PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Committee on Energy and Natural Resources received executive comment from Department of the Interior.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · Feb 10, 1995
Amends the Dayton Aviation Heritage Preservation Act of 1992 to require the Secretary of the Interior to consider recommendations submitted for members on the Dayton Aviation Heritage Commission before making appointments to such Commission. (Current law requires the Secretary to make appointments from recommendations submitted by specified officials or entities.)
People & committees
Sen. Glenn, John H., Jr. [D-OH] · D–OH
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources received executive comment from Department of the Interior.
Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 62.
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Reported to Senate by Senator Murkowski without amendment. With written report No. 104-39.
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Reported to Senate by Senator Murkowski without amendment. With written report No. 104-39.
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Ordered to be reported without amendment favorably.
Referred to Subcommittee on Parks, Preservation and Recreation.
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR S2528)
Introduced in Senate
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 S.392 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 S.392 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 S.392 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 S.392 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.