PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.For Further Action See S.1777.
Congressional Research Service
Version 36 · Passed House amended · Nov 10, 1993
Amends the Food Stamp Act of 1977 to redefine "retail food store" for purposes of food stamp program (program) eligibility as a store that sells food for home preparation and consumption and: (1) has 50 percent of its total sales volume in staple foods; or (2) offers on a continuous basis food in each of four staple food categories, including sales of perishable foods in at least two of such categories. Defines "staple foods" as: (1) meat, poultry, or fish; (2) bread or cereals; (3) vegetables or fruits; and (4) dairy products. Requires the Secretary of Agriculture (Secretary) to: (1) issue regulations for the periodic reauthorization of participating food stores and outlets; and (2) provide such participants with notice of specified food-related definitions. Permits the use of program application information by Federal or State enforcement authorities and establishes fine and imprisonment penalties for information misuse. Directs the Secretary to use specified funds for demonstration projects aimed at coupon trafficking. Continues the eligibility of a participating food store until its periodic reauthorization or other program evaluation.
People & committees
Rep. Stenholm, Charles W. [D-TX-17] · D–TX
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
For Further Action See S.1777.
Received in the Senate and read twice and referred to the Committee on Agriculture.
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.
Considered by unanimous consent. (consideration: CR H9146-9148)
Mr. Stenholm asked unanimous consent to discharge the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union and consider.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 190.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Agriculture. H. Rept. 103-352.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Agriculture. H. Rept. 103-352.
Ordered to be Reported (Amended).
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Forwarded by Subcommittee to Full Committee by Voice Vote.
Subcommittee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Subcommittee Hearings Held.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Department Operations and Nutrition.
Referred to the House Committee on Agriculture.
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR E2767)
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Jan 14, 2025. 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.3436 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.3436 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.3436 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.3436 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.