PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Message on House action received in Senate and at the desk: House amendment to Senate amendments.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Nov 22, 1993
Authorizes the conveyance, without reimbursement, of all U.S. interest in the New London National Fish Hatchery production facility to the State of Minnesota solely for the Minnesota fishery resources management program.
People & committees
Rep. Minge, David [D-MN-2] · D–MN
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Message on House action received in Senate and at the desk: House amendment to Senate amendments.
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
On motion that the House agree with an amendment to the Senate amendments Agreed to without objection. (consideration: CR H11235)
Resolving differences -- House actions: On motion that the House agree with an amendment to the Senate amendments Agreed to without objection.(consideration: CR H11235)
Mr. Studds asked unanimous consent that the House agree with an amendment to the Senate amendments.
Message on Senate action sent to the House.
Passed Senate with an amendment and an amendment to the Title by Voice Vote. (consideration: CR S13088-13089)
Passed/agreed to in Senate: Passed Senate with an amendment and an amendment to the Title by Voice Vote.(consideration: CR S13088-13089)
Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 601.
Committee on Environment and Public Works. Reported to Senate by Senator Baucus with an amendment and an amendment to the title. With written report No. 103-359.
Committee on Environment and Public Works. Reported to Senate by Senator Baucus with an amendment and an amendment to the title. With written report No. 103-359.
Committee on Environment and Public Works. Ordered to be reported with an amendment favorably. Amendment contains text of H.R. 4253.
Received in the Senate and read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
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.
Passed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill Agreed to by voice vote.
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H1612-1613)
Mr. Studds moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill.
Ordered to be Reported by Voice Vote.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Subcommittee on Fisheries Management Discharged.
Executive Comment Requested from Interior.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Fisheries Management.
Referred to the House Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
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.3664 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.3664 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.3664 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.3664 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.