PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR S2013)
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · Mar 2, 1999
Chesapeake Bay Restoration Act of 1999 - Amends the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to direct the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency to: (1) continue the Chesapeake Bay Program; and (2) maintain a Program Office to provide specified support to the Chesapeake Executive Council. Authorizes the Administrator to provide technical assistance and assistance grants to nonprofit private organizations and individuals, State and local governments, colleges and universities, and interstate agencies to carry out the Program. Provides the Federal and non-Federal share of various Program costs. Provides for Chesapeake Bay Agreement (an agreement among signatory members to restore and protect the Bay's ecosystem) implementation and monitoring grants, with specified Federal and non-Federal shares. Directs the Administrator to make public a document describing in detail projects funded for the current and previous years. Requires any Federal agency that owns or operates a facility within the Bay watershed to: (1) participate in regional and subwatershed planning and restoration programs; and (2) report to the President and the Council on expenditures to carry out such programs. Requires the Administrator to: (1) ensure that management plans are developed and that implementation is begun by signatories to the Agreement for the Bay tributaries to achieve specified water nutrient and quality goals and habitat restoration and protection; and (2) offer technical assistance and assistance grants for a small watershed grants program within the Bay. Directs the Administrator to study and report to the Congress on the state of the Chesapeake Bay ecosystem and on Program goals, effects, and strategies. Requires a five-year study to establish and expand understanding of Bay ecosystem living resources response to water quality improvements resulting from the Program. Authorizes appropriations for FY 2000 through 2005.
People & committees
Sen. Sarbanes, Paul S. [D-MD] · D–MD
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR S2013)
Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 314.
Committee on Environment and Public Works. Reported to Senate by Senator Chafee without amendment. With written report No. 106-181.
Committee on Environment and Public Works. Reported to Senate by Senator Chafee without amendment. With written report No. 106-181.
Committee on Environment and Public Works. Ordered to be reported without amendment favorably.
Committee on Environment and Public Works. Hearings held. Hearings printed: S.Hrg. 106-284.
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR S2097-2098, S2100-2101)
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.492 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.492 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.492 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.492 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.