PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Executive Comment Requested from Interior.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Mar 17, 1993
Amends the Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956 to exempt from a prohibition on airborne hunting persons authorized by, or operating under permits of, States or the Federal Government to protect a native species that is listed as endangered or threatened under the Endangered Species Act (currently, to protect wildlife). Requires States proposing to authorize persons to perform otherwise prohibited airborne hunting acts to report to the Secretary of the Interior if the acts: (1) will be performed for purposes of administering or protecting wildlife that is listed as an endangered or threatened species; or (2) affect lands or other resources administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) or the National Park Service. Directs the Secretary to report to specified congressional committees on whether such proposed acts: (1) may be authorized by the State; or (2) affect BLM or Park Service lands or resources.
People & committees
Rep. DeFazio, Peter A. [D-OR-4] · D–OR
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Executive Comment Requested from Interior.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Environment and Natural Resources.
Referred to the House Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries.
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 2, 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.1391 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.1391 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.1391 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.1391 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.