PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Became Public Law No: 106-366.
Congressional Research Service
Version 36 · Passed House amended · Sep 18, 2000
Directs the Secretary of the Interior to convey property comprising the assets of the Missouri River Basin Project, Middle Loup Division, Nebraska, to the Loup Basin Reclamation District, the Sargent River Irrigation District, and the Farwell Irrigation District, Nebraska (the Districts) in exchange for specified payments from the Districts and the power customers. Treats a specified amount of receipts from the sale of power from the Pick-Sloan Missouri Basin Program (Eastern Division) collected by the Western Area Power Administration and deposited into the Reclamation fund in FY 2001 as full and complete payment by the power customers of such consideration and repayment by them of all aid to irrigation associated with the facilities to be conveyed under this Act.Prohibits, upon such payment by the Districts, the Middle Loup Division of the Missouri River Basin Project from being treated as a Federal reclamation project, from being subject to Federal reclamation laws, or from being entitled to receive any reclamation benefits under those laws.
People & committees
Rep. Barrett, Bill [R-NE-3] · R–NE
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Became Public Law No: 106-366.
Became Public Law No: 106-366.
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.
Passed/agreed to in Senate: Passed Senate without amendment by Unanimous Consent.
Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources discharged by Unanimous Consent. (consideration: CR S10542)
Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources discharged by Unanimous Consent.(consideration: CR S10542)
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 by voice vote. (text: CR H7662-7663)
Passed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by voice vote.(text: CR H7662-7663)
Considered as unfinished business. (consideration: CR H7688)
At the conclusion of debate, the chair put the question on the motion to suspend the rules. Mr. Faleomavaega 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 on H.R. 2984.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H7662-7663)
Mr. Gilchrest moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 487.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Resources. H. Rept. 106-829.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Resources. H. Rept. 106-829.
Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by Unanimous Consent.
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 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.2984 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.2984 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.2984 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.2984 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.