PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Became Public Law No: 106-372.
Congressional Research Service
Version 36 · Passed House amended · Sep 20, 2000
Authorizes the Secretary of the Interior, as an alternative to providing for the electrification of the Chandler Pumping Plant and Powerplant operations at Prosser Diversion Dam, Washington, to use not more than $4 million of sums appropriated for the electrification to study the engineering feasibility of exchanging water from the Columbia River for water historically diverted from the Yakima River. Requires the Secretary, in coordination with the Kennewick Irrigation District and in consultation with the Bonneville Power Administration, to: (1) prepare a report that describes project benefits and contains feasibility level designs and cost estimates; (2) secure the critical right-of-way areas for the pipeline alignment; (3) prepare an environmental assessment; and (4) conduct such other studies or investigations as are necessary to develop a water exchange. Requires that the rate to be utilized by the Administrator of the Administration in determining the cost of power needed for the electrification or water exchange be the rate prescribed under current law or the equivalent of such rate.
People & committees
Rep. Hastings, Doc [R-WA-4] · R–WA
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Became Public Law No: 106-372.
Became Public Law No: 106-372.
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 passage Passed by the Yeas and Nays: 418 - 1 (Roll no. 483). (text: CR H7886-7887)
House roll call 483 · Individual votesPassed/agreed to in House: On passage Passed by the Yeas and Nays: 418 - 1 (Roll no. 483).(text: CR H7886-7887)
House roll call 483 · Individual votesThe previous question was ordered pursuant to the rule.
DEBATE - The House proceeded with one hour of debate on H.R. 3986.
Rule provides for consideration of H.R. 3986 with 1 hour of general debate. Previous question shall be considered as ordered without intervening motions except motion to recommit with or without instructions. The amendment recommended by the Committee on Resources now printed in the bill shal be considered as adopted. Measure will be considered read. Bill is closed to amendments.
Considered under the provisions of rule H. Res. 581. (consideration: CR H7885-7888)
Rule H. Res. 581 passed House.
Rules Committee Resolution H. Res. 581 Reported to House. Rule provides for consideration of H.R. 3986 with 1 hour of general debate. Previous question shall be considered as ordered without intervening motions except motion to recommit with or without instructions. The amendment recommended by the Committee on Resources now printed in the bill shal be considered as adopted. Measure will be considered read. Bill is closed to amendments.
On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Failed by the Yeas and Nays: (2/3 required): 218 - 201 (Roll no. 480). (text: CR H7747)
House roll call 480 · Individual votesMotion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
Failed 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): 218 - 201 (Roll no. 480).(text: CR H7747)
House roll call 480 · Individual votesConsidered as unfinished business. (consideration: CR H7799)
At the conclusion of debate, the Yeas and Nays were demanded and ordered. Pursuant to the provisions of clause 8, rule XX, the Chair announced that further proceedings on the motion would be postponed.
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H.R. 3986.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H7747-7749)
Mr. Simpson moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 520.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Resources. H. Rept. 106-864.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Resources. H. Rept. 106-864.
Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by Voice Vote.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Referred to Bureau of Reclamation for comments.
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.3986 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.3986 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.3986 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.3986 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.