To provide a clarification with respect to the Mississippi River and Tributaries project.

Referred to the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.

Congressional Research Service

Official summary

Version 00 · Introduced in House · Dec 8, 2006

Declares that: (1) the 2.5% interest rate used in the 2006 Revised Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement 2 recommending construction of the closure of the gap in the mainline levee system for the Mississippi River and Tributaries project located at the south end of the New Madrid floodway and considered in the authorization for the closure is the appropriate interest rate; and (2) construction of the closure is a non-separable and integral element of the project.

Read the summary on Congress.gov

PlainBill analysis is coming later. This page presents official source data. We have not yet published a PlainBill explanation for this bill.

People & committees

Who introduced it

Rep. Emerson, Jo Ann [R-MO-8] · R–MO

Committees

Transportation and Infrastructure Committee

3 cosponsorship records, including any withdrawals

Legislative record

Actions

A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.

Dec 8, 2006
Referred to the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
Dec 8, 2006
Introduced in House
Dec 8, 2006
Introduced in House

Primary sources

Bill text & related measures

Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.

Introduced in House · Dec 8, 2006 Formatted Text PDF Formatted XML

Related bills identified by Congress.gov

No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.

Source last updated: Feb 7, 2024. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.

AI Conversation Starters

Explore the bill from different angles

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.

Neutral evidence review

Objective

Analyze H.R.6432 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.

View full prompt & sources

Discuss H.R.6432, 109th Congress: To provide a clarification with respect to the Mississippi River and Tributaries project.

Official record: https://www.congress.gov/bill/109th-congress/house-bill/6432

Text version to examine: Introduced in House · 2006-12-08.

Official full text: https://www.congress.gov/109/bills/hr6432/BILLS-109hr6432ih.htm

Imported record last updated by the source: 2024-02-07T16:03:27Z. Verify current status and distinguish any later version from the version above.

Read the official text before answering. If you cannot access it, say so and ask me to provide it; do not assume a link means you have read the document. Distinguish proposals from enacted law, cite sources, and separate facts, interpretation, and uncertain predictions. Include counterarguments even when using a particular perspective.

Analyze H.R.6432 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.

Fairness and public impact

Progressive lens

Examine H.R.6432 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.

View full prompt & sources

Discuss H.R.6432, 109th Congress: To provide a clarification with respect to the Mississippi River and Tributaries project.

Official record: https://www.congress.gov/bill/109th-congress/house-bill/6432

Text version to examine: Introduced in House · 2006-12-08.

Official full text: https://www.congress.gov/109/bills/hr6432/BILLS-109hr6432ih.htm

Imported record last updated by the source: 2024-02-07T16:03:27Z. Verify current status and distinguish any later version from the version above.

Read the official text before answering. If you cannot access it, say so and ask me to provide it; do not assume a link means you have read the document. Distinguish proposals from enacted law, cite sources, and separate facts, interpretation, and uncertain predictions. Include counterarguments even when using a particular perspective.

Examine H.R.6432 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.

Institutions and government scope

Conservative lens

Examine H.R.6432 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.

View full prompt & sources

Discuss H.R.6432, 109th Congress: To provide a clarification with respect to the Mississippi River and Tributaries project.

Official record: https://www.congress.gov/bill/109th-congress/house-bill/6432

Text version to examine: Introduced in House · 2006-12-08.

Official full text: https://www.congress.gov/109/bills/hr6432/BILLS-109hr6432ih.htm

Imported record last updated by the source: 2024-02-07T16:03:27Z. Verify current status and distinguish any later version from the version above.

Read the official text before answering. If you cannot access it, say so and ask me to provide it; do not assume a link means you have read the document. Distinguish proposals from enacted law, cite sources, and separate facts, interpretation, and uncertain predictions. Include counterarguments even when using a particular perspective.

Examine H.R.6432 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.

Individual rights and government power

Liberty lens

Examine H.R.6432 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.

View full prompt & sources

Discuss H.R.6432, 109th Congress: To provide a clarification with respect to the Mississippi River and Tributaries project.

Official record: https://www.congress.gov/bill/109th-congress/house-bill/6432

Text version to examine: Introduced in House · 2006-12-08.

Official full text: https://www.congress.gov/109/bills/hr6432/BILLS-109hr6432ih.htm

Imported record last updated by the source: 2024-02-07T16:03:27Z. Verify current status and distinguish any later version from the version above.

Read the official text before answering. If you cannot access it, say so and ask me to provide it; do not assume a link means you have read the document. Distinguish proposals from enacted law, cite sources, and separate facts, interpretation, and uncertain predictions. Include counterarguments even when using a particular perspective.

Examine H.R.6432 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.