PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · Mar 11, 1993
Chesapeake Bay Restoration Act of 1993 - 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 Chesapeake Bay Program Office. Requires the Office to support the Chesapeake Executive Council (signatories of the Chesapeake Bay Agreement to protect the Bay) by: (1) implementing activities that support the Program; (2) making available information pertaining to the environmental quality and living resources of the Bay; (3) assisting the signatories in implementing action plans to carry out Agreement authorities; (4) assisting in the development of strategies to improve Bay water quality and living resources; and (5) implementing outreach programs to foster stewardship of the Bay. Establishes a Chesapeake Bay Federal Agencies Committee to coordinate Federal activities relating to the restoration of the Bay. Requires Federal agencies to report to the President on activities planned and undertaken, and resources provided, to meet responsibilities under the Program. Directs Federal agencies that own or operate facilities within the Bay watershed to assess the facilities to ensure compliance with the Program (specifically identifying impacts on Bay water quality or living resources) and include a plan for addressing such impacts in the report to the President. Requires the Administrator to: (1) implement a research, monitoring, and data collection program to assess the environmental quality and living resources of the major tributaries, rivers, and streams within the Bay watershed and assist in the development of management plans for such tributaries; and (2) establish a habitat restoration and design program in the watershed to demonstrate low-cost techniques for restoring wetlands, forest riparian zones, and other Bay habitats. Authorizes grants to public or private entities to carry out such programs. Directs the Administrator to implement a basinwide toxics reduction strategy, as well as research and monitoring to improve understanding of intermedia transfers of toxic pollutants and the ultimate fate of the pollutants within the Bay ecosystem. Authorizes financial assistance for specified activities. Extends the authorization of appropriations for the Program and related interstate development plan grants. Authorizes appropriations for activities not covered under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act.
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.
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR S2784-2787, S2790-2791)
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.567 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.567 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.567 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.567 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.