PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 390.
Congressional Research Service
Version 80 · Reported to Senate without amendment · Apr 25, 2018
(Sec. 1) This bill authorizes the Department of the Interior, in cooperation with the state of Wyoming, to amend the Definite Plan Report for the Seedskadee Project (authorized under the Colorado River Storage Project Act) to provide for the study, design, planning, and construction activities that will enable the use of all active storage capacity of Fontenelle Dam and Reservoir, including the placement of sufficient riprap on the upstream face of the dam to allow such storage capacity to be used for authorized project purposes.
Interior may enter into: (1) any contract, grant, cooperative agreement, or other agreement that is necessary to carry out this bill; and (2) contracts with Wyoming for division of any additional active capacity made available under this bill.
Interior must enter into a cooperative agreement with Wyoming for planning, design, related preconstruction activities, and construction of any modification of the Fontenelle Dam, which shall specify the responsibilities of Interior and Wyoming regarding: (1) completing the planning and final design of the modification of the dam, (2) any environmental and cultural resource compliance activities required for the modification of the dam, and (3) the construction of the modification of the dam.
People & committees
Rep. Cheney, Liz [R-WY-At Large] · R–WY
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 390.
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Reported by Senator Murkowski without amendment. With written report No. 115-235.
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Reported by Senator Murkowski without amendment. With written report No. 115-235.
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Ordered to be reported without amendment favorably.
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 the Yeas and Nays: (2/3 required): 408 - 0 (Roll no. 160). (text: CR H2064)
House roll call 160 · Individual votesPassed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: (2/3 required): 408 - 0 (Roll no. 160).(text: CR H2064)
House roll call 160 · Individual votesConsidered as unfinished business. (consideration: CR H2067-2068)
At the conclusion of debate, the Yeas and Nays were demanded and ordered. Pursuant to the provisions of clause 8, rule XX, the Chair announced that further proceedings on the motion would be postponed.
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H.R. 648.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H2064-2065)
Mr. Tipton moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Water, Power and Oceans.
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: 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.648 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.648 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.648 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.648 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.