PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Became Public Law No: 105-9.
Congressional Research Service
Version 36 · Passed House amended · Mar 18, 1997
Oroville-Tonasket Claim Settlement and Conveyance Act - Approves the Settlement Agreement between the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation and the Oroville-Tonasket Irrigation District. Authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to conduct all necessary and appropriate investigations, studies, and required Federal actions to implement the Agreement. Provides for consideration by the District to the United States and U.S. responsibilities under such Agreement. Authorizes the Secretary to convey to the District all U.S. rights and interest in District project irrigation works. Provides that the transfer of title shall not affect the timing or obligation amount of the Bonneville Power Administration for the repayment of Federal construction costs that the Secretary has determined to be beyond the ability of irrigators to pay. Directs the Secretary to retain title to the Wildlife Mitigation Facilities. Terminates certain prior contracts upon such conveyance. Continues the District's obligation to deliver water to Indian trust lands upon request. Provides liabilities of the District upon conveyance of the irrigation works. Terminates upon the completion of the transfer specified mandates imposed upon the irrigation works under prior reclamation laws. Deauthorizes upon completion of the transfer the Chief Joseph Dam Project of the Oroville-Tonasket Unit Extension, Washington.
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: 105-9.
Became Public Law No: 105-9.
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 S2862-2863)
Passed/agreed to in Senate: Passed Senate without amendment by Unanimous Consent.(consideration: CR S2862-2863)
Received in the Senate, read twice.
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
On passage Passed by voice vote.
Passed/agreed to in House: On passage Passed by voice vote.
The House adopted the amendment in the nature of a substitute as agreed to by the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union.
The previous question was ordered pursuant to the rule.
The House rose from the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union to report H.R. 412.
DEBATE - The Committee of the Whole proceeded with twenty minutes of debate.
Mr. Doolittle asked unanimous consent that the time for debate on the Miller amendment, and all amendment to the bill be limited to not to exceed 20 minutes. Agreed to without objection.
The House resolved into Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union for further consideration.
Considered as unfinished business.
Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union rises leaving H.R. 412 as unfinished business.
On motion that the Committee rise Agreed to by voice vote.
Mr. Doolittle moved that the Committee rise.
GENERAL DEBATE - The Committee of the Whole proceeded with one hour of general debate.
The Speaker designated the Honorable Terry Everett to act as Chairman of the Committee.
House resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union pursuant to H. Res. 94 and Rule XXIII.
Rule provides for consideration of H.R. 412 with 1 hour of general debate. Previous question shall be considered as ordered without intervening motions except motion to recommit with or without instructions. It shall be in order to consider as an original bill for the purpose of amendment under the five-minute rule the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on Resources now printed in the bill. Measure will be read by section. Bill is open to amendments.
Considered under the provisions of rule H. Res. 94. (consideration: CR H1058-1067)
Rule H. Res. 94 passed House.
Rules Committee Resolution H. Res. 94 Reported to House. Rule provides for consideration of H.R. 412 with 1 hour of general debate. Previous question shall be considered as ordered without intervening motions except motion to recommit with or without instructions. It shall be in order to consider as an original bill for the purpose of amendment under the five-minute rule the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on Resources now printed in the bill. Measure will be read by section. Bill is open to amendments.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 6.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Resources. H. Rept. 105-8.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Resources. H. Rept. 105-8.
Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by Voice Vote.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Subcommittee on Water and Power Discharged.
Executive Comment Received from Bur Reclamation.
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.
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.412 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.412 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.412 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.412 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.