PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.See H.R.614.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Jan 19, 1995
Directs the Secretary of the Interior to convey, without reimbursement, all U.S. interest in: (1) the Fairport National Fish Hatchery to Iowa for use by the State for fishery resources management purposes; (2) the New London National Fish Hatchery production facility to Minnesota for its fishery resources management program; and (3) the Corning National Fish Hatchery (popularly known as the William H. Donham State Fish Hatchery) to Arkansas for use by the Arkansas Game and Fish Commission as part of the Arkansas fish culture program.
People & committees
Rep. Leach, James A. [R-IA-1] · R–IA
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
See H.R.614.
See H.R.584.
See H.R.535.
Executive Comment Requested from Interior.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife and Oceans.
Referred to the House Committee on Resources.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Apr 7, 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.583 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.583 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.583 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.583 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.