PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR S3528-3529)
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · Mar 10, 2004
Corps of Engineers Modernization and Improvement Act of 2004 - Amends the Flood Control Act of 1970 to require: (1) the Secretary of the Army to revise the planning guidelines, regulations, and circulars of the Corps of Engineers to comply with specified requirements, including encouraging ecosystem restoration; and (2) the Corps to develop and annually update an integrated national plan to manage, rehabilitate, and modernize inland waterway and port infrastructure to meet specified needs.
Directs the Secretary to ensure that each feasibility report, general reevaluation report, and environmental impact statement of a water resource project is subject to review by an independent panel of experts if: (1) the project has an estimated total cost of more than $25 million; (2) the Governor of an affected State requests such review; (3) the head of a Federal agency charged with reviewing the project determines that it is likely to have a significant adverse impact; or (4) the Secretary determines that the project is controversial.
Directs the Inspector General of the Army to appoint a Director of Independent Review. Permits the Secretary to recommend a project for congressional authorization only if it has projected national benefits that are at least 1.5 times as great as the estimated total project costs. Establishes full mitigation requirements for losses of aquatic and terrestrial resources, fish, and wildlife.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Directs the Secretary to establish: (1) a record-keeping system to track each project constructed, operated, or maintained by the Secretary; and (2) a mechanism for decommissioning waterways that are no longer economically justified or that are no longer in the national interest.
People & committees
Sen. Feingold, Russell D. [D-WI] · D–WI
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR S3528-3529)
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works. (text of measure as introduced: CR S2551-2556)
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR S2550-2551)
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.2188 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.2188 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.2188 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.2188 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.