PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Became Public Law No: 105-190.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Feb 6, 1997
Directs the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, upon request of the project licensee, to extend for a maximum of three consecutive two-year periods the time period during which the licensee is required to commence construction of a certain hydroelectric project in the State of Washington. Provides for reinstatement of any currently expired license.
People & committees
Rep. White, Rick [R-WA-1] · R–WA
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Became Public Law No: 105-190.
Became Public Law No: 105-190.
Signed by President.
Signed by President.
Presented to President.
Presented to President.
Message on Senate action sent to the House.
Passed Senate without amendment by Unanimous Consent. (consideration: CR S7227)
Passed/agreed to in Senate: Passed Senate without amendment by Unanimous Consent.(consideration: CR S7227)
Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 253.
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Reported to Senate by Senator Murkowski without amendment. With written report No. 105-134.
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Reported to Senate by Senator Murkowski without amendment. With written report No. 105-134.
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Ordered to be reported without amendment favorably.
Subcommittee on Water and Power. Hearings held.
Referred to Subcommittee on Water and Power.
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.
Passed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill Agreed to by voice vote.
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H830)
Mr. Schaefer, Dan moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 10.
Reported by the Committee on Commerce. H. Rept. 105-13.
Reported by the Committee on Commerce. H. Rept. 105-13.
Ordered to be Reported by Voice Vote.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Forwarded by Subcommittee to Full Committee by Voice Vote.
Subcommittee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Energy and Power.
Referred to the House Committee on Commerce.
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.652 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.652 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.652 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.652 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.