PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Became Public Law No: 105-104.
Congressional Research Service
Version 36 · Passed House amended · Nov 4, 1997
Interstate Compact - Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint River Basin Compact - Grants the consent of Congress to the Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint River Basin Compact among Alabama, Florida, and Georgia to promote interstate comity, remove causes of controversies, apportion surface waters, engage in water planning, and develop and share common data bases. Conditions the consent of the Congress to, and participation of the United States in, the Compact on specified conditions and reservations regarding participation of Federal agencies during the development of the allocation formula used to determine an equitable apportionment of surface water among the three States. Authorizes appropriations.
People & committees
Rep. Barr, Bob [R-GA-7] · R–GA
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Became Public Law No: 105-104.
Became Public Law No: 105-104.
Signed by President.
Signed by President.
Presented to President.
Presented to President.
Message on Senate action sent to the House.
Passed Senate without amendment by Unanimous Consent. (consideration: CR S11923)
Passed/agreed to in Senate: Passed Senate without amendment by Unanimous Consent.(consideration: CR S11923)
Received in the Senate.
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
On motion to suspend the rules and pass the resolution, as amended Agreed to by voice vote.
Passed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the resolution, as amended Agreed to by voice vote.
Considered as unfinished business.
At the conclusion of debate, the chair put the question on the motion to suspend the rules. Mr. Nadler objected to the Yea - Nay vote on the grounds that a quorum was not present. Further proceedings on the motion were postponed. The point of no quorum was withdrawn.
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H9891-9895, H9983)
Mr. Gekas moved to suspend the rules and pass the resolution, as amended.
Placed on the House Calendar, Calendar No. 123.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Judiciary. H. Rept. 105-369.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Judiciary. H. Rept. 105-369.
Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by Voice Vote.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Forwarded by Subcommittee to Full Committee (Amended) by Voice Vote.
Subcommittee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Subcommittee Hearings Held.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law.
Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
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: 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.J.Res.91 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.J.Res.91 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.J.Res.91 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.J.Res.91 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.