PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Became Public Law No: 106-392.
Congressional Research Service
Version 36 · Passed House amended · Jul 25, 2000
Authorizes appropriations to the Secretary of the Interior, acting through the Bureau of Reclamation, to undertake capital projects for the Recovery Implementation Program for Endangered Fish Species in the Upper Colorado River Basin and the San Juan River Basin Recovery Implementation Program. Terminates the authority of the Secretary to implement such projects for such Programs in FY 2005 and 2007, respectively. Limits to $100 million the total costs of such projects.Authorizes: (1) the Secretary to accept up to $17 million in contributed funds from Colorado, New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming (the Upper Division States), or political subdivisions or organizations thereof, pursuant to agreements that provide for the contributions to be used for capital project costs; (2) the Secretary and the Secretary of Energy, acting through the Western Area Power Administration, to utilize for such projects up to $17 million in power revenues collected pursuant to the Colorado River Storage Project Act; and (3) the Secretary to utilize such power revenues for the annual base funding contributions to the programs by the Bureau for a specified period. Requires the Secretary to report to the appropriate congressional committees on the utilization of such power revenues for base funding.Authorizes the retention of unexpended appropriated funds for projects under this Act for use in future fiscal years.States that nothing in this Act shall restrict the Secretary from funding activities or capital projects in accordance with the Federal Government's Indian trust responsibility.Terminates all authorities for the respective Program upon the expiration of the current time period for the respective Cooperative Agreement unless, at least one year prior to expiration, the time period for such Agreement is extended.Provides that no action taken pursuant to this Act shall: (1) be considered in determining whether a district has discharged its obligation to repay the construction cost of project facilities used to make irrigation water available for delivery to land in the district; (2) serve as the basis for reinstating acreage limitation provisions in a district that has completed payment of its construction obligations; or (3) serve as the basis for increasing the construction repayment obligation of the district and thereby extending the period during which the acreage limitation provisions will apply.
People & committees
Rep. Hansen, James V. [R-UT-1] · R–UT
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Became Public Law No: 106-392.
Became Public Law No: 106-392.
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 S10527)
Passed/agreed to in Senate: Passed Senate without amendment by Unanimous Consent.(consideration: CR S10527)
Read the second time. Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 774.
Read the first time. Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under Read the First Time.
Received in the Senate.
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 H6953-6954)
Passed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by voice vote.(text: CR H6953-6954)
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate H.R. 2348.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H6953-6954)
Mr. Hansen moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 457.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Resources. H. Rept. 106-791.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Resources. H. Rept. 106-791.
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 ot Department of the Interior for comments.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Water and Power.
Referred to the House Committee on Resources.
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR E1400-1401)
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
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.R.2348 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.2348 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.2348 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.2348 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.