PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 441.
Congressional Research Service
Version 79 · Reported to House without amendment · Sep 15, 2014
(This measure has not been amended since it was introduced. The summary of that version is repeated here.)
Adds the preservation of historical recreational activities as a purpose of the Ozark National Scenic Riverways in Missouri.
Prohibits the Secretary of the Interior from designating management zones in the Riverways, including but not limited to, "Developed," "Resource-based Recreation," "Natural," "Primitive," "Mixed-use River," "Seasonal Mixed-Use River," and "Nonmotorized River" zones.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Requires the Secretary to manage the Riverways in a manner that allows the public to engage in recreational horseback riding in areas of the park traditionally used for that purpose.
Requires the Secretary to manage the Riverways in a manner that: (1) allows maximum public access points to the riverways within the park for traditional recreational activities such as fishing, canoeing, kayaking, boating, swimming, gigging, and floating; (2) does not require a permit for a river baptism; (3) does not include the Riverways as part of a "National Blueway," or other similar program; and (4) does not manage lands within the Riverways as though they were specifically designated as wilderness without such a designation.
Directs the Secretary to manage the Riverways to allow the use of motorized vessels in a manner that is not more restrictive than the use restrictions in effect on November 21, 2013. Allows use of motorized vessels in a manner less restrictive than those restrictions.
Denies the eligibility of any area within the Riverways for congressional wilderness designation under the Wilderness Act of 1964.
Directs the Secretary to manage the Riverways in a manner that is not more restrictive than the provisions of the general management plan for it in effect on November 21, 2013. Allows management of the Riverways in a manner less restrictive than the plan.
People & committees
Rep. Smith, Jason [R-MO-8] · R–MO
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 441.
Reported by the Committee on Natural Resources. H. Rept. 113-594.
Reported by the Committee on Natural Resources. H. Rept. 113-594.
Ordered to be Reported by the Yeas and Nays: 25 - 15.
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: Apr 7, 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.4182 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.4182 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.4182 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.4182 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.