PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Congressional Research Service
Version 36 · Passed House amended · Oct 5, 1994
National Maritime Heritage Act of 1994 - Declares that it shall be the policy of the Federal Government, in partnership with State and local governments and private organizations and individuals, to support and encourage Federal, State, and local governmental and private conservation of historic maritime resources. (Sec. 4) Establishes in the Department of the Interior the National Maritime Heritage Grants Program to foster a greater awareness and appreciation of the role of maritime endeavors in history and culture. Provides for a matching grants-in-aid: (1) to the National Trust for Historic Preservation for subgrants to State and local governments and private nonprofit organizations for Maritime Heritage Education Projects; and (2) to State historic preservation offices, via the National Maritime Initiative of the National Park Service, for Maritime Heritage Preservation Projects. Specifies particular uses of such grants and subgrants, as well as grant eligibility criteria. Authorizes grants for specified interim projects in California, Virginia, and Michigan. (Sec. 5) Establishes a National Maritime Heritage Grants Advisory Committee to review grant and subgrant proposals and make funding recommendations to the Secretary of the Interior. (Sec. 6) Allocates specified percentages of funds attributed to the sale and scrapping of obsolete vessels for: (1) maintenance of the National Defense Reserve Fleet; (2) facility and training ship maintenance for State maritime academies or the United States Merchant Marine Academy; and (3) the grants created by this Act. (Sec. 10) Authorizes the Secretary of Transportation to convey the vessel S/S American Victory, or a vessel of comparable size and class, to the Battle of the Atlantic Historical Society, subject to certain conditions, including use as a Merchant Marine memorial. (Sec. 11) Authorizes the Secretary of Transportation to convey a vessel of the National Defense Reserve Fleet that is scheduled to be scrapped to the City of Warsaw, Kentucky, without consideration but subject to certain conditions, for the promotion of economic development and tourism. (Sec. 12) Authorizes the Secretary of Transportation to convey, without consideration but subject to certain conditions, the vessels L.S.T. Tioga County, R. V. Lynch, and L.S.T. Lorraine County to the nonprofit corporation Assistance International, Inc. for use in emergencies, vocational training, and economic development programs. (Sec. 13) Authorizes the Secretary of Transportation to convey the vessel USS Sphinx (ARL-23) to the Rio Grande Military Museum, subject to certain conditions, for use as a nonprofit military museum.
People & committees
Rep. Andrews, Thomas H. [D-ME-1] · D–ME
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Became Public Law No: 103-451.
Became Public Law No: 103-451.
Signed by President.
Signed by President.
Presented to President.
Presented to President.
Message on Senate action sent to the House.
Passed Senate without amendment by Voice Vote. (consideration: CR S15031-15032)
Passed/agreed to in Senate: Passed Senate without amendment by Voice Vote.(consideration: CR S15031-15032)
Received in the Senate, read twice.
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.
Considered as unfinished business.
At the conclusion of debate, the chair put the question on the motion to suspend the rules. Mr. Walker objected to the vote on the grounds that a quorum was not present. Further proceedings on the motion were postponed until Oct. 5. The point of no quorum was withdrawn.
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H10787-10793)
Mrs. Unsoeld moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended.
Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by Voice Vote.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Executive Comment Received from GSA.
Forwarded by Subcommittee to Full Committee (Amended) by Voice Vote.
Subcommittee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Executive Comment Received from Navy.
Subcommittee Hearings Held.
Executive Comment Requested from Interior, DOT.
Referred to the Subcommittee On Merchant Marine.
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR E2165)
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 25, 2021. 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.3059 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.3059 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.3059 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.3059 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.