PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works. (text of measure as introduced: CR S2012-2014)
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · Mar 3, 2005
Great Lakes Environmental Restoration Act - Establishes a Great Lakes Environmental Restoration Grant Program in the Great Lakes National Program Office of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to provide grants to States, municipalities, and other applicants for: (1) contaminated sediment buildup; (2) wetland restoration; (3) invasive species control and prevention; (4) coastal wildlife and fisheries habitat improvement; (5) public access improvement; (6) water quality improvement; (7) sustainable water use; or (8) nonpoint source pollution reduction.
Allocates funds among the Great Lakes States, requiring the funding of at least one project or activity per Great Lakes State per fiscal year. Stipulates that projects result in tangible improvements in the Great Lakes watershed and address at least one of the priority issues identified by the Great Lakes Environmental Restoration Advisory Board.
Prohibits the use of restoration grant funds for: (1) roads not connected with sewer upgrades; (2) research, monitoring, or beautification projects unrelated to tangible watershed improvements; or (3) litigation and lobbying expenses.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Establishes the Great Lakes Environmental Restoration Advisory Board which includes Federal, State, and local members as well as specified observers.
Establishes the Great Lakes Interagency Task Force.
Amends the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to require the Administrator of the EPA to: (1) develop and implement science-based indicators of water quality and related environmental factors in the Great Lakes, including measures of accumulated toxic pollutants; (2) establish a Federal network to regularly monitor and collect this data; and (3) report its findings to Congress and identify in such report any emerging problems.
People & committees
Sen. DeWine, Mike [R-OH] · R–OH
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works. (text of measure as introduced: CR S2012-2014)
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR S2011-2012)
Introduced in Senate
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: 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.508 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.508 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.508 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.508 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.