PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Received in the Senate. Read twice. Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 439.
Congressional Research Service
Version 36 · Passed House amended · Apr 26, 2016
This measure has not been amended since it was reported to the House on March 23, 2016. The summary of that version is repeated here.
Great Lakes Restoration Initiative Act of 2016
(Sec. 2) This bill amends the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (commonly known as the Clean Water Act) to revise and reauthorize the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Great Lakes Restoration Initiative for FY2017-FY2021.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
The bill restates the initiative's priorities for Great Lakes protection and restoration programs and projects, including: (1) the remediation of toxic substances and areas of concern; (2) the prevention and control of invasive species and their impacts; (3) the protection and restoration of near-shore health and the prevention and mitigation of nonpoint source pollution (water pollution that comes from many diffuse sources, such as pollution on the ground picked up by rain or snow); (4) habitat and wildlife protection and restoration; and (5) accountability, monitoring, evaluation, communication, and partnership activities.
In selecting the best combination of the initiative's programs and projects, the EPA must consult with the Great Lake states and Indian Tribes and solicit input from other non-federal stakeholders.
The EPA must designate a point person from an appropriate federal partner to coordinate, with federal partners and non-federal stakeholders, the initiative's projects and activities involving harmful algal blooms in the Great Lakes.
In addition to current requirements concerning the use of funds made available to carry out the initiative, the bill requires initiative funds to be used to strategically implement operations and activities of EPA's Great Lakes National Program Office, such as remediation of sediment contamination in areas of concern.
The EPA or federal department or agency that receives funds under the initiative may make a grant to, or enter into an agreement with, a qualified nonfederal entity for planning, researching, monitoring, outreach, or implementation of a project that supports the Initiative Action Plan or the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement.
Projects may be carried out under the initiative on multiple levels, including at the local level.
Funding made available to implement the initiative may not be used for any water infrastructure activity (other than a green infrastructure project that improves habitat and other ecosystem functions in the Great Lakes) for which funding is made available under the Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act of 2014.
The EPA must review, and revise, if appropriate, the Initiative Action Plan at least once every five years. The EPA must also: (1) establish a process for monitoring and periodically reporting to the public on the plan's progress, (2) make information about each project carried out under the plan available on a public website, and (3) provide to specified congressional committees a yearly detailed description of the initiative's progress and amounts transferred to participating federal departments and agencies for carrying out activities that support the initiative.
People & committees
Rep. Joyce, David P. [R-OH-14] · R–OH
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Received in the Senate. Read twice. Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 439.
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by voice vote. (text: CR H1954-1955)
Passed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by voice vote.(text: CR H1954-1955)
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H.R. 223.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H1954-1957)
Mr. Gibbs moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 354.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. H. Rept. 114-465.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. H. Rept. 114-465.
Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by Voice Vote.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment Discharged.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment.
Referred to the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Dec 5, 2025. 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 H.R.223 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 H.R.223 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 H.R.223 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 H.R.223 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.