PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Became Public Law No: 103-203.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · Mar 26, 1993
Amends the Clayton Act to require the Federal Trade Commission to publish certain adjusted figures, pertaining to interlocking directorates and officers, not later than January 31 (currently, October 30) of each year.
People & committees
Sen. Metzenbaum, Howard M. [D-OH] · D–OH
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Became Public Law No: 103-203.
Became Public Law No: 103-203.
Signed by President.
Signed by President.
Presented to President.
Presented to President.
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
On passage Passed without objection.
Passed/agreed to in House: On passage Passed without objection.
Mr. Brooks asked unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's table and consider.
Considered by unanimous consent. (consideration: CR 11/22/1993 H10975)
Received in the House.
Passed Senate without amendment by Voice Vote. (consideration: CR S16981)
Passed/agreed to in Senate: Passed Senate without amendment by Voice Vote.(consideration: CR S16981)
Message on Senate action sent to the House.
Introduced in the Senate and read twice and held at the desk by unanimous consent.
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR S3862)
Introduced in Senate
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: Jan 19, 2023. 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.664 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.664 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.664 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.664 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.