PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Became Public Law No: 106-270.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · May 12, 1999
Deschutes Resources Conservancy Reauthorization Act of 1999 - Amends the Oregon Resource Conservation Act of 1996 to: (1) require the Bureau of Reclamation to pay up to $2 million during each of FY 2002 through 2006 for Deschutes Basin ecosystem restoration projects proposed by the Working Group (the Deschutes Resources Conservancy); and (2) authorize appropriations to carry out such projects.
People & committees
Sen. Smith, Gordon H. [R-OR] · R–OR
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Became Public Law No: 106-270.
Became Public Law No: 106-270.
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 H7399)
Passed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill Agreed to by voice vote.(text: CR H7399)
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on S. 1027.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H7399)
Mr. Walden moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 466.
Reported by the Committee on Resources. H. Rept. 106-805.
Reported by the Committee on Resources. H. Rept. 106-805.
Ordered to be Reported by Unanimous Consent.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
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 without amendment by Unanimous Consent. (consideration: CR S8184-8185, S8189; text: CR S8189)
Passed/agreed to in Senate: Passed Senate without amendment by Unanimous Consent.(consideration: CR S8184-8185, S8189; text: CR S8189)
Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 178.
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Reported to Senate by Senator Murkowski without amendment. With written report No. 106-96.
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Reported to Senate by Senator Murkowski without amendment. With written report No. 106-96.
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources requested executive comment from Department of the Interior, OMB.
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Ordered to be reported without amendment favorably.
Subcommittee on Water and Power. Hearings held. With printed Hearing: S.Hrg. 106-208.
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources requested executive comment from Department of the Interior, OMB.
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR S5169)
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.1027 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.1027 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.1027 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.1027 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.