PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Executive Comment Requested from Interior, Commerce.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Mar 16, 2000
National Fish and Wildlife Foundation Establishment Act Amendments of 2000 - Amends the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation Establishment Act to expand the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation's authority to accept and administer private gifts within the Departments of Commerce and the Interior.(Sec. 3) Increases the Foundation's Board of Directors from 15 to 25 members, including the Director of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service and the Under Secretary of Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere.(Sec. 4) Authorizes the Foundation to have its principal offices in Washington, D.C. (as currently provided), or in the bordering counties of Maryland or Virginia.Sets forth conditions for the Foundation to: (1) acquire and convey property, including agency approval; and (2) invest and deposit Federal funds.Revises provisions relating to agency approval of acquisitions of property and of conveyances and grants. Sets forth limitations relating to the Foundation's: (1) reconveyance of real property; and (2) expenditures for printing services or capital equipment.(Sec. 5) Authorizes appropriations for FY 2001 through 2006 for the Departments of Commerce and the Interior to carry out activities under the Act (conservation or management of fish, wildlife, plants, and other natural resources). Authorizes the Foundation to accept funds from a Federal agency under any other Federal law to further its conservation and management activities. Sets forth matching funds requirements.Prohibits Foundation grants from being used for litigation expenses or for lobbying Congress.Declares that nothing in this Act authorizes the Foundation to perform any function for which authority is provided to the National Park Foundation by specified Federal law.
People & committees
Del. Faleomavaega, Eni F. H. [D-AS-At Large] · D–AS
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Executive Comment Requested from Interior, Commerce.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Fisheries Conservation, Wildlife and Oceans.
Referred to the House Committee on Resources.
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR E342)
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: Aug 20, 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.4010 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.4010 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.4010 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.4010 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.