PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 769.
Congressional Research Service
Version 01 · Reported to Senate with amendment(s) · Aug 25, 2000
Directs the Secretary of the Interior to convey the Sly Park Dam and Reservoir, the Camp Creek Diversion Dam and Tunnel, and conduits and canals as authorized under the American River Act (Sly Park Unit) to the El Dorado Irrigation District, California.Authorizes the Secretary to receive specified amounts from the District to relieve payment obligations and extinguish debts associated with specified contracts. Provides that upon such payment: (1) the amounts paid shall be credited toward repayment of capital costs of the Central Valley Project in an amount equal to the associated undescended obligation; and (2) the Unit shall no longer be a Federal reclamation project or a unit of the Central Valley Project and the District shall not be entitled to receive any further reclamation benefits.Declares all costs, including interest charges, associated with the Project that have been included as a reimbursable cost of the Central Valley Project to be nonreimbursable and nonreturnable.
People & committees
Rep. Doolittle, John T. [R-CA-4] · R–CA
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. 769.
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Reported by Senator Murkowski under authority of the order of the Senate of 07/26/2000 with amendments. With written report No. 106-393.
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Reported by Senator Murkowski under authority of the order of the Senate of 07/26/2000 with amendments. With written report No. 106-393.
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Ordered to be reported with an amendment favorably.
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Hearings held.
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.
Passed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by voice vote.
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H.R. 992.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H11160-11161)
Mr. Doolittle moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 154.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Resources. H. Rept. 106-259.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Resources. H. Rept. 106-259.
Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by Voice Vote.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Forwarded by Subcommittee to Full Committee (Amended) by Voice Vote.
Subcommittee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
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.992 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.992 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.992 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.992 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.