PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Received in the Senate.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Feb 8, 2000
Amends the Reclamation Safety of Dams Act of 1978 to: (1) delete a provision which included modification costs resulting from the nonperformance of reasonable dam structure maintenance as project costs reimbursable to the operating entity; (2) make reimbursable with respect to additional funds authorized to be appropriated by amendments made to the Act in 2000 costs incurred in the modification of structures resulting from new hydrologic or seismic data or changes in dam safety criteria; (3) include as reimbursable those costs allocated to irrigation without regard to the water users' ability to pay; (4) authorize the Secretary of the Interior to pay reimbursable costs pursuant to a repayment contract at any time prior to completion of construction; (5) extend through FY 2000 the authorization of appropriations for the above costs; and (6) decrease from 60 to 30 days after the Secretary has submitted a report on an existing dam the required waiting period before funds can be obligated to carry out actual construction to modify such dam.
People & committees
Rep. Miller, George [D-CA-7] · D–CA
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
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 H10520)
Passed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by voice vote.(text: CR H10520)
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H.R. 3595.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H10519-10520)
Mr. Gibbons moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 494.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Resources. H. Rept. 106-836.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Resources. H. Rept. 106-836.
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.
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: 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.3595 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.3595 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.3595 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.3595 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.