PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Became Public Law No: 109-299.
Congressional Research Service
Version 49 · Public Law · Oct 5, 2006
(This measure has not been amended since it was passed by the Senate on December 16, 2005. The summary of that version is repeated here.)
Wichita Project Equus Beds Division Authorization Act of 2005 - Authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to assist in the funding and implementation of the Equus Beds Aquifer Recharge and Recovery Component of the Integrated Local Water Supply Plan, Wichita, Kansas (referred to as the Equus Beds Division). Makes operation, maintenance, and replacement of the Division the sole responsibility of the City of Wichita.
Authorizes appropriations for the federal share of the Division's total cost. Terminates the Secretary's authority to carry out this Act 10 years after its enactment.
People & committees
Sen. Roberts, Pat [R-KS] · R–KS
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Became Public Law No: 109-299.
Became Public Law No: 109-299.
Signed by President.
Signed by President.
Presented to President.
Presented to President.
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 H6793)
Passed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill Agreed to by voice vote.(text: CR H6793)
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on S. 1025.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H6793-6794)
Mr. Jones (NC) moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Water and Power.
Referred to the House Committee on Resources.
Message on Senate action sent to the House.
Received in the House.
Passed Senate with an amendment by Unanimous Consent. (consideration: CR S13934-13935)
Passed/agreed to in Senate: Passed Senate with an amendment by Unanimous Consent.(consideration: CR S13934-13935)
Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 310.
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Reported by Senator Domenici under authority of the order of the Senate of 11/18/2005 with an amendment. With written report No. 109-192. (text of measure as reported in Senate: CR 12/16/2005 S13935)
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Reported by Senator Domenici under authority of the order of the Senate of 11/18/2005 with an amendment. With written report No. 109-192.(text of measure as reported in Senate: CR 12/16/2005 S13935)
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Ordered to be reported with an amendment favorably.
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources Subcommittee on Water and Power. Hearings held. With printed Hearing: S.Hrg. 109-273.
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
Introduced in Senate
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 S.1025 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 S.1025 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 S.1025 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 S.1025 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.