PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Jul 10, 2009
Modifies the Lake Pontchartrain flood control project, Louisiana, to authorize the Secretary of the Army to construct a pumping station specifically designed to evacuate storm water from the Hoey's Basin area at a specified cost and federal share.
Requires the Secretary to: (1) conduct a study to carry out an analysis of the residual risks associated with specified options described in the project report and an independent peer review of the effectiveness of concept designs and preliminary cost estimates associated with each option; (2) report to specified congressional committees regarding the option that is more technically advantageous and more effective from an operational perspective in providing greater reliability and reducing the risk of flooding to the New Orleans area over the long term and that would increase the overall drainage capacity of the region, reduce local flooding to the greatest extent practicable, and provide the greatest system flexibility; and (3) resume project implementation with that option without regard to the funds available.
People & committees
Rep. Scalise, Steve [R-LA-1] · R–LA
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment.
Referred to the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Jan 2, 2025. 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.3169 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.3169 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.3169 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.3169 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.