PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the House Committee on Resources.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · May 2, 2002
Amends the Endangered Species Act of 1973 to prohibit a designation of an area in Hawaii as critical habitat of a species from taking effect before: (1) the Secretary has developed a recovery plan for the species; and (2) the designation, including the scientific data on which it is based, is reviewed by the National Academy of Sciences. Provides that a recovery plan shall not apply to any area in Hawaii before the Academy has reviewed it, including the underlying scientific data.
People & committees
Rep. Mink, Patsy T. [D-HI-2] · D–HI
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the House Committee on Resources.
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR E854)
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: Feb 10, 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.4656 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.4656 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.4656 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.4656 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.