PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Subcommittee Hearings Held
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Jan 25, 2023
This bill requires naturally propagated animals (i.e., wild animals) and artificially propagated animals to be treated the same under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA).
Specifically, distinctions between naturally propagated animals and artificially propagated animals may not be made when the federal government makes determinations under the ESA, such as determinations to designate endangered species, threatened species, or critical habitats.
In addition, the bill requires the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service to authorize the use of artificial propagation of animals of a species when mitigation is required under the ESA.
This bill applies to all endangered or threatened species regardless of when they were listed as endangered or threatened.
People & committees
Rep. McClintock, Tom [R-CA-5] · R–CA
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Subcommittee Hearings Held
Referred to the Subcommittee on Water, Wildlife, and Fisheries.
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: May 27, 2025. 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.520 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.520 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.520 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.520 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.