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 · Sep 15, 2014
(This measure has not been amended since it was reported to the House on April 1, 2014. The summary of that version is repeated here.)
Flushing Remonstrance Study Act - Directs the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a special resource study of the John Bowne House in Queens, New York, the Friends Meeting House at 137-17 Northern Boulevard, Queens, and other resources in the vicinity of Flushing related to the history of religious freedom during the era of the 1657 signing of the Flushing Remonstrance (the study area).
Requires the Secretary to: (1) evaluate the national significance of the study area's resources; (2) determine the suitability and feasibility of designating resources within the study area as a unit of the National Park System (NPS); (3) identify properties related to the John Bowne House that could potentially meet criteria for designation as a National Historic Landmark; (4) evaluate the impact of the proposed action on the flow of commerce and commercial activity, job opportunities, and any adverse economic effects that could not be avoided if the proposal is implemented; (5) analyze the effect of the designation of the study area as an NPS unit on existing recreational activities, and on the authorization, construction, operation, maintenance, or improvement of energy production and transmission infrastructure, and the authority of state and local governments to manage those activities; and (6) identify any authorities, including condemnation, that will compel or permit the Secretary to influence or participate in local land use decisions (such as zoning) or place restrictions on non-federal lands if the study area is designated as an NPS unit.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Requires the owners of private property in or adjacent to the study area to be notified of such study's commencement and scope.
People & committees
Rep. Meng, Grace [D-NY-6] · D–NY
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 H7494)
Passed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by voice vote.(text: CR H7494)
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H.R. 3222.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H7494-7495)
Mr. Hastings (WA) moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 294.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Natural Resources. H. Rept. 113-395.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Natural Resources. H. Rept. 113-395.
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.
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.3222 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.3222 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.3222 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.3222 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.