PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public Lands.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Jul 18, 2012
New Bedford Whaling National Historical Park Resources Assistance Act- Amends the Omnibus Parks and Public Lands Management Act of 1996 to: (1) authorize the Secretary of the Interior to assist in the interpretation and preservation of the Lewis Temple House, the Nathan and Polly Johnson House, and the Baker-Robinson Whale Oil Refinery associated with the New Bedford Whaling National Historical Park in Massachusetts; and (2) require each dollar of federal funds used for funding cooperative agreements for the preservation of such park to be matched dollar for dollar with funds contributed by non-federal sources. Repeals provisions prohibiting more than specified amounts from being: (1) appropriated for construction, restoration, and rehabilitation of visitor and interpretive facilities, and directional and visitor orientation signage; or (2) used for interpretive and education programs for the National Historic Landmark Schooner Ernestina.
People & committees
Rep. Frank, Barney [D-MA-4] · D–MA
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
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.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Aug 14, 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.6145 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.6145 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.6145 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.6145 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.