PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
Congressional Research Service
Version 81 · Passed House without amendment · Nov 15, 2005
(This measure has not been amended since it was introduced. The expanded summary of the House reported version is repeated here.)
Yakima-Tieton Irrigation District Conveyance Act of 2005 - Directs the Secretary of the Interior to convey certain buildings and lands of the Yakima Project, Washington, to the Yakima-Tieton Irrigation District.
Shields the United States from being held liable by any court for damages arising out of any act, omission, or occurrence relating to the conveyed buildings and lands, except for damages caused by acts of negligence committed by the United States or by its employees or agents before the date of conveyance.
Requires, if the Secretary has not completed such conveyance within 12 months after the enactment of this Act, the Secretary to submit to Congress a report explaining the reason the conveyance has not been completed and stating the date by which it will be completed.
People & committees
Rep. Hastings, Doc [R-WA-4] · R–WA
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: (2/3 required): 420 - 0 (Roll no. 586). (text: CR H10168)
House roll call 586 · Individual votesPassed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: (2/3 required): 420 - 0 (Roll no. 586).(text: CR H10168)
House roll call 586 · Individual votesConsidered as unfinished business. (consideration: CR H10187-10188)
At the conclusion of debate, the Yeas and Nays were demanded and ordered. Pursuant to the provisions of clause 8, rule XX, the Chair announced that further proceedings on the motion would be postponed.
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H.R. 1564.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H10167-10168)
Mrs. Musgrave moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 158.
Reported by the Committee on Resources. H. Rept. 109-288.
Reported by the Committee on Resources. H. Rept. 109-288.
Ordered to be Reported by Unanimous Consent.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Subcommittee on Water and Power Discharged.
Subcommittee Hearings Held.
Executive Comment Requested from Interior.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Water and Power.
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: 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.1564 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.1564 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.1564 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.1564 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.