PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Committee on Environment and Public Works. Hearings held. Hearings printed: S.Hrg. 106-618.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · Oct 6, 1999
Clean Water Infrastructure Financing Act of 1999 - Amends the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to provide that capitalization grants to States for the establishment of water pollution control revolving funds (revolving funds) shall be for providing assistance to accomplish the purposes of such Act. (Currently, such grants are provided for assistance for specific purposes.)Removes certain requirements for States with respect to construction of treatment works under capitalization grant agreements.Directs the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency to assist States in establishing simplified procedures for small water systems to obtain assistance under the Act.Requires revolving funds to be used only for providing assistance for activities that have as a principal benefit the improvement or protection of water quality of navigable waters. Adds activities to the list of those which may be assisted.Provides for a repayment period of the lesser of 40 years or the expected life of the project to be financed with loan proceeds with respect to loans made to disadvantaged communities from revolving funds. Requires loans made from such funds to be fully amortized upon the expiration of the loan term (currently, no later than 20 years after project completion). Requires such funds to provide: (1) loan guarantees for developing and implementing innovative technologies; and (2) technical, planning, and other specified assistance to small systems.Treats a treatment works as a publicly owned treatment works, for purposes of eligibility for construction assistance from a revolving fund, if the treatment works, without regard to ownership, would be considered a publicly owned treatment works and is principally treating municipal waste water or domestic sewage.Provides for negative interest rates of up to two percent to reduce the unpaid principal on loans from revolving funds made to disadvantaged communities.Reauthorizes appropriations for FY 2001 through 2005 for the revolving fund program.
People & committees
Sen. Voinovich, George V. [R-OH] · R–OH
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Committee on Environment and Public Works. Hearings held. Hearings printed: S.Hrg. 106-618.
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR S12106-12107)
Introduced in Senate
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 S.1699 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.1699 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.1699 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.1699 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.