PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 807.
Congressional Research Service
Version 80 · Reported to Senate without amendment · Jun 16, 2008
(This measure has not been amended since it was passed by the House on December 11, 2007. The summary of that version is repeated here.)
Amends the Miscellaneous Appropriations Act, 2001 to establish a 35% non-federal matching requirement for specified federal funds made available to: (1) the San Gabriel Water Quality Authority; and (2) the Central Basin Municipal Water District.
Increases the authorization of appropriations for the San Gabriel Restoration Fund. Sets aside a specified sum to carry out the Central Basin Water Quality Project.
People & committees
Rep. Dreier, David [R-CA-26] · R–CA
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 807.
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Reported by Senator Bingaman without amendment. With written report No. 110-375.
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Reported by Senator Bingaman without amendment. With written report No. 110-375.
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Ordered to be reported without amendment favorably.
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources Senate Subcommittee on Water and Power. Hearings held. With printed Hearing: S.Hrg. 110-494.
Referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works discharged by Unanimous Consent.
Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works discharged by Unanimous Consent.
Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
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 H15227-15228)
Passed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by voice vote.(text: CR H15227-15228)
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H.R. 123.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H15227-15229)
Mrs. Napolitano moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 298.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Natural Resources. H. Rept. 110-483.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Natural Resources. H. Rept. 110-483.
Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by Unanimous Consent.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Forwarded by Subcommittee to Full Committee Without Recommendation by Unanimous Consent .
Subcommittee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Subcommittee Hearings Held.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Water and Power.
Rereferred to the House Committee on Natural Resources.
Committee on Transportation discharged.
Committee on Transportation discharged.
DISCHARGE AND RE-REFERRAL OF H.R. 123 - Ms. Norton asked unanimous consent that the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure be discharged from consideration of the bill, H.R. 123, and that the bill be re-referred to the Committee on Natural Resources. Agreed to without objection.
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR E16-17)
Referred to the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
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: 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 H.R.123 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.123 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.123 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.123 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.