PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.

A bill to deauthorize a certain portion of the project for navigation, Rockland Harbor, Maine.

Read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.

Official summary

Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · Mar 13, 2007

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.

Read the summary on Congress.gov
PlainBill analysis is coming later. This page presents official source data. We have not yet published a PlainBill explanation for this bill.

Who introduced it

Sen. Snowe, Olympia J. [R-ME] · R–ME

Committees

  • Environment and Public Works Committee
1 cosponsorship records, including any withdrawals

Actions

A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.

  1. Read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.

  2. Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR S3066-3067)

  3. Introduced in Senate

Bill text & related measures

Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.

Related bills identified by Congress.gov

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.

Explore the bill from different angles

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.

Neutral evidence review

Objective

Analyze S.855 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.

View full prompt & sources
Fairness and public impact

Progressive lens

Examine S.855 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.

View full prompt & sources
Institutions and government scope

Conservative lens

Examine S.855 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.

View full prompt & sources
Individual rights and government power

Liberty lens

Examine S.855 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.

View full prompt & sources