PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Became Public Law No: 103-219.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Nov 22, 1993
Amends the Everglades National Park Protection and Expansion Act of 1989 to authorize the Secretary to use funds appropriated pursuant to such Act, including funds appropriated for project modifications by the Army Corps of Engineers, to provide Federal assistance to the State of Florida (including its political subdivisions) for acquisition of the lands known as the Frog Pond, Rocky Glades Agricultural Area, and the Eight-and-One-Half Square-Mile Area and which are adjacent to, or affect the restoration of natural water flows to, the Everglades National Park or Florida Bay and located east of the Park. Limits Federal assistance to not more than 25 percent of the total cost of such acquisition.
People & committees
Rep. Shaw, E. Clay, Jr. [R-FL-22] · R–FL
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Became Public Law No: 103-219.
Became Public Law No: 103-219.
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. (consideration: CR S1502)
Passed/agreed to in Senate: Passed Senate without amendment by Voice Vote.(consideration: CR S1502)
Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 363.
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Reported to Senate by Senator Johnston without amendment. With written report No. 103-224.
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Reported to Senate by Senator Johnston without amendment. With written report No. 103-224.
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Ordered to be reported without amendment favorably.
Referred to the Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public Lands.
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
Received in the Senate.
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: 11/22/93 CR H10923-10924)
Mr. Vento asked unanimous consent to discharge from committee and consider.
Committee on Natural Resources discharged.
Committee on Natural Resources discharged.
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.
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.3617 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.3617 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.3617 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.3617 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.