PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 400.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Apr 30, 2002
Gateway Communities Cooperation Act of 2002 - Requires the National Park Service, United States Forest Service, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the Bureau of Land Management to: (1) provide for public involvement by government officials of local gateway communities (communities adjacent to or near public lands) in the development of land use plans, programs, regulations, and decisions, transportation plans, general management plans, and any other public land plans, decisions, or policies that will have a significant impact; (2) provide such communities with early public notice of such proposed decisions; (3) offer training sessions for officials for understanding and participating in agency planning processes; (4) assign an employee or contractor to work with such a community to develop data and analysis relevant in the preparation of agency plans, decisions, and policies; and (5) assist in conducting a review of plans likely to affect such community.Allows a Federal land manager to enter into a cooperative agreement with gateway communities to provide for coordination between Federal, State, local, and tribal governments in land use inventory, planning, and management activities.Requires the consolidation and coordination of the plans and planning processes of two or more Federal agencies to facilitate an affected gateway community's participation.Provides for Federal land managers to certify gateway communities as cooperating agencies in order to comply with National Environmental Policy Act requirements.Allows such a manager to make grants to enable an eligible gateway community (population under 10,000) to: (1) participate in Federal land planning or management processes; (2) obtain professional land use or transportation planning assistance necessary a result of Federal action; (3) address and resolve public infrastructure impacts that are a likely result of the Federal land management decisions and for which sufficient funds are not otherwise available; and (4) provide information and interpretive services.
People & committees
Rep. Radanovich, George [R-CA-19] · R–CA
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. 400.
Committee on Agriculture discharged.
Committee on Agriculture discharged.
House Committee on Agriculture Granted an extension for further consideration ending not later than Sept. 11, 2002.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Resources. H. Rept. 107-653, Part I.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Resources. H. Rept. 107-653, Part I.
Subcommittee on Forests and Forest Health Discharged.
Subcommittee on Fisheries Conservation, Wildlife and Oceans Discharged.
Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by Voice Vote.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Forwarded by Subcommittee to Full Committee by Voice Vote.
Subcommittee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Executive Comment Received from Interior.
Subcommittee Hearings Held.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Department Operations, Oversight, Nutrition and Forestry.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Forests and Forest Health.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Fisheries Conservation, Wildlife and Oceans.
Referred to the Subcommittee on National Parks, Recreation and Public Lands.
Referred to the Committee on Resources, and in addition to the Committee on Agriculture, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Referred to the Committee on Resources, and in addition to the Committee on Agriculture, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Referred to the Committee on Resources, and in addition to the Committee on Agriculture, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
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.4622 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.4622 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.4622 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.4622 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.