PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Became Public Law No: 109-138.
Congressional Research Service
Version 49 · Public Law · Dec 22, 2005
(This measure has not been amended since it was introduced. The summary of that version is repeated here.)
Southern Oregon Bureau of Reclamation Repayment Act of 2005 - Authorizes any landowner within the Rogue River Valley Irrigation District or the Medford Irrigation District of Oregon to repay, at any time, the construction costs of project facilities allocated to that owner's lands, notwithstanding specified provisions of the Reclamation Reform Act of 1982.
Provides that: (1) nothing in this Act modifies any contractual rights between the two districts and the United States or any rights, obligations, or relationships between the districts and their landowners as governed by Oregon law; and (2) upon discharge in full of the repayment obligation, the lands at issue shall not be subject to ownership and full-cost pricing limitations under reclamation and irrigation provisions. Directs the Secretary of the Interior, upon request, to provide certification of the landholder's freedom from such limitations.
People & committees
Rep. Walden, Greg [R-OR-2] · R–OR
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Became Public Law No: 109-138.
Became Public Law No: 109-138.
Signed by President.
Signed by President.
Presented to President.
Presented to President.
Message on Senate action sent to the House.
Cleared for White 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 S13937)
Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources discharged by Unanimous Consent.(consideration: CR S13937)
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 Agreed to by voice vote. (text: CR H11044)
Passed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill Agreed to by voice vote.(text: CR H11044)
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H.R. 4195.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H11044)
Mr. Radanovich moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 177.
Reported by the Committee on Resources. H. Rept. 109-323.
Reported by the Committee on Resources. H. Rept. 109-323.
Ordered to be Reported by Unanimous Consent.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Subcommittee on Water and Power Discharged.
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.4195 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.4195 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.4195 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.4195 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.