PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Mar 31, 2004
Get Outdoors Act of 2004 - Establishes the Get Outdoors Act Fund (GOAF) in the U.S. Treasury.
Sets forth formulas and related requirements for allocating GOAF amounts: (1) to coastal States with approved Coastal State Conservation and Impact Assistance Plans, as required by this Act; (2) to the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) for Federal and State purposes (amends the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965); (3) for entitlement land and migratory bird refuge revenue sharing payments; (4) for Federal and Indian lands enhancement; (5) to the Wildlife Conservation and Restoration Planning program (amends the Pittman-Robertson Wildlife Restoration Act); (6) to develop and implement Imperiled Wildlife and Rare Plant Recovery Agreements, as defined in this Act; (7) to carry out the Urban Park and Recreation Recovery Act of 1978; and (8) for historic preservation purposes (amends the National Historic Preservation Act and the National Maritime Heritage Act of 1994).
Requires congressional approval for use of the Federal portion of LWCF amounts.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Authorizes each State to define priorities and criteria for the selection of projects eligible for grants under this Act if: (1) consistent with this Act; (2) the State provides for public involvement; and (3) the State publishes a State Action Agenda for Community Conservation and Recreation (replacing the current State Plan).
Requires the Secretaries of the Interior and Agriculture to develop a plan for acquisition and disposal of land in Montana to consolidate forest reserves.
People & committees
Rep. Miller, George [D-CA-7] · 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 Energy and Mineral Resources.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Fisheries Conservation, Wildlife and Oceans.
Referred to the Subcommittee on National Parks, Recreation and Public Lands.
Executive Comment Requested from Commerce, Interior, USDA.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Forests and Forest Health.
Referred to the House Committee on 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: Aug 18, 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.4100 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.4100 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.4100 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.4100 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.