PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Became Public Law No: 116-186.
Congressional Research Service
Version 49 · Public Law · Oct 30, 2020
This bill reauthorizes through FY2025 and revises the Nutria Eradication and Control Act of 2003, which provided grants to Maryland and Louisiana for a program to eradicate or control nutria (a type of rodent). The program also provided grants to restore marshland damaged by nutria.
This bill revises the grant program, including by expanding the program to include grants for eradicating nutria in any state that has demonstrated a need for the program as well as grants for restoring wetlands or agricultural lands damaged by nutria.
People & committees
Rep. Harder, Josh [D-CA-10] · D–CA
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Became Public Law No: 116-186.
Became Public Law No: 116-186.
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 Voice Vote.
Passed/agreed to in Senate: Passed Senate without amendment by Voice Vote.
Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works discharged by Unanimous Consent. (consideration: CR S6000)
Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works discharged by Unanimous Consent.
Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
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. (text: CR H1208)
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 on H.R. 3399.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H1208-1210)
Mr. Neguse moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 327.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Natural Resources. H. Rept. 116-405.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Natural Resources. H. Rept. 116-405.
Subcommittee on Water, Oceans, and Wildlife Discharged.
Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by Unanimous Consent.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Subcommittee Hearings Held.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Water, Oceans, and Wildlife.
Referred to the House Committee on Natural Resources.
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.3399 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.3399 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.3399 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.3399 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.