PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Received in the Senate. Read twice. Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 573.
Congressional Research Service
Version 81 · Passed House without amendment · Sep 12, 2018
Bureau of Reclamation Transparency Act
(Sec. 4) This bill directs the Department of the Interior to submit to Congress, make publicly available, and biennially update an Asset Management Report that describes the Bureau of Reclamation's efforts to maintain in a reliable manner all reserved works (buildings, structures, facilities, or equipment owned by Reclamation for which operations and maintenance are performed by its employees or through a contract with Reclamation) at Reclamation facilities, and to standardize and streamline data reporting and processes across regions and areas for the purpose of maintaining such works.
Such report shall include: (1) a detailed assessment of major repair and rehabilitation needs for all such works; and (2) an itemized list of major repair and rehabilitation needs of individual Reclamation facilities at each Reclamation project, including a budget level cost estimate of appropriations needed to complete each item and an assignment of a categorical rating for each item consistent with existing uniform categorization systems to inform the annual budget process and agency requirements.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
(Sec. 5) Interior shall: (1) coordinate with the nonfederal entities responsible for the operation and maintenance of transferred works (Reclamation facilities at which operations and maintenance are carried out by a nonfederal entity under a formal agreement with Reclamation) in developing reporting requirements for Asset Management Reports with respect to major repair and rehabilitation needs for such works, and (2) develop and implement a categorical rating system for transferred works.
(Sec. 6) The bill reduces the maximum amount of the federal share of the cost of the Central Valley Water Recycling Project otherwise available as of the date of enactment of this bill by $2 million.
People & committees
Rep. Gosar, Paul A. [R-AZ-4] · R–AZ
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. 573.
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. (text: CR H8142-8143)
Passed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill Agreed to by voice vote.(text: CR H8142-8143)
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H.R. 660.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H8142-8144)
Mr. Gianforte moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 103.
Reported by the Committee on Natural Resources. H. Rept. 115-156.
Reported by the Committee on Natural Resources. H. Rept. 115-156.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Ordered to be Reported by Unanimous Consent.
Subcommittee on Water, Power and Oceans Discharged.
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: Dec 5, 2025. 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.660 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.660 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.660 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.660 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.