PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Became Public Law No: 105-239.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · Mar 31, 1998
Marion National Fish Hatchery and Claude Harris National Aquacultural Research Center Conveyance Act - Directs the Secretary of the Interior to convey, without reimbursement, specified properties and related rights involving the Marion National Fish Hatchery and the Claude Harris National Aquacultural Research Center to the State of Alabama for use by its Department of Conservation and Natural Resources' Game and Fish Division, subject to the Division's offer to lease Research Center property, at no cost, to the Alabama Agriculture Experiment Station or, if the Station declines, to another public entity.
People & committees
Sen. Shelby, Richard C. [R-AL] · R–AL
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Became Public Law No: 105-239.
Became Public Law No: 105-239.
Signed by President.
Signed by President.
Presented to President.
Presented to President.
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 H7437-7438)
Mr. Saxton moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Fisheries Conservation, Wildlife and Oceans.
Referred to the House Committee on Resources.
Message on Senate action sent to the House.
Received in the House.
Passed Senate with amendments by Unanimous Consent. (consideration: CR S9659-9660)
Passed/agreed to in Senate: Passed Senate with amendments by Unanimous Consent.(consideration: CR S9659-9660)
Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 493.
Committee on Environment and Public Works. Reported to Senate by Senator Chafee with amendments. With written report No. 105-263.
Committee on Environment and Public Works. Reported to Senate by Senator Chafee with amendments. With written report No. 105-263.
Committee on Environment and Public Works. Ordered to be reported with amendments favorably.
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
Introduced in Senate
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: 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 S.1883 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 S.1883 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 S.1883 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 S.1883 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.