PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
Congressional Research Service
Version 36 · Passed House amended · Mar 7, 2007
Water Quality Investment Act of 2007 - Amends the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to require projects receiving sewer overflow control grant assistance to be carried out subject to the requirements applicable to projects receiving assistance from state water pollution control revolving funds, except to the extent that the governor of the state in which the project is located determines that a revolving fund requirement is inconsistent with the purposes of the sewer overflow control grant program.
Authorizes appropriations for sewer overflow control grants through FY2012.
Modifies grant funding allocation provisions to reflect new dates of authorization and reauthorized amounts. Eliminates the set-aside for the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to make direct grants to municipalities and municipal entities during the second year of authorization.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Establishes a December 31, 2010, deadline for the Administrator's report to Congress on recommended funding levels for sewer overflow control grants.
Prohibits the funds authorized by this Act from being used to lobby governmental entities or officers or to pay for expenses related to memberships in organizations or associations.
People & committees
Rep. Pascrell, Bill, Jr. [D-NJ-8] · D–NJ
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
On passage Passed by the Yeas and Nays: 367 - 58 (Roll no. 125).
House roll call 125 · Individual votesPassed/agreed to in House: On passage Passed by the Yeas and Nays: 367 - 58 (Roll no. 125).
House roll call 125 · Individual votesOn motion to recommit with instructions Agreed to by recorded vote: 425 - 0 (Roll no. 124).
House roll call 124 · Individual votesThe previous question on the motion to recommit with instructions was ordered without objection. (consideration: CR H2263-2264)
Floor summary: DEBATE - The House proceeded with 10 minutes of debate on the McHenry motion to recommit with instructions. The instructions contained in the motion seek to require the bill to be reported back to the House with an amendment inserting at the end of the bill a new section on limitation on the use of funds.
Mr. McHenry moved to recommit with instructions to Transportation. (consideration: CR H2263; text: CR H2263)
The House adopted the amendment in the nature of a substitute as agreed to by the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union.
The previous question was ordered pursuant to the rule.
The House rose from the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union to report H.R. 569.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS - The Chair announced that the unfinished business was the question of adoption of an amendment which had been debated earlier and on which further proceedings had been postponed.
The House resolved into Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union for further consideration.
Considered as unfinished business. (consideration: CR H2262-2264)
Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union rises leaving H.R. 569 as unfinished business.
On motion that the Committee rise Agreed to by voice vote.
Ms. Johnson, E. B. moved that the Committee rise.
DEBATE - The Committee of the Whole proceeded with debate on the Rohrabacher amendment under the five-minute rule, pending reservation of a point of order.
POSTPONED PROCEEDINGS - At the conclusion of debate on the Price(GA) amendment, the Chair put the question on adoption of the amendment and by voice vote, announced that the noes prevailed. Mr. Price(GA) demanded a recorded vote and the Chair postponed further proceedings on the question of adoption of the amendment until later in the legislative day.
DEBATE - The Committee of the Whole proceeded with debate on the Price(GA) amendment under the five-minute rule.
DEBATE - The Committee of the Whole proceeded with debate on the King (IA) amendment under the five-minute rule.
GENERAL DEBATE - The Committee of the Whole proceeded with one hour of general debate on H.R. 569.
The Speaker designated the Honorable Adam B. Schiff to act as Chairman of the Committee.
House resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union pursuant to H. Res. 214 and Rule XVIII.
Rule provides for consideration of H.R. 569 with 1 hour of general debate. Previous question shall be considered as ordered without intervening motions except motion to recommit with or without instructions. Measure will be considered read. Bill is open to amendments. All points of order against consideration of the bill are waived except those arising under clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI. It shall be in order to consider as an original bill for the purpose of amendment under the five-minute rule the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure now printed in the bill.
Considered under the provisions of rule H. Res. 214. (consideration: CR H2252-2265)
Rule H. Res. 214 passed House.
Rules Committee Resolution H. Res. 214 Reported to House. Rule provides for consideration of H.R. 569 with 1 hour of general debate. Previous question shall be considered as ordered without intervening motions except motion to recommit with or without instructions. Measure will be considered read. Bill is open to amendments. All points of order against consideration of the bill are waived except those arising under clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI. It shall be in order to consider as an original bill for the purpose of amendment under the five-minute rule the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure now printed in the bill.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 7.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Transportation. H. Rept. 110-16.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Transportation. H. Rept. 110-16.
Ordered to be Reported by Voice Vote.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Forwarded by Subcommittee to Full Committee (Amended) by Voice Vote .
Subcommittee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Subcommittee Hearings Held.
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR E167)
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: 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 H.R.569 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.569 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.569 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.569 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.