PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on Fisheries Conservation, Wildlife and Oceans.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Jun 24, 2004
Mississippi River Protection and Restoration Act of 2004 - Amends the Upper Mississippi River Management Act of 1986 to: (1) allow interagency agreements under such Act between the Secretary of the Army (the Secretary) and the Secretary of the Interior to provide for maintenance of completed projects on Federal lands; (2) direct the Secretary to establish an independent science (currently, technical) advisory committee; (3) require such committee to include scientists, hydrologists, and engineers and to review and provide public comment on project criteria, selection, and sequencing; and (4) direct the Secretary to develop a system to rank proposed projects.
Amends the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 to: (1) increase the authorization of appropriations; (2) make project costs a Federal responsibility; (3) require a non-Federal sponsor to share 35 percent of the cost of projects constructed on private land; and (4) authorize the Secretary to share the cost of riverfront projects.
Establishes the Upper Mississippi Trust Fund and a charitable and nonprofit corporation to administer funds and gifts. Authorizes the use of Trust funds for aquatic and floodplain habitat restoration, riverfront revitalization, and administrative costs. Directs the Science Advisory Board to annually review projects proposed by the Board of Trustees.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Directs the Secretary to establish: (1) at the Waterways Experiment Station in Vicksburg, Mississippi, a program to coordinate monitoring and research in the Mississippi River Basin; and (2) a consortium of universities to demonstrate the full range of wetland values and functions, to reduce nutrient loadings to the Gulf of Mexico, and to sequester carbon.
People & committees
Rep. Kind, Ron [D-WI-3] · D–WI
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 Fisheries Conservation, Wildlife and Oceans.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment.
Referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, and in addition to the Committee on Resources, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, and in addition to the Committee on Resources, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, and in addition to the Committee on Resources, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
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: Aug 18, 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.4686 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.4686 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.4686 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.4686 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.