PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the House Committee on Natural Resources.
Congressional Research Service
No official summary is available in the imported record yet.
People & committees
Rep. Goldman, Daniel S. [D-NY-10] · D–NY
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the House Committee on Natural Resources.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We also preserved the text version used in the PlainBill explanation below.
Source last updated: Dec 5, 2025. 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.1567 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.1567 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.1567 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.1567 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.
PlainBill explanation
Based on the full Introduced in House · 2025-02-25 text. This explanation has not received human editorial review. This overview describes the proposal’s major provisions; it does not establish what its real-world effects would be.
This proposal would require the Interior Department, through the National Park Service, to study whether a museum and educational center at New York City’s African Burial Ground National Monument would be appropriate and practical. The proposed museum would honor enslaved Africans and explore slavery and African cultural traditions. The bill calls for a study and recommendations; it does not itself establish the museum.
(2) National Monument The term National Monument means the African Burial Ground National Monument in the city of New York, New York. (3) Secretary The term Secretary means the Secretary of the Interior, acting through the Director of the National Park Service.
shall conduct a study to assess the suitability and feasibility of establishing a museum and educational center at the National Monument
(A) to serve as a permanent living memorial and special tribute— (i) to the enslaved who are buried at the African Burial Ground; and (ii) to other Africans who were enslaved in the United States and other parts of the world; (B) to reflect on the significance of the African Burial Ground; (C) to examine the African cultural traditions brought to the United States by the enslaved; (D) to explore in-depth the institution of slavery in the United States and other parts of the world;
The Interior Secretary would conduct the study in consultation with state and local preservation officers, historical societies, tourism offices, and other appropriate organizations and government agencies.
The Secretary, in consultation with State and local historic preservation officers, State and local historical societies, State and local tourism offices, and other appropriate organizations and government agencies, shall conduct a study
The proposed institution would be called the African Burial Ground International Memorial Museum and Educational Center. Its intended functions include permanent and temporary exhibits and space to collect and study artifacts and documents.
to be known as the African Burial Ground International Memorial Museum and Educational Center
(E) to provide a space for— (i) permanent and temporary exhibits; and (ii) the collection and study of artifacts and documents;
The museum concept would encourage collaboration with other museums, historically Black colleges and universities, historical societies, educational institutions, and other appropriate organizations. The listed examples include the National Museum of African American History and Culture and the African Burial Ground Memorial Foundation. Collaboration could cover exhibits and programs, digital technologies, collection care, and training for museum and preservation workers.
(F) to encourage collaboration between the Museum and the National Museum of African American History and Culture, other museums, historically Black colleges and universities, historical societies, educational institutions, and other appropriate entities and organizations, such as the African Burial Ground Memorial Foundation, including collaboration with respect to— (i) the development of cooperative programs and exhibitions, including through digital, electronic, and interactive technologies; (ii) the identification, management, and care of Museum collections; and (iii) the training of Museum and National Park Service professionals and other persons concerned with heritage preservation;
Beyond those collaborations, the museum concept would include an association with the National Museum of African American History and Culture. The Interior Secretary would determine the form of that association in consultation with the Smithsonian Institution’s Board of Regents.
(G) in addition to any collaboration encouraged under subparagraph (F), to be associated with the National Museum of African American History and Culture, in a manner to be determined by the Secretary, in consultation with the Board of Regents of the Smithsonian Institution.
The study would assess whether suitable collections exist for the museum to acquire and house. It would examine their cultural significance, preservation and educational value, connection to museum themes, and distinctiveness compared with collections at other symbolic sites. It would also assess whether they include DNA samples from well-preserved remains that would let researchers trace the African origins of people buried at the African Burial Ground.
The study conducted under paragraph (1) shall include analysis, documentation, and determinations regarding whether— (A) there is an assemblage of collections to be acquired and housed in the Museum that— (i) represent distinctive aspects of African cultural traditions brought to the United States by the enslaved; (ii) are worthy of recognition, conservation, and interpretation; (iii) are important to any identified themes of the Museum; (iv) include DNA samples of well-preserved human remains that would enable researchers to trace home roots in Africa of those individuals buried at the African Burial Ground; and (v) are unlike any other anthropological collection in other symbolic sites;
The study would assess the museum’s educational opportunities, including explaining how the international slave trade dispersed Africans across the world, examining slavery in different regions, and helping people understand and honor history. These are questions for the study, not established results.
