PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 301.
Congressional Research Service
Version 01 · Reported to Senate with amendment(s) · Nov 17, 2005
Directs the Secretary of the Army, acting through the Chief of Engineers, to conduct and report to Congress on a comprehensive assessment of Corps of Engineers projects and studies in Louisiana affected by Hurricanes Katrina and/or Rita to determine whether opportunities exist for project modifications or project integration that may reduce future hurricane impacts, further other project purposes, or provide efficiencies in the implementation of hurricane protection, flood control, navigation, or ecosystem restoration projects by the Corps. Provides that the assessment shall not be constrained by any cost-benefit analysis and shall include: (1) a description of means of providing an increased level of hurricane protection using a combination of structural and nonstructural features; (2) a review of the use of a combination of structural means (such as levees and floodgates) and nonstructural means (such as wetlands and beaches) in providing hurricane protection; and (3) a prioritization of actions that should be taken to improve the level of hurricane protection provided.
Directs the Secretary, using the results of the assessment, to conduct a comprehensive, integrated water resources analysis, design, and development of a full range of flood control, navigation, ecosystem restoration, and hurricane protection measures for southern Louisiana.
Directs the Secretary to submit to specified congressional committees initial and final reports detailing an integrated approach to category five hurricane protection, flood control, navigation, and ecosystem restoration for the Gulf Coast region of the state, that includes: (1) a description of an overall approach for future Corps spending in that region; (2) an identification of specific changes to ongoing projects and studies, as well as proposals for future projects, in that region; and (3) a consideration of potential future projects, including projects involving the restoration, protection, or enhancement of barrier islands, coastal restoration, the closing of the Mississippi River Gulf Outlet, the filling in of canals, and the relocation and protection of pumping stations and drainage infrastructure.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Provides funding from amounts made available by the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act.
People & committees
Sen. Inhofe, James M. [R-OK] · R–OK
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 301.
Committee on Environment and Public Works. Reported by Senator Inhofe with amendments. Without written report.
Committee on Environment and Public Works. Reported by Senator Inhofe with amendments. Without written report.
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.
Introduced in Senate
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: 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.2006 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.2006 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.2006 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.2006 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.