings held.
- 8/1/2025
- Read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- Introduced in Senate
2 bills Congress.gov lists as related to this one — companions in the other chamber, earlier versions, and bills this one absorbed or was folded into.
Tim ScottRepublican · South Carolina