PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
Congressional Research Service
Version 36 · Passed House amended · Jul 14, 2008
Allows the Secretary of the Interior, acting through the Director of the National Park Service, 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.
Authorizes the Secretary to allow stocking in up to, but not over, 42 lakes. Provides that, the 42 lakes that may be stocked are those identified for potential stocking under Alternative B of the 2005 North Cascades National Park Service Complex Mountain Lakes Fishery Management Plan Draft.
Requires the Secretary to only stock fish that are native to the slope of the Cascade Range on which the lake to be stocked is located and are functionally sterile.
Authorizes the Secretary to coordinate the stocking of fish with the state of Washington.
Continues the program of research and monitoring of the impacts of fish stocking on park resources. Instructs the Secretary to report on the results of such research and monitoring program every five years.
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.
Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
The title of the measure was amended. Agreed to without objection.
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by voice vote. (text: CR H6415)
Passed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by voice vote.(text: CR H6415)
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H.R. 3227.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H6415-6416)
Ms. Bordallo moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 483.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Natural Resources. H. Rept. 110-756.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Natural Resources. H. Rept. 110-756.
Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by Voice Vote.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests, and Public Lands Discharged.
Subcommittee Hearings Held.
Referred to the Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public Lands.
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.3227 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.3227 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.3227 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.3227 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.