PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation.
Congressional Research Service
Version 35 · Passed Senate amended · Sep 5, 2006
Deauthorizes: (1) a portion of the project for navigation at Rockland Harbor, Maine; and (2) the portion of the Illinois Waterway project authorized by the River and Harbor Act of 1927 in the South Fork of the South Branch of the Chicago River.
Redesignates a portion of the navigation project, Saco River, Maine, described as a maneuvering basin as an anchorage area.
Directs the Secretary of the Army, by May 31, 2007, to publish a supplement to the major rehabilitation report for the Herbert Hoover Dike system, approved by the Chief of Engineers in November 2000, which shall: (1) evaluate existing conditions at the Herbert Hoover Dike system; (2) identify additional risks associated with flood events at the system that are equal to or greater than the standard projected flood risks; (3) evaluate the potential to integrate Corps of Engineers projects into an enhanced flood protection system for Lake Okeechobee, including the potential for additional water storage north of that lake and an analysis of other project features included in the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan; and (4) review the report prepared for the South Florida Water Management District dated April 2006.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Authorizes appropriations.
People & committees
Sen. Snowe, Olympia J. [R-ME] · R–ME
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 Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation.
Referred to the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
Message on Senate action sent to the House.
Received in the House.
Passed Senate with amendments by Unanimous Consent. (text as passed Senate: CR S8977)
Passed/agreed to in Senate: Passed Senate with amendments by Unanimous Consent.(text as passed Senate: CR S8977)
Measure laid before Senate by unanimous consent. (consideration: CR S8976-8977)
Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works discharged by Unanimous Consent.
Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works discharged by Unanimous Consent.
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works. (text of measure as introduced: CR S1722)
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR S1722-1723)
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.466 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.466 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.466 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.466 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.