PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Read twice and referred to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.
Congressional Research Service
Version 36 · Passed House amended · Jul 28, 2010
Requires conveyance of approximately 44 acres of federally owned land administered by the Agricultural Research Service which comprises part of the National Animal Disease Center (the property) in the city of Ames, Iowa, to the city of Ames and its assigns.
Requires the city: (1) to pay to the Secretary of Agriculture (USDA) the market value of the property, to be determined by an appraisal; and (2) at closing, to pay or reimburse the reasonable transaction and administrative costs associated with the conveyance incurred by the Secretary.
Requires the city and the Secretary to bear their own attorneys fees.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Requires the Secretary to meet disclosure requirements for hazardous substances, but to otherwise not be required to remediate or abate such substances or any other hazardous pollutants, contaminants, or waste that might be present on the property at the time of closing.
Bars requiring the Secretary to mitigate or abate any lead-based paint or asbestos-containing building materials present on the property at the time of closing. Sets forth the procedure the Secretary shall follow if the property has such paint or building materials present on it at that time.
Requires the deposit of funds received from the conveyance into the Treasury to be credited to the Agricultural Research Service and to be: (1) used for the acquisition of land and interests and other related purposes of the National Animal Disease Center; and (2) considered to authorize the acquisition of land as may be necessary for the USDA to carry out its work.
People & committees
Rep. Latham, Tom [R-IA-4] · R–IA
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.
Received in the Senate.
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 H6260-6261)
Passed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by voice vote.(text: CR H6260-6261)
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H.R. 5669.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H6260-6261)
Mr. Cardoza moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended.
Referred to the House Committee on Agriculture.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Dec 5, 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.5669 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.5669 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.5669 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.5669 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.