PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on Finance and Hazardous Materials.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Aug 5, 1999
Small Business Remediation Act of 1999 - Provides that the maximum level of remediation for a dry cleaning solvent in the soil, surface water, groundwater, and other environmental media (other than for water used as a drinking water source) that may be required of a dry cleaner shall be equal to: (1) the soil screening level for inhalation for such solvent determined in accordance with the Soil Screening Guidance Document (Guidance Document) developed by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA); or (2) the generic soil screening level for inhalation for such solvent as set forth in the Guidance Document until such maximum level is determined for a facility. Requires the applicable requirements for dry cleaning solvents under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 to be the remediation standards set forth in this Act. Authorizes the EPA Administrator to change such standards in accordance with any revised Guidance Document if necessary to protect health or the environment.
People & committees
Rep. Barton, Joe [R-TX-6] · R–TX
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Finance and Hazardous Materials.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment.
Referred to the Committee on Commerce, and in addition to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Referred to the Committee on Commerce, and in addition to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Referred to the Committee on Commerce, and in addition to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
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: Aug 20, 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.2726 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.2726 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.2726 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.2726 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.