PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Subcommittee on Parks, Preservation and Recreation. Hearings held.
Congressional Research Service
Version 36 · Passed House amended · May 19, 1998
Amends the National Historic Preservation Act to authorize (current law requires) the Secretary of the Interior to undertake a review of the nomination of a property for inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places as a national historic landmark when an objection to such inclusion has been made. Authorizes the Secretary to administer grants (current law requires the Secretary to administer a program of matching grants-in-aid) to the National Trust for Historic Preservation in the United States. Requires a State or Indian tribe to be solely responsible for determining which professional employees are necessary to carry out its duties relating to the administration of an historic preservation program. Limits Federal properties under the jurisdiction of the Architect of the Capitol that are exempt from requirements of the National Historic Preservation Act to those properties depicted on a specified map to be kept on file in the office of the Secretary. Extends through FY 2004 funding for the Historic Preservation Fund. Requires Federal agencies: (1) prior to procuring buildings for carrying out agency responsibilities, to use historic properties available to the agency to the maximum extent feasible, especially in central business areas; and (2) when locating Federal facilities, to give first consideration to historic properties in historic districts, then to developed or undeveloped sites within such districts, and finally to historic properties outside of such districts. Requires any rehabilitation or construction undertaken pursuant to such Act to be architecturally compatible with the character of the surrounding historic district or properties. Extends through FY 2004 the budget authority for the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation.
People & committees
Rep. Hefley, Joel [R-CO-5] · R–CO
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Subcommittee on Parks, Preservation and Recreation. Hearings held.
Referred to Subcommittee on Parks, Preservation and Recreation.
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.
Passed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by voice vote.
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H3416-3419)
Mr. Hansen moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 278.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Resources. H. Rept. 105-484.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Resources. H. Rept. 105-484.
Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by Voice Vote.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Forwarded by Subcommittee to Full Committee (Amended) by Voice Vote.
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.
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.1522 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.1522 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.1522 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.1522 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.