PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Congressional Research Service
Version 36 · Passed House amended · Aug 7, 1998
Canadian River Project Prepayment Act - Directs the Secretary of the Interior, in consideration of the Canadian River Municipal Water Authority accepting the obligation of the Federal Government for the Canadian River Project, Texas (a water reclamation project), and subject to a specified payment by the Authority, to convey the Project to the Authority as provided under the Canadian River Project Authorization Act. Directs the Secretary, acting through the National Park Service, to continue to operate the Lake Meredith National Recreation Area. Directs the Secretary of the Army, acting through the Corps of Engineers, to continue to prescribe regulations for the use of storage allocated to flood control at Lake Meredith as prescribed in a certain Letter of Understanding. Grants the Authority the right to occupy and use without payment of lease or rental charges or license or user fees the property retained by the Bureau of Reclamation at Sanford Dam for use as a headquarters and maintenance facility. Provides party rights and obligations under current contract obligations and in relationship to other laws.
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.
Became Public Law No: 105-316.
Became Public Law No: 105-316.
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.
The committee substitute rejected by Unanimous Consent.
Measure laid before Senate by unanimous consent. (consideration: CR S12529-12531)
By Senator Murkowski from Committee on Energy and Natural Resources filed written report. Report No. 105-410.
By Senator Murkowski from Committee on Energy and Natural Resources filed written report. Report No. 105-410.
Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 642.
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Reported to Senate by Senator Murkowski with an amendment. Without written report.
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Reported to Senate by Senator Murkowski with an amendment. Without written report.
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Ordered to be reported with an amendment favorably.
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 passage Passed without objection.
Passed/agreed to in House: On passage Passed without objection.
Considered by unanimous consent. (consideration: CR H7401-7402)
Mr. Thornberry asked unanimous consent to discharge from committee and consider.
Committee on Resources discharged.
Committee on Resources discharged.
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 Bur Reclamation.
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.3687 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.3687 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.3687 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.3687 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.