PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.By Senator Johnston from Committee on Energy and Natural Resources filed written report. Report No. 103-428.
Congressional Research Service
Version 36 · Passed House amended · Nov 15, 1993
Deems lands designated as the Delta Point Lookout Tract in California as public lands for a 36-month period solely for purposes of exchange by the Secretary of the Interior for lands designated as the OHV Area Tract pursuant to the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976. Amends the Everglades National Park Protection and Expansion Act of 1989 to authorize the Secretary to use funds appropriated pursuant to such Act, including funds appropriated for project modifications by the Army Corps of Engineers, to provide Federal assistance to the State of Florida for acquisition of lands in or adjacent to, or affecting the restoration of natural water flows to, the Everglades National Park or Florida Bay which are located east of the Park and known as the Frog Pond, Rocky Glades Agricultural Area, and the Eight-and-One-Half Square-Mile Area. Limits Federal assistance to not more than 25 percent of the total cost of such acquisition.
People & committees
Rep. Matsui, Robert T. [D-CA-5] · D–CA
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
By Senator Johnston from Committee on Energy and Natural Resources filed written report. Report No. 103-428.
By Senator Johnston from Committee on Energy and Natural Resources filed written report. Report No. 103-428.
Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 656.
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Reported to Senate by Senator Johnston without amendment. Without written report.
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Reported to Senate by Senator Johnston without amendment. Without written report.
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Ordered to be reported without amendment favorably.
Subcommittee on Public Lands, National Parks. Hearings held.
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources requested executive comment from Department of Agriculture, Department of the Interior, and Office of Management and Budget.
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
Received in the Senate.
The title of the measure was amended. Agreed to without objection.
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by voice vote.
Passed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by voice vote.
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate.
Considered under suspension of the rules.
Mr. Vento moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 196.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Natural Resources. H. Rept. 103-362.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Natural Resources. H. Rept. 103-362.
Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by Voice Vote.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Forwarded by Subcommittee to Full Committee by Voice Vote.
Subcommittee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Subcommittee Hearings Held.
Executive Comment Requested from Interior.
Referred to the Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public Lands.
Referred to the House Committee on Natural Resources.
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR E1749-1750)
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: Sep 8, 2026. 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.2620 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.2620 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.2620 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.2620 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.