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 36 · Passed House amended · Jul 22, 2014
(This measure has not been amended since it was reported to the House on May 6, 2014. The summary of that version is repeated here.)
Hinchliffe Stadium Heritage Act - Amends the Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009 to include within the Paterson Great Falls National Historical Park, New Jersey, approximately six acres of land containing Hinchliffe Stadium. Prohibits the Secretary of the Interior from acquiring fee title to the Stadium, but authorizes the Secretary to acquire a preservation easement if doing so will facilitate resource protection of the Stadium.
Prohibits the Secretary, in administering such land, from: (1) including non-federal property within the six acres as part of the Park without the written consent of the owner, (2) acquiring by condemnation any land or interests in land within the six acres, or (3) construing this Act to create buffer zones outside the boundaries of the Park.
People & committees
Rep. Pascrell, Bill, Jr. [D-NJ-9] · D–NJ
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 H6615-6616)
Passed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by voice vote.(text: CR H6615-6616)
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H.R. 2430.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H6615-6619)
Mr. Daines moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 326.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Natural Resources. H. Rept. 113-438.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Natural Resources. H. Rept. 113-438.
Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by Unanimous Consent.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Subcommittee on Public Lands and Environmental Regulation Discharged.
Subcommittee Hearings Held.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Public Lands and Environmental Regulation.
Referred to the House Committee on Natural Resources.
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.2430 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.2430 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.2430 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.2430 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.