PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Became Public Law No: 103-340.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Nov 22, 1993
Authorizes appropriations to the Director of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service for FY 1994 through 1998 to expand implementation of the Junior Duck Stamp Conservation Program to all of the 50 States.
People & committees
Rep. Ortiz, Solomon P. [D-TX-27] · D–TX
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Became Public Law No: 103-340.
Became Public Law No: 103-340.
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 S13089-13090)
Passed/agreed to in Senate: Passed Senate without amendment by Voice Vote.(consideration: CR S13089-13090)
Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 606.
Committee on Environment and Public Works. Reported to Senate by Senator Baucus without amendment. With written report No. 103-363.
Committee on Environment and Public Works. Reported to Senate by Senator Baucus without amendment. With written report No. 103-363.
Committee on Environment and Public Works. Ordered to be reported without amendment favorably.
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.
The title of the measure was amended. Agreed to without objection.
On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by voice vote.
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.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H3804-3807)
Mr. Studds moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 290.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries. H. Rept. 103-521.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries. H. Rept. 103-521.
Subcommittee on Environment and Natural Resources Discharged.
Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by Voice Vote.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Executive Comment Received from Interior.
Executive Comment Requested from Interior.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Environment and Natural Resources.
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR E3061)
Referred to the House Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries.
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.3679 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.3679 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.3679 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.3679 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.