Preserve our Salmon and Renewable Energy Resolution
Referred to the Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife, and Oceans.
Congressional Research Service
Official summary
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Jul 12, 2007
Preserve our Salmon and Renewable Energy Resolution - Expresses the sense of Congress that: (1) the dams on the Columbia and Snake Rivers are essential to commerce in the Pacific Northwest; (2) the survivability rate of salmon and steelhead has increased since the dams have been in place; (3) breaching the dams will not guarantee recovery of salmon and steelhead; (4) the environmental impact of removing the dams will be extremely damaging; (5) the dams on the Columbia and Snake Rivers provide renewable pollution free energy to the Pacific Northwest and helps backup California's power grid; and (6) two conclusive and exhaustive studies have already been completed which considered removing the dams or reservoir drawdown on the Snake River and concluded that we need to keep the dams.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife, and Oceans.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Water and Power.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment.
Referred to the Committee on Natural Resources, and in addition to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, 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 Natural Resources, and in addition to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, 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 Natural Resources, and in addition to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, 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
Bill text & related measures
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: Aug 14, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Explore the bill from different angles
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.
Neutral evidence review
Objective
Analyze H.Con.Res.184 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.
View full prompt & sources
Fairness and public impact
Progressive lens
Examine H.Con.Res.184 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.
View full prompt & sources
Institutions and government scope
Conservative lens
Examine H.Con.Res.184 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.
View full prompt & sources
Individual rights and government power
Liberty lens
Examine H.Con.Res.184 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.