PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Became Public Law No: 103-262.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · May 18, 1993
Extends the authorization of appropriations for the National Historical Publications and Records Commission.
People & committees
Rep. Condit, Gary A. [D-CA-18] · D–CA
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Became Public Law No: 103-262.
Became Public Law No: 103-262.
Signed by President.
Signed by President.
Presented to President.
Presented to President.
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
On motion that the House agree to the Senate amendments Agreed to without objection.
Resolving differences -- House actions: On motion that the House agree to the Senate amendments Agreed to without objection.
Mr. Condit asked unanimous consent that the House agree to the Senate amendments. (consideration: CR H3665-3666)
Message on Senate action sent to the House.
Passed Senate in lieu of S. 314 with an amendment and an amendment to the Title by Voice Vote.
Passed/agreed to in Senate: Passed Senate in lieu of S. 314 with an amendment and an amendment to the Title by Voice Vote.
Senate struck all after the Enacting Clause and substituted the language of S. 314 amended.
Amendment SP 1549 agreed to in Senate by Voice Vote.
Amendment SP 1549 proposed by Senator Ford for Senator Lieberman.
Measure laid before Senate by unanimous consent. (consideration: CR S3282)
Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs discharged by Unanimous Consent.
Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs discharged by Unanimous Consent.
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Governmental Affairs.
Received in the Senate.
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill Agreed to by voice vote.
Passed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill Agreed to by voice vote.
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H6614-6615)
Mr. Condit moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 121.
Reported by the Committee on Government Operations. H. Rept. 103-215.
Reported by the Committee on Government Operations. H. Rept. 103-215.
Ordered to be Reported by Voice Vote.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Forwarded by Subcommittee to Full Committee.
Subcommittee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Subcommittee Hearings Held.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Information, Justice, Transportation and Agriculture.
Referred to the House Committee on Government Operations.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Feb 4, 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.2139 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.2139 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.2139 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.2139 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.