PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Message on House action received in Senate and at desk: House amendment to Senate amendment.
Congressional Research Service
Version 35 · Passed Senate amended · Sep 23, 2009
Morris K. Udall Scholarship and Excellence in National Environmental Policy Amendments Act of 2009 - (Sec. 2) Amends the Morris K. Udall Scholarship and Excellence in National Environmental and Native American Public Policy Act of 1992 to rename the Act as the Morris K. Udall and Stewart L. Udall Foundation Act.
(Sec. 3) Adds to the Act's findings to salute Stewart L. Udall's leadership in environmental and Native American policy as a member of Congress, Secretary of the Interior, environmental lawyer, and author.
(Sec. 5) Renames the Morris K. Udall Scholarship and Excellence in National Environmental Policy Foundation as the Morris K. Udall and Stewart L. Udall Foundation.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Requires the Executive Director of the Foundation to be paid at a senior executive rate.
(Sec. 6) Directs the Foundation to award grants to the Udall Center for Studies in Public Policy, at the University of Arizona, to conduct training, research, and other activities with regard to the involvement of Native American and Alaska Native professionals in health care and public policy.
Refers to recipients of scholarships, fellowships, and internships under the Act as Udall Scholars, Udall Fellows, and Udall Interns, respectively. (Currently, they are known as Morris K. Udall Scholars.)
(Sec. 7) Renames the Morris K. Udall Scholarship and Excellence in National Environmental Policy Trust Fund, the Morris K. Udall and Stewart L. Udall Trust Fund.
Allows the use of reasonable amounts of the Trust Fund for official reception and representation expenses, not to exceed $5,000 for a fiscal year.
(Sec. 9) Declares that the use of the Foundation or the United States Institute for Environmental Conflict Resolution for independent and impartial assessment, mediation, or other related services in connection with a dispute or conflict related to the environment, public lands, or natural resources shall not be considered the establishment or use of an advisory committee within the meaning of the Federal Advisory Committee Act.
(Sec. 10) Sets forth administrative provisions that allow the Foundation to: (1) appoint personnel without regard to federal law provisions governing appointments in the competitive service; (2) pay up to four employees, in addition to the Executive Director, at senior executive pay rates; and (3) rent office space in the District of Columbia or its environs.
People & committees
Rep. Grijalva, Raúl M. [D-AZ-7] · D–AZ
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Message on House action received in Senate and at desk: House amendment to Senate amendment.
House agreed to Senate amendment with an amendment pursuant to H.Res. 806.
Message on Senate action sent to the House.
Passed Senate with an amendment by Unanimous Consent. (text: CR S9757)
Passed/agreed to in Senate: Passed Senate with an amendment by Unanimous Consent.(text: CR S9757)
Measure laid before Senate by unanimous consent. (consideration: CR S9757)
Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works discharged by Unanimous Consent.
Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works discharged by Unanimous Consent.
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
Received in the Senate.
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill Agreed to by voice vote. (text: CR 7/27/2009 H8834)
Passed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill Agreed to by voice vote.(text: CR 7/27/2009 H8834)
Considered as unfinished business. (consideration: CR H8935)
At the conclusion of debate, the chair put the question on the motion to suspend the rules. Mr. Cassidy objected to the vote on the grounds that a quorum was not present. Further proceedings on the motion were postponed. The point of no quorum was withdrawn.
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H.R. 1035.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H8834-8836)
Mr. Grijalva moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill.
Committee Hearings Held.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Higher Education, Lifelong Learning, and Competitiveness.
Referred to House Natural Resources
Referred to the Committee on Education and Labor, and in addition to the Committee on Natural Resources, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Referred to House Education and Labor
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR E258)
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
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 H.R.1035 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.1035 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.1035 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.1035 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.