PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Committee on Energy and Natural Resources Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests. Hearings held.
Congressional Research Service
Version 36 · Passed House amended · Jul 13, 2010
San Antonio Missions National Historical Park Boundary Expansion Act of 2010 - Directs the Secretary of the Interior to study lands within Bexar and Wilson Counties, Texas, to identify lands that would be suitable for inclusion in the San Antonio Missions National Historical Park. Requires the study to examine the natural, cultural, recreational, and scenic values and characteristics of lands within such counties.
Permits the assignment of Park employees to provide interpretive services, including visitor information and education, at facilities outside the Park boundary.
Modifies the Park's boundary to include approximately 151 acres of additional land, as identified on the map entitled "San Antonio Missions National Historical Park Proposed Boundary Addition 2009," dated November 2009.
Prohibits the Secretary from using condemnation authority for the acquisition of lands or interests under this Act.
People & committees
Rep. Rodriguez, Ciro D. [D-TX-23] · D–TX
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests. Hearings held.
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources Subcommittee on National Parks. Hearings held.
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
Received in the Senate.
The title of the measure was amended. Agreed to without objection.
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): 264 - 114 (Roll no. 435). (text: CR H5511)
House roll call 435 · 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): 264 - 114 (Roll no. 435).(text: CR H5511)
House roll call 435 · Individual votesConsidered as unfinished business. (consideration: CR H5518-5519)
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. 4438.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H5511-5512)
Ms. Bordallo moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 286.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Natural Resources. H. Rept. 111-501.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Natural Resources. H. Rept. 111-501.
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.4438 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.4438 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.4438 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.4438 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.