PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
Congressional Research Service
Version 81 · Passed House without amendment · Sep 10, 2009
(This measure has not been amended since it was introduced. The summary of that version is repeated here.)
Chesapeake Bay Gateways and Watertrails Network Continuing Authorization Act - Amends the Chesapeake Bay Initiative Act of 1998 to make permanent the authorization of appropriations for the Chesapeake Bay Gateways and Watertrails Network.
People & committees
Rep. Sarbanes, John P. [D-MD-3] · D–MD
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
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 passage Passed by recorded vote: 311 - 107 (Roll no. 695). (text: CR H9402)
House roll call 695 · Individual votesPassed/agreed to in House: On passage Passed by recorded vote: 311 - 107 (Roll no. 695).(text: CR H9402)
House roll call 695 · Individual votesOn motion to recommit with instructions Failed by the Yeas and Nays: 194 - 229 (Roll no. 694). (consideration: CR H9408-9409)
House roll call 694 · Individual votesThe previous question on the motion to recommit with instructions was ordered without objection. (consideration: CR H9408)
DEBATE - The House proceeded with 10 minutes of debate on the Hastings (WA) motion to recommit with instructions. The instructions contained in the motion seek to require the bill to be reported back to the House with an amendment stating that the authorization for appropriations declared in Section 2 of the bill shall not take effect until the national deficit is less than $1,000,000,000,000.
Mr. Hastings (WA) moved to recommit with instructions to Natural Resources. (consideration: CR H9407-9409; text: CR H9407)
DEBATE - The House continued with further debate on the Bishop (UT) amendment.
DEBATE - Pursuant to the provisions of H.Res. 726, the House proceeded with 20 minutes of debate on the Bishop (UT) amendment.
DEBATE - The House proceeded with one hour of debate on H.R. 965.
Rule provides for consideration of H.R. 965 with 1 hour of general debate. Previous question shall be considered as ordered without intervening motions except motion to recommit with or without instructions. Measure will be considered read. A specified amendment is in order. All points of order against consideration of the bill are waived except those arising under clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI.
Considered under the provisions of rule H. Res. 726. (consideration: CR H9402-9409, H9409-9410)
Rule H. Res. 726 passed House.
Rules Committee Resolution H. Res. 726 Reported to House. Rule provides for consideration of H.R. 965 with 1 hour of general debate. Previous question shall be considered as ordered without intervening motions except motion to recommit with or without instructions. Measure will be considered read. A specified amendment is in order. All points of order against consideration of the bill are waived except those arising under clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI.
Referred to the Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public Lands.
Referred to the House Committee on Natural Resources.
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR E236)
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.965 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.965 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.965 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.965 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.