To direct the Secretary of Transportation to transfer administrative jurisdiction over certain lands for inclusion in the Cape Hatteras National Seashore Recreational Area.
Received in the Senate and read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce.
Congressional Research Service
Official summary
Version 00 · Introduced in House · May 5, 1994
Directs the Secretary of Transportation to transfer administrative jurisdiction over Federal property known as Ocracoke Light Station to the Secretary of the Interior, subject to such reservations, terms, and conditions as may be necessary for Coast Guard purposes. Requires the transferred property to be included in and administered as part of the Cape Hatteras National Seashore Recreation Area, North Carolina.
Received in the Senate and read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce.
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. (consideration: CR H5487-5488)
Mr. Vento moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Natural Resources. H. Rept. 103-593, Part I.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Natural Resources. H. Rept. 103-593, Part I.
Text of Measure Incorporated into H.R.4422.
Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by Voice Vote.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Subcommittee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held and Forwarded to Full Committee by the Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public Lands Prior to Referral by Voice Vote.
Hearings Held by the Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public Lands Prior to Referral.
Executive Comment Requested from DOT.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Coast Guard and Navigation.
Late Referral to the Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public Lands (Jul 11,94).
Referred to the House Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries.
Referred to the House Committee on Natural Resources.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Bill text & related measures
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
Explore the bill from different angles
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.
Neutral evidence review
Objective
Analyze H.R.4364 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.
View full prompt & sources
Fairness and public impact
Progressive lens
Examine H.R.4364 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.
View full prompt & sources
Institutions and government scope
Conservative lens
Examine H.R.4364 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.
View full prompt & sources
Individual rights and government power
Liberty lens
Examine H.R.4364 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.