PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to Subcommittee on Water and Power.
Congressional Research Service
Version 36 · Passed House amended · Nov 13, 1997
Requires the Secretary of the Interior to allow use of the project distribution system for transport of water to municipalities from the Canadian River Conjunctive Use Groundwater Project, subject to an environmental review under a specified memorandum of understanding between the Bureau of Reclamation and the Canadian River Municipal Water Authority and a review of the engineering design of the interconnection facilities to assure the continued integrity of the Canadian River reclamation project in Texas. Directs the Authority to bear the costs: (1) of construction, operation, and maintenance of the Project; and (2) incurred by the Secretary in conducting the environmental review.
People & committees
Rep. Thornberry, Mac [R-TX-13] · R–TX
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to Subcommittee on Water and Power.
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, as amended Agreed to without objection.
Passed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to without objection.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H10943-10944)
Mr. Armey moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended.
On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Failed by the Yeas and Nays: (2/3 required): 226 - 176, 1 Present (Roll no. 487).
House roll call 487 · Individual votesFailed of passage/not agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Failed by the Yeas and Nays: (2/3 required): 226 - 176, 1 Present (Roll no. 487).
House roll call 487 · Individual votesConsidered as unfinished business. (consideration: CR H8295-8296)
At the conclusion of debate, the chair put the question on the motion to suspend the rules. Mr. Condit objected to the 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 The point of no quorum was withdrawn.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 H8067-8069)
Mr. Thornberry moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 159.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Resources. H. Rept. 105-279.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Resources. H. Rept. 105-279.
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.
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.
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.2007 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.2007 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.2007 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.2007 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.