PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Became Public Law No: 109-219.
Congressional Research Service
Version 49 · Public Law · May 5, 2006
(This measure has not been amended since it was introduced. The summary of that version is repeated here.)
Glendo Unit of the Missouri River Basin Project Contract Extension Act of 2005 - Amends the Irrigation Project Contract Extension Act of 1998 to extend each of the water service or repayment contracts identified in the Act for the Glendo Unit of the Missouri River Basin Project, Wyoming, Nebraska, and Colorado, until December 31, 2007.
People & committees
Sen. Thomas, Craig [R-WY] · R–WY
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Became Public Law No: 109-219.
Became Public Law No: 109-219.
Signed by President.
Signed by President.
Presented to President.
Presented to President.
Cleared for White House.
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 H1688)
Passed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill Agreed to by voice vote.(text: CR H1688)
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on S. 592.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H1688-1689)
Mr. Renzi 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 without amendment and an amendment to the Title by Unanimous Consent. (consideration: CR S13061; text as passed Senate: CR S13061)
Passed/agreed to in Senate: Passed Senate without amendment and an amendment to the Title by Unanimous Consent.(consideration: CR S13061; text as passed Senate: CR S13061)
Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 268.
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Reported by Senator Domenici without amendment and an amendment to the title. With written report No. 109-167.
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Reported by Senator Domenici without amendment and an amendment to the title. With written report No. 109-167.
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. 109-96.
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.592 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.592 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.592 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.592 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.