PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests, and Public Lands.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Jun 23, 2021
This bill extends by one year the deadline for completion of proposed management plans for
the Appalachian Forest National Heritage Area in West Virginia and Maryland,
the Maritime Washington National Heritage Area in Washington,
the Mountains to Sound Greenway National Heritage Area in Washington,
the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta National Heritage Area in California,
the Santa Cruz Valley National Heritage Area in Arizona, and
the Susquehanna National Heritage Area in Pennsylvania.
People & committees
Rep. Garamendi, John [D-CA-3] · D–CA
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests, and Public Lands.
Referred to the House Committee on Natural Resources.
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR E683)
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Jan 3, 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.4087 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.4087 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.4087 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.4087 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.