PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
Congressional Research Service
Version 36 · Passed House amended · Sep 27, 2006
(This measure has not been amended since it was reported to the House on September 6, 2006. The summary of that version is repeated here.)
Lower Republican River Basin Study Act - Authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a study to determine the feasibility of implementing a water supply and conservation project that will: (1) improve water supply reliability in the Republican River Basin between Harlan County Lake in Nebraska and Milford Lake in Kansas; (2) increase the capacity of water storage through projects that serve areas in the Republican River Basin; and (3) improve water management efficiency in the Republican River Basin and, where appropriate, evaluate integrated water resource management and supply needs in the Republican River Basin. Terminates the Secretary's authority to carry out this Act 10 years after its enactment.
People & committees
Rep. Osborne, Tom [R-NE-3] · R–NE
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
Received in the Senate.
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 H7654-7655)
Passed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by voice vote.(text: CR H7654-7655)
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H.R. 4750.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H7654-7655)
Mr. Pearce moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 372.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Resources. H. Rept. 109-632.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Resources. H. Rept. 109-632.
Ordered to be Reported in the Nature of a Substitute (Amended) by Unanimous Consent.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Subcommittee on Water and Power Discharged.
Subcommittee Hearings Held.
Executive Comment Requested from Interior.
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.4750 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.4750 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.4750 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.4750 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.