PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Became Public Law No: 109-225.
Congressional Research Service
Version 49 · Public Law · May 25, 2006
(This measure has not been amended since it was passed by the Senate on December 16, 2005. The summary of that version is repeated here.)
James Campbell National Wildlife Refuge Expansion Act of 2005 - Expands the boundary of the James Campbell National Wildlife Refuge (Refuge) in Honolulu, Hawaii, to include approximately 1,100 acres of land. Authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to: (1) acquire such land; and (2) make minor modifications to the boundary of the Refuge to achieve U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service goals or to acquire property within the Refuge.
Authorizes appropriations.
People & committees
Sen. Inouye, Daniel K. [D-HI] · D–HI
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Became Public Law No: 109-225.
Became Public Law No: 109-225.
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 H2606)
Passed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill Agreed to by voice vote.(text: CR H2606)
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on S. 1165.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H2606-2607)
Mr. Radanovich moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 237.
Reported by the Committee on Resources. H. Rept. 109-429.
Reported by the Committee on Resources. H. Rept. 109-429.
Ordered to be Reported by Unanimous Consent.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Subcommittee on Fisheries and Oceans Discharged.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Fisheries and Oceans.
Referred to the House Committee on Resources.
Message on Senate action sent to the House.
Received in the House.
Passed Senate with amendments by Unanimous Consent. (consideration: CR S13938-13939; text as passed Senate: CR S13938-13939)
Passed/agreed to in Senate: Passed Senate with amendments by Unanimous Consent.(consideration: CR S13938-13939; text as passed Senate: CR S13938-13939)
Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 303.
Committee on Environment and Public Works. Reported by Senator Inhofe under authority of the order of the Senate of 11/18/2005 with amendments. With written report No. 109-191.
Committee on Environment and Public Works. Reported by Senator Inhofe under authority of the order of the Senate of 11/18/2005 with amendments. With written report No. 109-191.
Committee on Environment and Public Works. Ordered to be reported with an amendment favorably.
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works. (text of measure as introduced: CR S6104)
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR S6103-6104)
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.1165 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.1165 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.1165 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.1165 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.