PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Received in the Senate and read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Jul 21, 1993
National Fish and Wildlife Foundation Improvement Act of 1993 - Amends the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation Establishment Act to include as a purpose of the Foundation the encouragement, acceptance, and administration of private gifts of property for the benefit of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Increases the membership of the Board of Directors of the Foundation and revises certain administrative functions. Authorizes appropriations for FY 1994 through 1998.
People & committees
Rep. Studds, Gerry E. [D-MA-10] · D–MA
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Received in the Senate and read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
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 the Yeas and Nays (2/3 required): 368 - 59 (Roll No. 539).
House roll call 539 · Individual votesPassed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays (2/3 required): 368 - 59 (Roll No. 539).
House roll call 539 · Individual votesConsidered as unfinished business. (consideration: CR H8751)
At the conclusion of debate, the Yeas and Nays were demanded and ordered. Pursuant to the provisions of clause 5, rule I, the chair announced that further proceedings on the motion would be postponed until Nov. 3.
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H8688-8691)
Mr. Studds moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 140.
Reported by the Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries. H. Rept. 103-249.
Reported by the Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries. H. Rept. 103-249.
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.
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.
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.2684 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.2684 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.2684 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.2684 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.