PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Indefinitely postponed by Senate by Unanimous Consent. (consideration: CR S5530)
Congressional Research Service
Version 80 · Reported to Senate without amendment · Sep 17, 2007
(This measure has not been amended since it was passed by the House on May 7, 2007. The summary of that version is repeated here.)
Columbia-Pacific National Heritage Area Study Act - Directs the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a study to determine the feasibility of designating the coastal areas of Clatsop County, Oregon, and Pacific County, Washington (also known as the North Beach Peninsula) and areas relating to Native American history, local history, Euro-American settlement culture, and related economic activities of the Columbia River eastward in Clatsop County and Pacific, Columbia, and Wahkiakum Counties, Washington, as the "Columbia-Pacific National Heritage Area."
Requires the study to include analysis, documentation, and determinations on whether the study area: (1) has an assemblage of natural, historic, and cultural resources that together represent distinctive aspects of American heritage worthy of recognition, conservation, interpretation, and continuing use, and are best managed through partnerships among public and private entities and by combining diverse and sometimes noncontiguous resources and active communities; and (2) provides outstanding recreational and educational opportunities.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Instructs the Secretary, in conducting the study, to analyze the potential impact that designation of the area as a national heritage area is likely to have on land within the proposed area or bordering such area that is privately owned.
Requires the Secretary to submit to specified congressional committees a report describing the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Secretary with respect to such study.
People & committees
Rep. Baird, Brian [D-WA-3] · D–WA
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Indefinitely postponed by Senate by Unanimous Consent. (consideration: CR S5530)
Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 362.
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Reported by Senator Bingaman without amendment. With written report No. 110-164.
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Reported by Senator Bingaman without amendment. With written report No. 110-164.
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Ordered to be reported without amendment favorably.
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): 294 - 80 (Roll no. 302). (text: CR H4499)
House roll call 302 · 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): 294 - 80 (Roll no. 302).(text: CR H4499)
House roll call 302 · Individual votesConsidered as unfinished business. (consideration: CR H4526-4527)
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. 407.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H4499-4502)
Mr. Grijalva moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended.
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.407 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.407 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.407 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.407 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.