PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the House Committee on Natural Resources.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Sep 30, 2020
Reconciliation in Place Names Act
This bill directs the Department of the Interior to establish the Advisory Committee on Reconciliation in Place Names to advise the Board on Geographic Names on renaming geographic features with offensive place names. Generally, an offensive place name is a place name or land unit that recognizes an individual who held racially repugnant views, contains a racial or sexist slur, or is derogatory or otherwise offensive.
The board shall accept or reject a recommendation by the committee to rename a geographic feature with an offensive place name within three years of the date on which it receives the recommendation.
The board shall approve a recommendation of the committee unless it determines that (1) there is a compelling reason and substantial public interest in rejecting the recommendation; or (2) approving the recommendation would violate federal law.
The board shall rename a geographic feature if the board accepts a recommendation by the committee to rename it.
People & committees
Rep. Haaland, Debra A. [D-NM-1] · D–NM
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 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: Jan 3, 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.8455 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.8455 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.8455 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.8455 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.