PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Became Public Law No: 108-380.
Congressional Research Service
Version 49 · Public Law · Oct 30, 2004
(This measure has not been amended since it was passed by the House on September 13, 2004. The summary of that version is repeated here.)
Replaces the map depicting the northernmost area of the John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier Resources System unit designated as Coastal Barrier Resources System Cedar Keys Unit P25/P25P (which is one of two maps subtitled "P25/P25P" included in the set of maps entitled "Coastal Barrier Resources System" referred to in the Coastal Barrier Resources Act) with another map relating to that unit entitled "John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier Resources System Cedar Keys Unit P25/P25P," dated February 9, 2004.
People & committees
Rep. Brown-Waite, Ginny [R-FL-5] · R–FL
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Became Public Law No: 108-380.
Became Public Law No: 108-380.
Signed by President.
Signed by President.
Presented to President.
Presented to President.
Message on Senate action sent to the House.
Passed Senate without amendment by Unanimous Consent.
Passed/agreed to in Senate: Passed Senate without amendment by Unanimous Consent.
Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works discharged by Unanimous Consent. (consideration: CR S11327)
Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works discharged by Unanimous Consent.(consideration: CR S11327)
Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
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. (text: CR H7023)
Passed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by voice vote.(text: CR H7023)
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H.R. 3056.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H7023-7024)
Mr. Radanovich moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 385.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Resources. H. Rept. 108-641.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Resources. H. Rept. 108-641.
Subcommittee on Fisheries Conservation, Wildlife and Oceans Discharged.
Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by Unanimous Consent.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Subcommittee Hearings Held.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Fisheries Conservation, Wildlife and Oceans.
Executive Comment Requested from Interior.
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.3056 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.3056 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.3056 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.3056 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.