PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · Mar 14, 2011
Corps of Engineers Reform Act of 2011 - Directs the Secretary of the Army, acting through the Chief of Engineers, to establish a program to make grants to states to carry out harbor maintenance and deepening projects in accordance with the priorities determined by each participating state. Amends the Internal Revenue Code to establish in the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund a separate State Harbor Maintenance Block Grant Account to fund such grant program. Requires the chief executive officer of a state to designate a state agency to administer the financial assistance received, develop the state plan to be submitted to the Secretary, hold at least one hearing to provide the public an opportunity to comment, and coordinate the implementation of harbor maintenance projects with applicable federal, state, and local agencies.
Directs the Secretary to: (1) coordinate all activities of the Department of Defense (DOD) relating to harbor maintenance activities and to coordinate with similar activities of other federal entities; (2) provide technical assistance to states in carrying out this Act; (2) review state compliance with this Act and with the plan approved for the state and terminate payments to the state for noncompliance; and (3) allot to each participating state, for each fiscal year, an amount equal to the proportion that the amounts collected in the state for deposit in the State Harbor Maintenance Block Grant Account for that fiscal year bears to the total amount of funds in that Account. Provides for a pro rata reduction of allotments in the event of insufficient funds.
Directs the Secretary to publish: (1) annually, a list describing each authorized water resources project of the Corps of Engineers in the Federal Register and on a publicly available website, and (2) a list describing each water resources study or project of the Corps that is no longer authorized.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Establishes a Water Resources Commission to make recommendations for the means by which to prioritize water resources projects of the Corps and prioritize Corps water resources projects that are not being carried out under a continuing authorities program.
People & committees
Sen. DeMint, Jim [R-SC] · R–SC
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
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.573 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.573 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.573 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.573 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.