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 00 · Introduced in House · Feb 27, 2003
Gateway Communities Cooperation Act - Requires the National Park Service, the United States Forest Service, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the Bureau of Land Management to: (1) provide for public involvement by government officials of local gateway communities (communities, including recognized Indian tribes or Alaska Native villages, adjacent to or near public lands) in the development of land use plans, programs, regulations, and decisions, transportation plans, general management plans, and any other public land plans, decisions, projects, or policies that will have a significant impact; (2) provide such communities with early public notice of such proposed decisions; (3) offer training sessions for officials for understanding and participating in agency planning processes; (4) assign an employee or contractor to work with such a community to develop data and analysis relevant in the preparation of agency plans, decisions, and policies; and (5) assist in conducting a review of plans likely to affect such community.Allows a Federal land manager to enter into a cooperative agreement with gateway communities to provide for coordination between Federal, State, local, and tribal governments in land use inventory, planning, and management activities.Requires the consolidation and coordination of the plans and planning processes of two or more Federal agencies to facilitate an affected gateway community's participation.Directs Federal land agencies to solicit the participation of gateway communities as cooperating agencies under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 when a proposed action is determined to require the preparation of an environmental impact statement.Allows a Federal land manager to make grants to enable an eligible gateway community (population under 10,000) to: (1) participate in Federal land planning or management processes; (2) obtain professional land use or transportation planning assistance necessary as a result of Federal action; (3) address and resolve public infrastructure impacts that are a likely result of the Federal land management decisions and for which sufficient funds are not otherwise available; and (4) provide information and interpretive services.
People & committees
Rep. Radanovich, George [R-CA-19] · R–CA
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.
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 H5931)
Passed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by voice vote.(text: CR H5931)
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H.R. 1014.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H5931-5932)
Mr. Hayworth moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 291.
Committee on Agriculture discharged.
Committee on Agriculture discharged.
House Committee on Agriculture Granted an extension for further consideration ending not later than May 20, 2004.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Resources. H. Rept. 108-508, Part I.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Resources. H. Rept. 108-508, Part I.
Ordered to be Reported in the Nature of a Substitute by Unanimous Consent.
Subcommittee on Fisheries Conservation, Wildlife and Oceans Discharged.
Forwarded by Subcommittee to Full Committee (Amended) by Voice Vote.
Subcommittee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Department Operations, Oversight, Nutrition and Forestry.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Fisheries Conservation, Wildlife and Oceans.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Forests and Forest Health.
Referred to the Subcommittee on National Parks, Recreation and Public Lands.
Referred to the Committee on Resources, and in addition to the Committee on Agriculture, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Referred to the Committee on Resources, and in addition to the Committee on Agriculture, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Referred to the Committee on Resources, and in addition to the Committee on Agriculture, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
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.1014 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.1014 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.1014 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.1014 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.