PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR S7813-7814)
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · Apr 11, 2005
Corps of Engineers Modernization and Improvement Act of 2005 - 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 through the restoration of hydrologic and geomorphic processes; and (2) the Corps to develop and at least every four years update an integrated national plan to manage, rehabilitate, and modernize inland waterway and port infrastructure to meet national economic and environmental 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 to establish panels of experts to review water resources projects. Sets forth review guidelines and requirements.
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. Requires the Secretary to identify for deauthorization those projects whose projected remaining benefits do not meet that threshold.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Sets forth revised provisions governing cost sharing for operation and maintenance of inland waterways.
Establishes requirements for: (1) full mitigation of losses of aquatic and terrestrial resources, fish, and wildlife for approval of water resources projects; and (2) a record-keeping system to track mitigation for each each project constructed, operated, or maintained by the Secretary.
Requires the Chief of Engineers, annually, to submit a fiscal transparency report on Corps expenditures and projects expected to be completed. Provides for deauthorization of projects for which federal funds have not been obligated over specified periods.
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 S7813-7814)
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works. (text of measure as introduced: CR S3426-3430)
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR S3425-3426)
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.753 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.753 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.753 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.753 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.