PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Received in the Senate. Read twice. Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 545.
Congressional Research Service
Version 07 · Reported to House · Sep 12, 2024
Upper Colorado and San Juan River Basins Endangered Fish Recovery Programs Reauthorization Act of 2023
This bill reauthorizes through FY2031 and revises the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's Upper Colorado River and San Juan River Basin recovery implementation programs to restore populations of certain endangered and threatened fish.
The goal of the Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program is to recover the humpback chub (Gila Cypha), bonytail (Gila elegans), Colorado pikeminnow (Ptychocheilus lucius), and razorback sucker (Xyrauchen texanus). The states of Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming are partners in the program.
The goal of the San Juan River Basin Recovery Implementation Program is to recover the Colorado pikeminnow (Ptychocheilus lucius) and razorback sucker (Xyrauchen texanus). The states of Colorado and New Mexico are partners in the program.
The bill expands the programs to include the recovery of threatened fish stock. Thus, the bill requires the Upper Colorado River program to continue efforts to restore populations of the humpback chub, which was reclassified from an endangered species to a threatened species in 2001.
People & committees
Rep. Boebert, Lauren [R-CO-3] · R–CO
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Received in the Senate. Read twice. Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 545.
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 H5731-5732)
Passed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by voice vote. (text: CR H5731-5732)
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H.R. 4596.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H5731-5733)
Mr. Westerman moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 565.
Reported by the Committee on Natural Resources. H. Rept. 118-669.
Reported by the Committee on Natural Resources. H. Rept. 118-669.
Ordered to be Reported by Unanimous Consent.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held
Subcommittee on Water, Wildlife, and Fisheries Discharged
Subcommittee Hearings Held
Referred to the Subcommittee on Water, Wildlife, and Fisheries.
Referred to the House Committee on Natural 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: Feb 5, 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.4596 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.4596 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.4596 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.4596 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.