PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Became Public Law No: 108-320.
Congressional Research Service
Version 49 · Public Law · Oct 5, 2004
(This measure has not been amended since it was introduced. The summary of that version is repeated here.)
Amends the Stevenson-Wydler Technology Innovation Act of 1980 to add qualifying nonprofit organizations as a category of organizations eligible for Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Awards.
People & committees
Rep. Miller, Brad [D-NC-13] · D–NC
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Became Public Law No: 108-320.
Became Public Law No: 108-320.
Signed by President.
Signed by President.
Presented to President.
Presented to President.
Message on Senate action sent to the House.
Passed Senate without amendment by Unanimous Consent.
Passed/agreed to in Senate: Passed Senate without amendment by Unanimous Consent.
Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation discharged by Unanimous Consent. (consideration: CR 9/24/2004 S9655)
Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation discharged by Unanimous Consent.(consideration: CR 9/24/2004 S9655)
Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: (2/3 required): 408 - 0 (Roll no. 36). (text: CR H759)
House roll call 36 · Individual votesPassed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: (2/3 required): 408 - 0 (Roll no. 36).(text: CR H759)
House roll call 36 · Individual votesConsidered as unfinished business. (consideration: CR H788-789)
At the conclusion of debate, the Yeas and Nays were demanded and ordered. Pursuant to the provisions of clause 8, rule XX, the Chair announced that further proceedings on the motion would be postponed.
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H.R. 3389.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H759-762)
Ms. Hart moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 241.
Reported by the Committee on Science. H. Rept. 108-419.
Reported by the Committee on Science. H. Rept. 108-419.
Ordered to be Reported by Voice Vote.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Subcommittee on Environment, Technology, and Standards Discharged.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Environment, Technology, and Standards.
Referred to the House Committee on Science.
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: 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.3389 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.3389 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.3389 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.3389 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.