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 17 · Reported to House with amendment(s) · Mar 11, 2010
Hudson River Valley Special Resource Study Act - Directs the Secretary of the Interior to complete a special resource study of the Hudson River Valley in the state of New York to evaluate: (1) the national significance of the part of the Hudson River that flows from Rodgers Island at Fort Edward to the southern-most boundary of Westchester County, New York, including any relevant sites and landscapes within counties in New York that abut that part of the River (the study area); and (2) the suitability and feasibility of designating the study area as a unit of the National Park System (NPS).
Instructs the Secretary, in conducting the study, to: (1) determine the effect of designation of the study area as a unit of the System on specified existing commercial and recreational activities and the effect on the authority of state and local governments to manage these activities; (2) identify any authorities that will compel or permit the Secretary to influence local land use decisions or place restrictions on non-federal land if the study area is designated as a System unit; and (3) closely examine park unit models that encompass large areas of non-federal lands within their designated boundaries, foster public and private collaborative arrangements for achieving NPS objectives, and protect and respect private landowners' rights.
Requires the Secretary to submit a report to Congress on the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of such study.
People & committees
Rep. Hinchey, Maurice D. [D-NY-22] · 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 the Yeas and Nays: (2/3 required): 293 - 115 (Roll no. 143). (text: CR 3/18/2010 H1616)
House roll call 143 · Individual votesPassed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: (2/3 required): 293 - 115 (Roll no. 143).(text: CR 3/18/2010 H1616)
House roll call 143 · Individual votesConsidered as unfinished business. (consideration: CR H1686-1687)
At the conclusion of debate, the Yeas and Nays were demanded and ordered. Pursuant to the provisions of clause 8, rule XX, the Chair announced that further proceedings on the motion would be postponed.
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H.R. 4003.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H1616-1617)
Ms. Bordallo moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 252.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Natural Resources. H. Rept. 111-436.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Natural Resources. H. Rept. 111-436.
Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by Voice Vote.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public Lands Discharged.
Subcommittee Hearings Held.
Referred to the Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public Lands.
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.4003 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.4003 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.4003 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.4003 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.