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. Murphy, Gregory F. [R-NC-3] · R–NC
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.2217 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.2217 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.2217 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.2217 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 · 2025-03-18 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 name specific creeks and require references to them in federal laws, maps, and other records to be understood as referring to the designated names.
(a) Noah Styron Creek The creek located at latitude 34°59’49.33” N, longitude 76°8’42.11” W, shall be known and designated as Noah Styron Creek.
(b) Hunter Parks Creek The creek located at latitude 34°57’52.85” N, longitude 76°11’11.25” W, shall be known and designated as Hunter Parks Creek.
(g) References Any reference in any law, regulation, document, record, map, or other paper of the United States to a creek described in this section shall be considered a reference to that creek as it is designated under this section.
The bill would be called the Down East Remembrance Act.
1. Short title This Act may be cited as the Down East Remembrance Act.
The creek at latitude 34°59’49.33” N, longitude 76°8’42.11” W would be designated Noah Styron Creek.
(a) Noah Styron Creek The creek located at latitude 34°59’49.33” N, longitude 76°8’42.11” W, shall be known and designated as Noah Styron Creek.
The creek at latitude 34°57’52.85” N, longitude 76°11’11.25” W would be designated Hunter Parks Creek.
(b) Hunter Parks Creek The creek located at latitude 34°57’52.85” N, longitude 76°11’11.25” W, shall be known and designated as Hunter Parks Creek.
The creek at latitude 34°57’46.30” N, longitude 76°11’18.18” W would be designated Kole McInnis Creek.
(c) Kole McInnis Creek The creek located at latitude 34°57’46.30” N, longitude 76°11’18.18” W, shall be known and designated as Kole McInnis Creek.
The creek at latitude 34°57’38.08” N, longitude 76°11’31.18” W would be designated Stephanie Fulcher Creek.
(d) Stephanie Fulcher Creek The creek located at latitude 34°57’38.08” N, longitude 76°11’31.18” W, shall be known and designated as Stephanie Fulcher Creek.
The creek at latitude 34°52’43.45” N, longitude 76°17’41.49” W would be designated Jacob Taylor Creek.
(e) Jacob Taylor Creek The creek located at latitude 34°52’43.45” N, longitude 76°17’41.49” W, shall be known and designated as Jacob Taylor Creek.
The creek at latitude 34°52’28.26” N, longitude 76°17’43.20” W would be designated Daily Shepherd Creek.
(f) Daily Shepherd Creek The creek located at latitude 34°52’28.26” N, longitude 76°17’43.20” W, shall be known and designated as Daily Shepherd Creek.
References to these creeks in federal laws, regulations, documents, records, maps, or other papers would be treated as references to their designated names.
(g) References Any reference in any law, regulation, document, record, map, or other paper of the United States to a creek described in this section shall be considered a reference to that creek as it is designated under this section.
The supplied actions snapshot, updated December 5, 2025, records introduction in the House and referral to the House Committee on Natural Resources on March 18, 2025.
Source snapshot updated 2025-12-05T22:04:32Z. 2025-03-18: Referred to the House Committee on Natural Resources. 2025-03-18: Introduced in House
A closer look
Reviewed version: Introduced in House · 2025-03-18. 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 is limited to that version and does not establish absence in 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 was identified in the complete supplied introduced text. This conclusion is limited to that version; accompanying earmark disclosures and committee materials were not supplied.
Narrow exceptions, exemptions, or preferential treatment that warrant a closer look.
None identified in the reviewed text
No material special exemption, carve-out, or preferential treatment was identified in the complete supplied introduced text. This conclusion is limited to that version and does not establish absence in other versions or accompanying materials.
Full text preserved for this analysis. Legislative record snapshot: Dec 5, 2025. How PlainBill uses AI