PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Committee on Environment and Public Works. Hearings held.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · Mar 29, 2001
Corps of Engineers Reform Act of 2001 - Amends the Flood Control Act of 1970 to make economic development and environmental protection and restoration co-equal goals of water resources planning and development. Requires the Secretary of the Army to revise water resource project principles and guidelines of the Army Corps of Engineers to reflect such goals.Directs the Secretary to establish, for a project that is authorized or substantially modified, a stakeholder advisory committee to assist with the development of project feasibility studies, general reevaluation studies, and environmental impact statements. Requires specified project studies and statements to be subject to review by an independent panel of experts, including projects: (1) having an estimated total cost of more than $25 million; (2) likely to significantly adversely impact fish or wildlife; (3) likely to significantly adversely impact local environmental, cultural, or other resources; or (4) determined to be controversial. Establishes an Office of Independent Review for project reviews.Requires information related to project analysis to be made available to the public on the Internet (with exceptions for trade secrets).Prohibits the authorization or substantial modification of a project unless it minimizes adverse impacts on the natural hydrologic patterns, value, or diversity of aquatic ecosystems.Amends the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 to require the full and concurrent mitigation of authorized projects.Requires the Secretary to establish a record keeping system to track wetland and other habitat types impacted by authorized projects. Requires the public availability of such information.
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.
Committee on Environment and Public Works. Hearings held.
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works. (text of measure as introduced: CR S3158-3160)
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR S3157-3158)
Introduced in Senate
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
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.646 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.646 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.646 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.646 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.