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 · Aug 6, 1993
Authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to construct and operate the Walter B. Jones Center for the Sounds at the Pocosin Lakes National Wildlife Refuge in Tyrrell County, North Carolina, to: (1) provide public opportunities, facilities, and resources to study the natural history and natural resources of northeastern North Carolina; (2) offer a variety of environmental educational programs and interpretive exhibits; (3) foster an awareness and understanding of the interactions among wildlife, estuarine and wetland ecosystems, and human activities; and (4) provide office space and facilities for refuge administration, research, education, and related activities. Directs the Secretary to ensure that the design, size, and location of a facility constructed under this Act are consistent with the cultural and natural history of the area with which the facility will be concerned. Authorizes the Secretary to accept contributions of funds from non-Federal sources to pay the costs of operating and maintaining the facility authorized under this Act. Directs the Secretary to take appropriate steps to obtain such contributions. Sets forth reporting requirements.
People & committees
Rep. Lancaster, H. Martin [D-NC-3] · D–NC
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.
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill Agreed to by recorded vote (2/3 required): 425 - 0 (Roll no. 445).
House roll call 445 · Individual votesPassed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill Agreed to by recorded vote (2/3 required): 425 - 0 (Roll no. 445).
House roll call 445 · Individual votesConsidered as unfinished business. (consideration: CR H6832-6833)
At the conclusion of debate, the chair put the question on the motion to suspend the rules. Mr. Solomon objected to the vote on the grounds that a quorum was not present. Further proceedings on the motion were postponed. The point of no quorum was withdrawn.
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H6810-6812)
Mr. Studds moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill.
Subcommittee on Environment and Natural Resources Discharged.
Ordered to be Reported by Voice Vote.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
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: 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.2961 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.2961 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.2961 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.2961 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.