PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 610.
Congressional Research Service
Version 01 · Reported to Senate with amendment(s) · Sep 27, 2010
North Cascades National Park Service Complex Fish Stocking Act - Directs the Secretary of the Interior to authorize the stocking of fish in lakes in the North Cascades National Park, Ross Lake National Recreation Area, and Lake Chelan National Recreation Area (the North Cascades National Park Service Complex).
Authorizes the Secretary to allow stocking in not more than 42 of the 91 lakes which have historically been stocked with fish.
Instructs the Secretary to make use of relevant scientific information, including the plan and information gathered from the research and monitoring program specified below, in making fish stocking decisions under this Act.
Requires the Secretary to coordinate the stocking of fish with the State of Washington.
Requires the Secretary to continue a program of research and monitoring of the impacts of fish stocking on the resources of the applicable unit of the North Cascades National Park Service Complex and to report to Congress on the results of such research and monitoring.
People & committees
Rep. Hastings, Doc [R-WA-4] · R–WA
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 610.
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Reported by Senator Bingaman with an amendment in the nature of a substitute. With written report No. 111-324.
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Reported by Senator Bingaman with an amendment in the nature of a substitute. With written report No. 111-324.
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Ordered to be reported with an amendment in the nature of a substitute favorably.
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources Subcommittee on National Parks. Hearings held.
Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
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 H6024)
Passed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill Agreed to by voice vote.(text: CR H6024)
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H.R. 2430.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H6024-6025)
Mrs. Christensen moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill.
Referred to the House Committee on Natural Resources.
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.2430 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.2430 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.2430 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.2430 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.