PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on Domestic and International Monetary Policy, Trade, and Technology.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Feb 5, 2003
Amends the Emergency Steel Loan Guarantee Act of 1999 to prohibit qualified steel companies that have been issued loan guarantees under such Act from: (1) contributing any of the proceeds of such a loan to any facility located outside the United States that is engaged in manufacture of certain steel mill products (including ingots, slabs, or billets); or (2) using any such proceeds to import iron ore pellets, ingots, slabs, or billets produced in any country subject to specified trade remedies with respect to such products. Sets forth civil penalties for violations of the requirements of this Act.
People & committees
Rep. Stupak, Bart [D-MI-1] · D–MI
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Domestic and International Monetary Policy, Trade, and Technology.
Referred to the House Committee on Financial Services.
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: Jan 2, 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.629 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.629 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.629 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.629 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.