(B) the Museum provides outstanding opportunities— (i) to understand how the international slave trade contributed to the African diaspora; (ii) to explore in-depth the institution of slavery, as practiced in other parts of the world and in urban, rural, northern, and southern parts of the United States; and (iii) to help the people of the United States understand the past and honor the history of all people in the United States;
The study would examine whether residents, businesses, state and local governments, and nonprofit organizations are involved in museum planning and support its designation. It would also examine whether they have developed a preliminary financial plan explaining each participant’s role, including the federal government’s role.
(C) residents, business interests, State and local governments, and nonprofit organizations, such as the African Burial Ground Memorial Foundation— (i) are involved in the planning of the Museum; (ii) have developed a conceptual financial plan that outlines the roles of all participants in the Museum, including the Federal Government; and (iii) have demonstrated support for the designation of the Museum;
The study would consider who would be best suited to operate the museum: the Interior Secretary, the head of the General Services Administration, or another potential operator.
(D) the Secretary of the Interior, the Administrator of the General Services Administration, or other potential management entities would be best suited to operate the Museum;
The study would assess public support for locating the museum at 22 Reade Street, described as adjacent to the monument, or at another area within the monument.
(E) the public supports the proposed location for the Museum at— (i) 22 Reade Street, which is adjacent to the National Monument; or (ii) any area within the National Monument other than the area described in clause (i).
The Interior Secretary would have to submit the study report to the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee and the House Natural Resources Committee within three years after funds first become available to carry out the bill. The deadline would run from that funding event, not from the bill’s introduction.
(b) Report Not later than 3 years after the date on which funds are first made available to carry out this Act, the Secretary shall submit to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources of the Senate and the Committee on Natural Resources of the House of Representatives a report
The report would include the study results, collection availability and costs, criteria for evaluating possible museum locations in New York State, and estimated costs of property acquisition, construction, operation, and maintenance. It would also include any conclusions and recommendations from the Interior Secretary.
(4) State The term State means the State of New York.
(1) the results of the study under subsection (a), including a description of— (A) the availability and cost of collections to be acquired and housed in the Museum; (B) criteria for evaluating possible locations for the Museum in the State; and (C) the costs of acquiring property for, constructing, operating, and maintaining the Museum; and (2) any conclusions and recommendations of the Secretary.
The supplied official-actions snapshot, updated December 5, 2025, records that the bill was introduced in the House and referred to the House Committee on Natural Resources on February 25, 2025.
Source snapshot updated 2025-12-05T22:56:04Z. 2025-02-25: Referred to the House Committee on Natural Resources. 2025-02-25: Introduced in House
A closer look
Reviewed version: Introduced in House · 2025-02-25. These findings describe provisions and who may benefit; they are not judgments of waste, corruption, or motive.
This review covers the supplied bill text. “None identified” does not rule out provisions in later versions or accompanying reports and disclosures.
Provisions outside the bill’s main subject, or policy changes attached to appropriations.
None identified in the reviewed text
No unrelated provision was identified in the complete supplied introduced text. This conclusion applies only to that version, not other versions or accompanying materials.
Spending directed to particular recipients or places outside ordinary competitive or formula-based allocation.
None identified in the reviewed text
No congressionally directed spending allocation was identified in the complete supplied introduced text. A location-specific study requirement alone does not establish an earmark. This conclusion is limited to that version and does not establish the contents of accompanying materials.
Narrow exceptions, exemptions, or preferential treatment that warrant a closer look.
None identified in the reviewed text
No materially narrow exemption, carve-out, or preferential treatment was identified in the complete supplied introduced text. The study’s intended subject and illustrative collaboration partners do not alone establish such treatment. This conclusion applies only to that version, not other versions or accompanying materials.
Full text preserved for this analysis. Legislative record snapshot: Dec 5, 2025. How PlainBill uses AI