PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Became Public Law No: 109-99.
Congressional Research Service
Version 49 · Public Law · Nov 11, 2005
(This measure has not been amended since it was passed by the Senate on October 7, 2005. The summary of that version is repeated here.)
Amends the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 to extend through March 31, 2006, the authority of the Secretary of the Army to accept and expend funds contributed by non-federal public entities to expedite the evaluation of permits under the jurisdiction of the Department of the Army.
People & committees
Rep. Baird, Brian [D-WA-3] · D–WA
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Became Public Law No: 109-99.
Became Public Law No: 109-99.
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 that the House suspend the rules and agree to the Senate amendments Agreed to by voice vote.
Resolving differences -- House actions: On motion that the House suspend the rules and agree to the Senate amendments Agreed to by voice vote.
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H.R. 3765.
Mr. Duncan moved that the House suspend the rules and agree to the Senate amendments. (consideration: CR H8873-8874)
Passed Senate with an amendment and an amendment to the Title by Unanimous Consent.
Passed/agreed to in Senate: Passed Senate with an amendment and an amendment to the Title by Unanimous Consent.
Measure laid before Senate by unanimous consent. (consideration: CR S11332)
Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works discharged by Unanimous Consent.
Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works discharged by Unanimous Consent.
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
Received in the Senate.
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 H8115)
Passed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill Agreed to by voice vote.(text: CR H8115)
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H.R. 3765.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H8115-8116)
Mr. Boustany moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill.
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: 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.3765 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.3765 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.3765 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.3765 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.