PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 477.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Apr 20, 1999
National Monument NEPA Compliance Act - Amends the Antiquities Act of 1906 to treat all national monument declarations as major Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment, for purposes of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. Requires that: (1) environmental impact statements be prepared for such monuments; (2) time be allotted for public review and comment on the statements; and (3) if the President directs, for a maximum 24-month period, emergency withdrawal of lands to protect resources on them during deliberations on a proposal to declare them a national monument.
People & committees
Rep. Hansen, James V. [R-UT-1] · R–UT
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. 477.
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Reported to Senate by Senator Murkowski without amendment. With written report No. 106-250. Minority views filed.
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Reported to Senate by Senator Murkowski without amendment. With written report No. 106-250. Minority views filed.
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Ordered to be reported without amendment favorably.
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 passage Passed by the Yeas and Nays: 408 - 2 (Roll no. 444).
House roll call 444 · Individual votesPassed/agreed to in House: On passage Passed by the Yeas and Nays: 408 - 2 (Roll no. 444).
House roll call 444 · Individual votesConsidered as unfinished business.
POSTPONED PROCEEDINGS - At the conclusion of debate the Chair put the question on final passage on H.R. 1487 by voice vote and announced that the ayes had prevailed. Mr. Hansen objected to the voice vote pending the absence of a quorum. Further proceedings on the bill were postponed until later in the legislative day and the point of no quorum was considered as withdrawn.
The House adopted the amendment in the nature of a substitute as agreed to by the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union.
The previous question was ordered pursuant to the rule.
The House rose from the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union to report H.R. 1487.
DEBATE - The Committee is debating the amendment offered by Mr. Vento.
GENERAL DEBATE - The Committee of the Whole proceeded with one hour of general debate on H.R. 1487.
The Speaker designated the Honorable Dan Miller to act as Chairman of the Committee.
House resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union pursuant to H. Res. 296 and Rule XXIII.
Rule provides for consideration of H.R. 1487 with 1 hour of general debate. Previous question shall be considered as ordered without intervening motions except motion to recommit with or without instructions. Bill is open to amendments. The rule makes in order the Committee on Resources amendment in the nature of a substitute as an original bill for purpose of amendment.
Considered under the provisions of rule H. Res. 296. (consideration: CR H8635-8645, H8657)
Rule H. Res. 296 passed House.
Rules Committee Resolution H. Res. 296 Reported to House. Rule provides for consideration of H.R. 1487 with 1 hour of general debate. Previous question shall be considered as ordered without intervening motions except motion to recommit with or without instructions. Bill is open to amendments. The rule makes in order the Committee on Resources amendment in the nature of a substitute as an original bill for purpose of amendment.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 146.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Resources. H. Rept. 106-252.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Resources. H. Rept. 106-252.
Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by Voice Vote.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Forwarded by Subcommittee to Full Committee (Amended) by the Yeas and Nays: 10 - 8.
Subcommittee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Subcommittee Hearings Held.
Executive Comment Requested from Interior.
Referred to the Subcommittee on National Parks and Public Lands.
Referred to the House Committee on Resources.
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR E712)
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.1487 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.1487 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.1487 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.1487 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.