Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Act

Executive Comment Requested from Interior.

Congressional Research Service

Official summary

Version 00 · Introduced in House · Jul 22, 1998

Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Act - Requires the Secretary of the Interior, acting through the Director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, to establish a program to provide financial assistance for projects to promote the conservation of neotropical migratory birds. Makes the following entities that submit project proposals to the Secretary eligible for such assistance: (1) Federal, State, or local governmental entities or private entities; (2) governmental or private entities in Latin America or the Caribbean; or (3) international organizations that are dedicated to achieving this Act's purposes. Limits the Federal share of project costs to 33 percent. Establishes a Neotropical Migratory Bird Advisory Committee to carry out specified duties with respect to projects and assistance. Authorizes appropriations to carry out this Act for FY 1999 through 2001.

Read the summary on Congress.gov

PlainBill analysis is coming later. This page presents official source data. We have not yet published a PlainBill explanation for this bill.

People & committees

Who introduced it

Rep. Greenwood, James C. [R-PA-8] · R–PA

Committees

Natural Resources Committee

13 cosponsorship records, including any withdrawals

Legislative record

Actions

A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.

Jul 28, 1998
Executive Comment Requested from Interior.
Jul 22, 1998
Referred to the House Committee on Resources.
Jul 22, 1998
Introduced in House
Jul 22, 1998
Introduced in House

Primary sources

Bill text & related measures

Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.

Introduced in House · Jul 22, 1998 Formatted Text PDF

Related bills identified by Congress.gov

No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.

Source last updated: Aug 21, 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.R.4302 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

Discuss H.R.4302, 105th Congress: Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Act

Official record: https://www.congress.gov/bill/105th-congress/house-bill/4302

Text version to examine: Introduced in House · 1998-07-22.

Official full text: https://www.congress.gov/105/bills/hr4302/BILLS-105hr4302ih.htm

Imported record last updated by the source: 2025-08-21T16:12:42Z. Verify current status and distinguish any later version from the version above.

Read the official text before answering. If you cannot access it, say so and ask me to provide it; do not assume a link means you have read the document. Distinguish proposals from enacted law, cite sources, and separate facts, interpretation, and uncertain predictions. Include counterarguments even when using a particular perspective.

Analyze H.R.4302 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.

Fairness and public impact

Progressive lens

Examine H.R.4302 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

Discuss H.R.4302, 105th Congress: Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Act

Official record: https://www.congress.gov/bill/105th-congress/house-bill/4302

Text version to examine: Introduced in House · 1998-07-22.

Official full text: https://www.congress.gov/105/bills/hr4302/BILLS-105hr4302ih.htm

Imported record last updated by the source: 2025-08-21T16:12:42Z. Verify current status and distinguish any later version from the version above.

Read the official text before answering. If you cannot access it, say so and ask me to provide it; do not assume a link means you have read the document. Distinguish proposals from enacted law, cite sources, and separate facts, interpretation, and uncertain predictions. Include counterarguments even when using a particular perspective.

Examine H.R.4302 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.

Institutions and government scope

Conservative lens

Examine H.R.4302 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

Discuss H.R.4302, 105th Congress: Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Act

Official record: https://www.congress.gov/bill/105th-congress/house-bill/4302

Text version to examine: Introduced in House · 1998-07-22.

Official full text: https://www.congress.gov/105/bills/hr4302/BILLS-105hr4302ih.htm

Imported record last updated by the source: 2025-08-21T16:12:42Z. Verify current status and distinguish any later version from the version above.

Read the official text before answering. If you cannot access it, say so and ask me to provide it; do not assume a link means you have read the document. Distinguish proposals from enacted law, cite sources, and separate facts, interpretation, and uncertain predictions. Include counterarguments even when using a particular perspective.

Examine H.R.4302 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.

Individual rights and government power

Liberty lens

Examine H.R.4302 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.

View full prompt & sources

Discuss H.R.4302, 105th Congress: Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Act

Official record: https://www.congress.gov/bill/105th-congress/house-bill/4302

Text version to examine: Introduced in House · 1998-07-22.

Official full text: https://www.congress.gov/105/bills/hr4302/BILLS-105hr4302ih.htm

Imported record last updated by the source: 2025-08-21T16:12:42Z. Verify current status and distinguish any later version from the version above.

Read the official text before answering. If you cannot access it, say so and ask me to provide it; do not assume a link means you have read the document. Distinguish proposals from enacted law, cite sources, and separate facts, interpretation, and uncertain predictions. Include counterarguments even when using a particular perspective.

Examine H.R.4302 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.