This bill would transfer the title of the New London National Fish Hatchery facility from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to the State of Minnesota's Department of Natural Resources. The legislation conveys all rights, title, and interest of the United States to the State of Minnesota. This includes all property, buildings, water rights, and easements of the New London facility. It is my understanding that the hatchery has been operated by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources for the Fish and Wildlife Service under a memorandum of agreement [MOA] since 1983. This MOA, which was extended in 1993, expires in 1998. The hatchery facility is actually located on two separate pieces of land. One is located outside the town of New London and is owned by the Fish and Wildlife Service. The other is located within the town of New London; the State had owned the property but transferred it to the Fish and Wildlife Service in 1939. Finally, the bill stipulates that this property will revert back to the Federal Government if the State of Minnesota decides it no longer wishes to operate the property as a fishery resource management facility. Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that the Fish and Wildlife Service supports this transfer, and that this transfer would actually save the Federal Government money.
Jack Fields: “This bill would transfer the title of the New London National Fish Hatchery facility from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife…”
Editor's note · Context
Discussing the transfer of the New London National Fish Hatchery to Minnesota's Department of Natural Resources.
Share
More from Jack Fields
I was given the charge by our Speaker and the chairman of the full committee to move our country relative to telecommunication policy into the 21st century, not to crawl back into the 1950's. These rules were written when I was 2 years…
Mr. Chairman, as we are having this debate I think it is important for all of us as Members not to forget certain points. Point No. 1 mentioned by Chairman Bliley just a moment ago is if you take this sentence out of the statute as the…
we had the opportunity, first, to work on that piece of legislation. Second, the dynamics in this House and the Senate have changed. If you look at the requirements for explicit pleadings of scienter in our particular statute, I do not see…
I would just point out last night this amendment did not exist, that this has been a dynamic process. We have taken the concerns expressed by people on the other side of the aisle. We have attempted to address those concerns to make the…





