PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · Mar 11, 1994
TABLE OF CONTENTS: Title I: Reporting and Staggered Issuance for Households on Reservations Title II: Access to Retail Food Stores by Food Stamp Households Food Stamp Program Improvements Act of 1994 - Title I: Reporting and Staggered Issuance for Households on Reservations - Amends the Food Stamp Act of 1977 to: (1) permit a State to require periodic reporting by migrant or seasonal farmworker households; and (2) set forth conditions under which a State may require such reporting for reservation households. Provides for staggered food stamp issuances on reservations. Requires a General Accounting Office study and report on tribal organization administration of the food stamp program. Title II: Access to Retail Food Stores by Food Stamp Households - Amends the Food Stamp Act of 1977 to: (1) redefine "retail food store"; and (2) define "staple foods." Expands the use and disclosure of information provided by retail and wholesale food concerns to include Federal and State law enforcement and investigative agencies. Requires demonstration projects to test innovative activities directed at coupon trafficking. Continues program eligibility for establishments or house-to-house trade routes currently authorized to accept food stamps. Requires a report on the impact of this Act on retail store program participation.
People & committees
Sen. Pressler, Larry [R-SD] · R–SD
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Became Public Law No: 103-225.
Became Public Law No: 103-225.
Signed by President.
Signed by President.
Presented to President.
Presented to President.
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.
Mr. de la Garza asked unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's table and consider.
Considered by unanimous consent. (consideration: CR H1414-1417)
Message on Senate action sent to the House.
Held at the desk.
Received in the House.
Introduced in the Senate, read twice, considered, read the third time, and passed without amendment by Voice Vote. (consideration: CR S2905-2907)
Passed/agreed to in Senate: Introduced in the Senate, read twice, considered, read the third time, and passed without amendment by Voice Vote.(consideration: CR S2905-2907)
Introduced in Senate
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Sep 25, 2021. 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 S.1926 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 S.1926 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 S.1926 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 S.1926 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.