PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Became Public Law No: 108-160.
Congressional Research Service
Version 28 · Reported to House without amendment, Part I · Nov 17, 2003
(This measure has not been amended since it was introduced. The summary of that version is repeated here.)
Environmental Policy and Conflict Resolution Advancement Act of 2003 - Amends the Morris K. Udall Scholarship and Excellence in National Environmental and Native American Public Policy Act of 1992 to authorize appropriations for FY 2004 through 2008 for the Environmental Dispute Resolution Fund. Requires a specified amount to be used for grants or other arrangements to pay for services provided in a neutral manner relating to, and to support the participation of non-Federal entities in, environmental conflict resolution proceedings involving Federal agencies.
People & committees
Rep. Kolbe, Jim [R-AZ-8] · R–AZ
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Became Public Law No: 108-160.
Became Public Law No: 108-160.
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. (consideration: CR S15502)
Passed/agreed to in Senate: Passed Senate without amendment by Unanimous Consent.(consideration: CR S15502)
Received in the Senate, read twice.
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill Agreed to by voice vote. (text: CR H11589)
Passed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill Agreed to by voice vote.(text: CR H11589)
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H.R. 421.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H11589-11591)
Mr. Greenwood moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill.
Reported by the Committee on Resources. H. Rept. 108-371, Part I.
Reported by the Committee on Resources. H. Rept. 108-371, Part I.
Ordered to be Reported by Unanimous Consent.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Select Education.
Executive Comment Requested from CEQ.
Referred to the Committee on Education and the Workforce, and in addition to the Committee on Resources, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Referred to the Committee on Education and the Workforce, and in addition to the Committee on Resources, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Referred to the Committee on Education and the Workforce, and in addition to the Committee on Resources, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Jul 21, 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.421 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.421 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.421 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.421 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.