To repeal the per-State limitation applicable to grants made by the National Endowment for the Arts from funds made available for fiscal year 2005.

Referred to the Subcommittee on Select Education.

Congressional Research Service

Official summary

Version 00 · Introduced in House · Feb 2, 2005

Amends general provisions (title III) of the Department of the Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2005 (which is division E of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2005, Public Law 108-447) to repeal a limitation on the portion of National Endowment for the Arts grant funds which may be made available to any single State.

Read the summary on Congress.gov

PlainBill analysis is coming later. This page presents official source data. We have not yet published a PlainBill explanation for this bill.

People & committees

Who introduced it

Rep. Nadler, Jerrold [D-NY-8] · D–NY

Committees

Education and Workforce Committee

0 cosponsorship records, including any withdrawals

Legislative record

Actions

A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.

Mar 24, 2005
Referred to the Subcommittee on Select Education.
Feb 2, 2005
Referred to the House Committee on Education and the Workforce.
Feb 2, 2005
Introduced in House
Feb 2, 2005
Introduced in House

Primary sources

Bill text & related measures

Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.

Introduced in House · Feb 2, 2005 Formatted Text PDF Formatted XML

Related bills identified by Congress.gov

No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.

Source last updated: Jul 21, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.

AI Conversation Starters

Explore the bill from different angles

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.

Neutral evidence review

Objective

Analyze H.R.573 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.

View full prompt & sources

Discuss H.R.573, 109th Congress: To repeal the per-State limitation applicable to grants made by the National Endowment for the Arts from funds made available for fiscal year 2005.

Official record: https://www.congress.gov/bill/109th-congress/house-bill/573

Text version to examine: Introduced in House · 2005-02-02.

Official full text: https://www.congress.gov/109/bills/hr573/BILLS-109hr573ih.htm

Imported record last updated by the source: 2025-07-21T19:45:09Z. Verify current status and distinguish any later version from the version above.

Read the official text before answering. If you cannot access it, say so and ask me to provide it; do not assume a link means you have read the document. Distinguish proposals from enacted law, cite sources, and separate facts, interpretation, and uncertain predictions. Include counterarguments even when using a particular perspective.

Analyze H.R.573 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.

Fairness and public impact

Progressive lens

Examine H.R.573 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.

View full prompt & sources

Discuss H.R.573, 109th Congress: To repeal the per-State limitation applicable to grants made by the National Endowment for the Arts from funds made available for fiscal year 2005.

Official record: https://www.congress.gov/bill/109th-congress/house-bill/573

Text version to examine: Introduced in House · 2005-02-02.

Official full text: https://www.congress.gov/109/bills/hr573/BILLS-109hr573ih.htm

Imported record last updated by the source: 2025-07-21T19:45:09Z. Verify current status and distinguish any later version from the version above.

Read the official text before answering. If you cannot access it, say so and ask me to provide it; do not assume a link means you have read the document. Distinguish proposals from enacted law, cite sources, and separate facts, interpretation, and uncertain predictions. Include counterarguments even when using a particular perspective.

Examine H.R.573 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.

Institutions and government scope

Conservative lens

Examine H.R.573 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.

View full prompt & sources

Discuss H.R.573, 109th Congress: To repeal the per-State limitation applicable to grants made by the National Endowment for the Arts from funds made available for fiscal year 2005.

Official record: https://www.congress.gov/bill/109th-congress/house-bill/573

Text version to examine: Introduced in House · 2005-02-02.

Official full text: https://www.congress.gov/109/bills/hr573/BILLS-109hr573ih.htm

Imported record last updated by the source: 2025-07-21T19:45:09Z. Verify current status and distinguish any later version from the version above.

Read the official text before answering. If you cannot access it, say so and ask me to provide it; do not assume a link means you have read the document. Distinguish proposals from enacted law, cite sources, and separate facts, interpretation, and uncertain predictions. Include counterarguments even when using a particular perspective.

Examine H.R.573 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.

Individual rights and government power

Liberty lens

Examine H.R.573 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.

View full prompt & sources

Discuss H.R.573, 109th Congress: To repeal the per-State limitation applicable to grants made by the National Endowment for the Arts from funds made available for fiscal year 2005.

Official record: https://www.congress.gov/bill/109th-congress/house-bill/573

Text version to examine: Introduced in House · 2005-02-02.

Official full text: https://www.congress.gov/109/bills/hr573/BILLS-109hr573ih.htm

Imported record last updated by the source: 2025-07-21T19:45:09Z. Verify current status and distinguish any later version from the version above.

Read the official text before answering. If you cannot access it, say so and ask me to provide it; do not assume a link means you have read the document. Distinguish proposals from enacted law, cite sources, and separate facts, interpretation, and uncertain predictions. Include counterarguments even when using a particular perspective.

Examine H.R.573 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.